Beet L. Jooz

Joe Scarborough expressed the sort of disappointment one might expect between a father and his beloved child who made a significant mistake on Monday morning, following the New York Times clarifying salacious allegations revealed in an opinion piece about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

The opinion piece, written by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, was part of a promotion for an upcoming book The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, that looks into the veracity and Congressional handling of allegations of sexual misconduct that came about during Kavanaugh’s highly contentious and eventual Supreme Court nomination. 

Co-host Mika Brzezinski introduced the segment with a news report by noting that “more than a day after the article was published, the Times updated the argument to include a key element of the book’s account that were quote, the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.”

Details from the report caused a significant media firestorm over the weekend, fueled in part by tweets by President Donald Trump that suggested Kavanaugh should sue for “libel” over the allegations included in the report published Saturday.

But Sunday night, the New York Times updated the post and removed a section that was not corroborated by a key individual that was part of the story. Per the update:

An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

Opening his measured commentary with the paternal “everybody makes mistakes,” Scarborough continued to criticize the New York Times in a regretful and measured tone. After expressing some specific discrepancies, he asked rhetorically “Why is there this glaring omission in The New York Times story in there, were Mollie Hemingway and others on Twitter were saying that, in fact, she had no recollection of this happening and her friends were saying the same thing?”

He followed by expressing how he could “not believe The New York Times would write this piece without that information contained in it. Are you surprised 24 hours — is it 24 hours went by before they clarified that fact?”

Watch above via MSNBC.

President Donald Trump started Monday morning by complaining that Congress is not investigating the post-presidency business dealings of Barack Obama.

Trump opened by falsely claiming that the House Judiciary committee has “given up on the Mueller Report,” seemingly ignoring the fact that House Judiciary chair Jerrold Nadler announced just last week an active Congressional investigation based in part on details emerged from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office.

But it was not enough to entirely dismiss a 400+ page report in 140 characters. President Trump then aimed to deflect by suggesting the House investigate the “Obama Book Deal, or the ridiculous Netflix deal,” and “all the deals made by Dems in Congress, the “Congressional Slush Fund,” and lastly the IG Reports.”

Trump tweeted:

House Judiciary has given up on the Mueller Report, sadly for them after two years and $40,000,000 spent – ZERO COLLUSION, ZERO OBSTRUCTION. So they say, OK, lets look at everything else, and all of the deals that “Trump” has done over his lifetime. But it doesn’t….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 16, 2019

….work that way. I have a better idea. Look at the Obama Book Deal, or the ridiculous Netflix deal. Then look at all the deals made by the Dems in Congress, the “Congressional Slush Fund,” and lastly the IG Reports. Take a look at them. Those investigations would be over FAST!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 16, 2019

The use of government to investigate political opponents without credible evidence is a hallmark of an authoritarian leader. Is Trump seriously asking Congress to investigate Obama’s book deal or his production deal with Netflix? He and his supporters would likely say that his comments are only hyperbolic jokes used to expose what they see as an unfair investigation led by Mueller.

But joking about investigating political opponents…isn’t funny? Also, a very dangerous trend? That’s what Trump critics would quite reasonably say, and they would not be wrong.

And the beat goes on…

This post has been updated to more accurately explain Trump’s complaint his predecessor is not being investigated.

[Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images]

A Utah legislator plans to introduce a bill that would make drivers presumptively impaired when they exceed a specified THC blood level. That approach is based on a fundamentally mistaken understanding of marijuana intoxication, and it would replace a legal standard that is already unfair and unscientific with one that would unjustly convict sober drivers of felonies as well as misdemeanors.

"Why are we treating marijuana intoxication as a lesser offense than alcohol intoxication?" state Rep. Steve Waldrip (R–Eden) asked in an interview with the Ogden, Utah, Examiner-Standard. The bill he plans to introduce, he said, "would simply mirror what happens with alcohol." But that makes no sense, because THC blood levels, unlike alcohol blood levels, are not a good indicator of impairment.

Waldrip is responding mainly to an accident in Harrisville last November that killed 29-year-old Brittany Zoller. Zoller was walking across a highway at night when she was struck by a car whose driver, Krystal Sly, tested positive for THC. Sly, whose THC blood level was eight nanograms per milliliter, faces a misdemeanor charge punishable by up to six months in jail.

Zoller's family and Waldrip view that penalty as a slap on the wrist. Yet there was no evidence that Sly was impaired at the time of the accident. "The young lady who died was extremely intoxicated and walking in the middle of a street with a 50 mph speed limit," Sly's lawyer observed. Zoller's blood alcohol concentration was 0.21 percent, more than four times the level that defines drunk driving in Utah.

Sly "could not be charged with a felony unless we could prove impairment," Weber County Attorney Chris Allred told the Examiner-Standard. "In this case we could not prove impairment." Citing the police report on the incident, the paper says Sly "was driving under the speed limit at the time of the accident, quickly stopped and attempted to aid" Zoller.

The legal change that Waldrip favors would have made it possible to prosecute Sly for a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. That hardly seems like a just outcome, since it looks like Sly was not driving in a negligent manner and was not at fault in the accident.

Under current Utah law, driving with "any measurable controlled substance or metabolite of a controlled substance" in your blood is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Since marijuana metabolites can be detected for weeks after consumption, this law effectively means that regular cannabis consumers are committing a crime whenever they drive, regardless of whether they are impaired. State-approved medical marijuana users have an affirmative defense against this charge.

It is also a Class B misdemeanor in Utah to drive under the influence of any drug "to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely operating a vehicle." When a crash results in serious injury or death, the offense becomes a felony. But that charge requires evidence of impairment beyond blood test results—a requirement that Waldrin wants to eliminate. The Examiner-Standard says he is contemplating a standard similar to Nevada's, which presumes impairment at a THC level of two nanograms per milliliter, or Colorado's, which allows juries to convict people of driving under the influence (DUI) when their THC blood levels equal or exceed five nanograms per milliliter.

There is no scientific basis for either of those standards, because THC blood levels, unlike alcohol blood levels, do not reliably correspond with degrees of impairment, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has repeatedly pointed out. Since THC is absorbed by fatty tissue, regular cannabis consumers can easily exceed the Nevada or Colorado cutoff even when they are perfectly capable of driving safely. While Waldrip perceives a double standard in the way alcohol and marijuana are treated under Utah's DUI law, the distinction between the two when it comes to prosecuting drivers for felonies simply acknowledges the difference between alcohol blood tests, which are a good indicator of impairment, and THC blood tests, which are not.

When it comes to prosecuting drivers for DUI misdemeanors, Utah law not only ignores that crucial point; it sets a zero-tolerance standard much stricter than the rule for drinkers. Given how long inactive marijuana metabolites can be detected, an equivalent rule for alcohol would make drivers guilty of DUI weeks after their last drink.

In addition to jail time and fines, misdemeanor DUI convictions trigger a four-month suspension of the driver's license and mandatory participation in an education program. For a second offense, the minimum jail or community service time rises from two days to 10 days, and a third offense is a felony—all without any evidence of impairment. That is the real double standard.

Fox & Friends kicked off the week by pummeling The New York Times in light of the clarification/walk-back they’ve added to an opinion piece on Brett Kavanaugh that claimed to add support to allegations of his misconduct.

The Times drew attention over the weekend when they released an anecdote from a new book to report that Kavanaugh committed sexual misconduct with another woman while the future Supreme Court justice was in college. The article had a major walk-back, however, when they added an editor’s note saying the alleged victim declined to be interviewed, and her friends “say she does not recall the incident.”

The curvy couch talked about this extensively on Monday, noting how several 2020 Democrats have used the Times story to demand Kavanaugh’s impeachment. As Steve Doocy noted how the Times deleted several “offensive” tweets as they circulated the original story online, guest host Katie Pavlich called them “offensive and wrong,” and argued that “the facts don’t add up to this.”

“If the New York Times had done any research or fact-checking at all, they would have known from the beginning this allegation was false,” Pavlich continued. “They continue to use sources connected to the Clintons as credible sourcing without any kind of questions in terms of their credibility and what their motives may be.”

The conversation continued as Pavlich, Doocy and Brian Kilmeade took turns bashing the Times’ reliance on Max Stier‘s account as the basis for the allegations against Kavanaugh. The three also didn’t pay much mind to the portion of the report that said Debbie Ramirez, another Kavanaugh accuser, gave the FBI a list of people who might have evidence to back up her claims, yet the bureau reportedly declined to investigate.

Watch above, via Fox News.