Amanda Terkel @aterkel
National Park Service employee tells me they got an email around 10am ordering flags at half staff. Around 2:30pm, email went out cancelling it and saying flag should go back to regular order. And around 5:30, another one went out saying to lower again. Employee says the flag lowering process is usually very straightforward — start and end time. This was... different.

Greenwald asked me, “What evidence has ever been presented for the central claim that Putin ordered the D.N.C. and John Podesta’s e-mail to be hacked, as opposed to the hacking being done by people of Russian nationality?” Did Greenwald dispute that Guccifer 2.0, the persona responsible for distributing hacked D.N.C. e-mails to WikiLeaks and other outlets, had come into focus as an agent of Russian military intelligence? (A month before the 2016 election, Greenwald co-wrote an article, about the Clinton campaign’s handling of the press, that was based on exclusive access to material supplied by Guccifer 2.0.) We were speaking shortly before the indictments, in July, of twelve Russian intelligence officers. I mentioned a recent article in the Daily Beast, “ ‘Lone DNC Hacker’ Guccifer 2.0 Slipped Up and Revealed He Was a Russian Intelligence Officer,” which had been co-authored by Spencer Ackerman, a former Guardian colleague of Greenwald’s who had worked on the early Snowden stories. “Each story you can dissect and pick apart, right?” Greenwald said. “They’re based on anonymous sources. They’re based on evidence that you can question.”

Ackerman told me that he liked and respected Greenwald, and that “people can be interested in what they’re interested in.” But, he said, “it’s conspicuous when they’re not interested in a massive story for which the simplest explanation is that there was a Russian intelligence operation to elect Donald Trump President.” He added, “Some people are interested in reporting this out. Some people—I would include myself—are interested in reporting this out without any contradiction of the impulse that led us to report the Snowden story. Some people are not.”

Greenwald’s position on Trump and Russia has come to define the Intercept: recently, when I was in an elevator at the New York office, an employee made a joke about the “Russian-funded” opulence of the premises. When the Intercept hired Risen, last September, Greenwald suspected that the move was intended to offset his Trump-Russia opinions. “People have denied it, but I disbelieve those denials,” he told me. This skepticism seems to be well founded. Risen told me that his focus on Trump and Russia was “to help change the perception” of the site. (Reed, describing Risen’s hiring, said he needed reassurance that Greenwald would have no editorial influence over him.) Greenwald said, “I don’t think the majority of people who work at the Intercept—because they’re good liberals—are supportive of my whole posture with regard to Trump and Russia. That’s fine with me. If they want to get someone who sounds like David Gregory to write at the Intercept, it doesn’t really take away from anything I’m doing.” (He later said that this wasn’t a reference to Risen, whom he called a journalistic hero.) Risen said of Greenwald, “He looks at stories and thinks, What are the implications of this story for the political positions that I hold? And I try to look at a story and say, ‘Is this a good story or not?’ ” He added, “I consider him a friend. We have good conversations.”

jerseyhoya wrote:On the seemingly very small chance McSally loses tomorrow, I'd be shocked if she wasn't the replacement

Given Ducey is up for a tough re-election, I don't think he'd pick Cindy McCain unless he was convinced she'd be less maverick-y than her husband, when I don't think there's any reason to think that. Outside of McSally, the GOP members of Congress from AZ mostly blow but there are a lot of statewide Republicans below the gov. I'd guess it'll be one of them, though don't know anything about them individually.

While I very much like Jon Kyl, I've seen his name kicked around & hope he's not the choice. Dude is 76 and Ducey needs to give the appointed member a shot at building up some incumbency advantage ahead of 2020 rather than appointing a placeholder.

JUburton wrote:FWIW, 538 does not check the incumbency advantage box for appointed representatives in their model.

JUburton wrote:FWIW, 538 does not check the incumbency advantage box for appointed representatives in their model.

slugsrbad wrote:

JUburton wrote:FWIW, 538 does not check the incumbency advantage box for appointed representatives in their model.

Is their Senate model out? I think with the House model the box wouldn't be checked because any appointed rep would be most likely less than half a year in office, as opposed to Senate appointed members who could serve several years at appointment before a vote.

slugsrbad wrote:

JUburton wrote:FWIW, 538 does not check the incumbency advantage box for appointed representatives in their model.

Is their Senate model out? I think with the House model the box wouldn't be checked because any appointed rep would be most likely less than half a year in office, as opposed to Senate appointed members who could serve several years at appointment before a vote.

TenuredVulture wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

JUburton wrote:FWIW, 538 does not check the incumbency advantage box for appointed representatives in their model.

Is their Senate model out? I think with the House model the box wouldn't be checked because any appointed rep would be most likely less than half a year in office, as opposed to Senate appointed members who could serve several years at appointment before a vote.

There are no appointed House Reps.