Conor Friedersdorf reflects:
In other words, The Heritage Foundation now employs a man who has done more than almost anyone else to advocate radical expansions in the power of the federal government, including torture and warrantless spying on American citizens. On its About Page, the organization claims to advocate for "limited government" and says it believes "the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing."Probably not many of them have the financial security *not* to defend it.
There are a lot of employees at Heritage who actually do believe in those principles.
Can any of them defend this personnel choice?