Another day, another outrage . . . or three.

As the Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's legal critics rebut his explanation for the light sentence against child sexual trafficking, his position became untenable -- even in the dysfunctional, morally challenged White House.    Acosta resigned Friday.

Here's the hub of the problem.   Trump gave him the boot, not because he (Trump) was upset about the case in question or about what the victims endured.  Trump was upset because it wasn't playing well in the media.    See, it's never a moral question of doing the right thing.   It's all about whether the public will buy the story.   And in this case it also keeps Trump's former close association with Jeffrey Epstein in the news.  Journalists will keep digging for more, possibly implicating Trump himself..

Here's another outrage story that came out in the middle of the Acosta fiasco.  Naturally it got buried by the more sensational story.  Reported by Carol Davenport in the the New York Times:

*     *     *     *     *

"A State Department intelligence analyst has resigned in protest after the White House blocked his discussion of climate science in Congressional testimony, according to a person familiar with the matter.

"Rod Schoonover, an analyist with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Reseaarch testified last month before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the effects of climate change on national security.  But in a highly unusual move, the White House refused to approve Dr. Schoonover's written testimony for entry into the written Congressional Record.

"The reasoning, according to a June 4 email reviewed by the New York Times, was that the science cited in Dr. Schoonover's testrimony did not correspond with White House views.  Ultimately, Dr Schoonover did deliver the oral testimony before the committee, but his accompanying written statement was not included in the official record of the hearing. . . . 

"Experts said that the exclusion of Dr. Schoonover's testimony from the written Congressional Record amounted to a significant suppression of factual analysis by an  intelligence agency.

"'Intelligence analysts, as a rule, are very committed to objective truth,' said Francesco Femia, the head of the Center for Climate and Security, a research organization in Washington.  'And when something extraordinary happens to try to politicize . . . or suppress their analysis, as happened in this case, that flies in the face of their professional integrity.' . . .

"The . .  . Bureau of Intelligence and Research has long been regarded as one of the most scrupulous and accurate in the federal government.  In the prelude to the 2003 United States invasion of Iraq, the agency stood almost alone in asserting -- correctly, but contrary to the positions of the White House and the CIA -- that Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

*     *     *     *     *

Now they're not only just "disagreeing" with their own intelligence and scientific advisers, they're even expunging their scientific findings from official records.    News flash to the Trump Administration:   Truth will out.   You don't get to decide what are the facts, especially about science, for which you have no knowledge and no respect.

Ralph