newswars--2020-05-14--US states rush-recruiting Covid-19 contact tracers are overcompensating for their incompetence with

US states rush-recruiting Covid-19 contact tracers are overcompensating for their incompetence with authoritarianism

State governments that failed to contain coronavirus outbreaks by belatedly locking down entire societies now claim hiring thousands of contact-tracers to surveil sick and healthy alike will keep us safe .
Why should we trust them ?
Washington and New York are hiring thousands of contact-tracers to track down and notify individuals potentially exposed to Covid-19 in preparation for lifting the lockdown restrictions that have kept Americans largely at home for the last two months while the virus tore through the US anyway .
Tracers – mostly civilians , though local governments have stressed that some will have a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empowered to order the confinement of individuals at home , even if they ’ re asymptomatic and insist they ’ ve never been exposed , all in the name of keeping the virus under control .
As for enforcement , they ’ ve been deliberately cagey , insisting it ’ s unlikely to come to that .
Washington Governor Jay Inslee set out the details of his state ’ s “ robust , vigorous and comprehensive ” contact tracing plan earlier this week , warning that if it does not succeed , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bite us.
” By Friday , he plans to have 1,371 contact tracers “ trained and ready ” – including 351 members of the state ’ s National Guard – with the hope of being able to pounce on positive test results and reach out to all a newly-infected person ’ s contacts within 48 hours .
Until those people test negative , Inslee said , they must remain isolated – i.e .
at home – and so must anyone who lives with them .
The policy sounds reasonable enough at first glance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week of training under their belt – will make mistakes .
They ’ re relying on interviews with individuals who presumably haven ’ t been keeping detailed notebooks recording their comings and goings .
It takes a good deal of magical thinking to believe it ’ s possible to remember , let alone contact , everyone a person has spent more than half an hour near in the past two weeks ( the length of time one might be infected before showing symptoms ) , and a good deal more to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information .
Plucking a few thousand lucky folks out of the ranks of over 30 million newly-unemployed Americans and empowering them to surveil their neighbors already sounds like a recipe for conflict , and that ’ s before the tracers – in New York , at least – are handed a comparatively fat $ 65,000 paycheck on top of their new power .
In a post-crash economy where food shortages loom large , tensions are running high .
Contact-tracers are more likely to be seen as a form of colonial government – or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already comported themselves abominably in many cities – than welcomed with open arms .
Both Washington and New York laid the ideological groundwork for this class divide to flourish weeks ago , urging residents to phone in tips on “ social distancing ” violators via specialized hotlines .
The mainstream media has fanned the flames of this division , politicizing it by denouncing anyone who opposes the Covid-19 lockdowns as selfish Trump-supporting rednecks who prize their ability to get a haircut over others ’ ability to continue breathing .
Now , after two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate , a few thousand of these people will be turned loose on the populations of their states to enforce targeted quarantine restrictions , convinced anyone who doesn ’ t follow their orders secretly wants to see the sick and elderly exterminated .
Violators of those orders will be punishable with civil and criminal penalties in Washington .
Other West Coast states are likely to follow suit .
New York – where the contact-tracing program is being run by plutocratic former mayor Michael Bloomberg – hasn ’ t elaborated on how it plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-isolate , but given Bloomberg ’ s affection for police-state trappings while running the city , he ’ s unlikely to ‘ spare the rod.
’ After public protest , Ventura County , California was forced to make a public statement clarifying that contact-tracers would not be removing infected individuals from their family homes – but the question remains how contact-tracers plan to enforce isolation in cramped apartments and low-income housing where space is scarce .
And conscripting citizens to punish their neighbors based on Covid-19 tests whose accuracy remains uncertain leaves open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Business owners are also being recruited to join the contact-tracing effort – though “ recruited ” is perhaps too polite a term .
The reality – in Washington , at least – is more like blackmail .
Restaurants in the state have been ordered to keep logs of their guests , complete with emails and phone numbers , as a condition of re-opening , giving owners the choice between making money and respecting customers ’ privacy .
Restaurants are already limited to 50 percent capacity , with chairs placed at appropriate six-foot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least according to public health authorities – should protect patrons from catching the virus from each other .
Such self-contradicting orders do not inspire confidence .
Nor do the track records of the same governments now enthusiastically recruiting enforcers for their surveillance fiefdoms .
With over 22,000 deaths as of Wednesday , New York has become the pandemic ’ s epicenter , its casualty count swollen with an appalling number of nursing home victims thanks to Cuomo ’ s statewide order mandating those facilities accept infected patients despite the risk they posed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He recently acknowledged the statewide lockdown had failed so miserably at containing the virus that some 66 percent of new cases were in people who had been self-isolating at home .
While Washington ’ s death rate is nowhere near as bad , it had the first diagnosed Covid-19 case in the US , as well as 14 of the country ’ s first 19 deaths – all of which took place in a single ill-fated nursing home – and can be considered a resounding failure at containing the epidemic .
With such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments are lucky their citizens trust them to pick up the trash , never mind to responsibly exercise the ever-expanding surveillance powers that have been seized under cover of the coronavirus .
No one is suggesting we abandon the notion of quarantining the sick – a tried and true method of containing epidemics .
But after two months of quarantining even the healthy with a lockdown begun too late to provide the security for which Americans have traded our liberty , it ’ s time for government to show some restraint for a @ @

State governments that failed to contain coronavirus outbreaks by belatedly locking down entire societies now claim hiring thousands of contact-tracers to surveil sick and healthy alike will keep us safe. Why should we trust them?
Washington and New York are hiring thousands of contact-tracers to track down and notify individuals potentially exposed to Covid-19 in preparation for lifting the lockdown restrictions that have kept Americans largely at home for the last two months while the virus tore through the US anyway. Tracers – mostly civilians, though local governments have stressed that some will have a “public health background” – will be empowered to order the confinement of individuals at home, even if they’re asymptomatic and insist they’ve never been exposed, all in the name of keeping the virus under control.
As for enforcement, they’ve been deliberately cagey, insisting it’s unlikely to come to that.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee set out the details of his state’s “robust, vigorous and comprehensive” contact tracing plan earlier this week, warning that if it does not succeed, “this virus could come right back and bite us.” By Friday, he plans to have 1,371 contact tracers “trained and ready” – including 351 members of the state’s National Guard – with the hope of being able to pounce on positive test results and reach out to all a newly-infected person’s contacts within 48 hours. Until those people test negative, Inslee said, they must remain isolated – i.e. at home – and so must anyone who lives with them.
The policy sounds reasonable enough at first glance, but tracers – especially with just a week of training under their belt – will make mistakes. They’re relying on interviews with individuals who presumably haven’t been keeping detailed notebooks recording their comings and goings. It takes a good deal of magical thinking to believe it’s possible to remember, let alone contact, everyone a person has spent more than half an hour near in the past two weeks (the length of time one might be infected before showing symptoms), and a good deal more to believe everyone will trust a stranger with that information.
Plucking a few thousand lucky folks out of the ranks of over 30 million newly-unemployed Americans and empowering them to surveil their neighbors already sounds like a recipe for conflict, and that’s before the tracers – in New York, at least – are handed a comparatively fat $65,000 paycheck on top of their new power. In a post-crash economy where food shortages loom large, tensions are running high. Contact-tracers are more likely to be seen as a form of colonial government – or an extension of police forces that have already comported themselves abominably in many cities – than welcomed with open arms.
Both Washington and New York laid the ideological groundwork for this class divide to flourish weeks ago, urging residents to phone in tips on “social distancing” violators via specialized hotlines. The mainstream media has fanned the flames of this division, politicizing it by denouncing anyone who opposes the Covid-19 lockdowns as selfish Trump-supporting rednecks who prize their ability to get a haircut over others’ ability to continue breathing. Now, after two months in lockdown marinating in fear and hate, a few thousand of these people will be turned loose on the populations of their states to enforce targeted quarantine restrictions, convinced anyone who doesn’t follow their orders secretly wants to see the sick and elderly exterminated.
Violators of those orders will be punishable with civil and criminal penalties in Washington. Other West Coast states are likely to follow suit. New York – where the contact-tracing program is being run by plutocratic former mayor Michael Bloomberg – hasn’t elaborated on how it plans to enforce quarantine for those ordered to self-isolate, but given Bloomberg’s affection for police-state trappings while running the city, he’s unlikely to ‘spare the rod.’ After public protest, Ventura County, California was forced to make a public statement clarifying that contact-tracers would not be removing infected individuals from their family homes – but the question remains how contact-tracers plan to enforce isolation in cramped apartments and low-income housing where space is scarce. And conscripting citizens to punish their neighbors based on Covid-19 tests whose accuracy remains uncertain leaves open the possibility of malicious “false positives.”
Business owners are also being recruited to join the contact-tracing effort – though “recruited” is perhaps too polite a term. The reality – in Washington, at least – is more like blackmail. Restaurants in the state have been ordered to keep logs of their guests, complete with emails and phone numbers, as a condition of re-opening, giving owners the choice between making money and respecting customers’ privacy. Restaurants are already limited to 50 percent capacity, with chairs placed at appropriate six-foot “social distance,” which – at least according to public health authorities – should protect patrons from catching the virus from each other.
Such self-contradicting orders do not inspire confidence. Nor do the track records of the same governments now enthusiastically recruiting enforcers for their surveillance fiefdoms. With over 22,000 deaths as of Wednesday, New York has become the pandemic’s epicenter, its casualty count swollen with an appalling number of nursing home victims thanks to Cuomo’s statewide order mandating those facilities accept infected patients despite the risk they posed to the elderly inhabitants at risk. He recently acknowledged the statewide lockdown had failed so miserably at containing the virus that some 66 percent of new cases were in people who had been self-isolating at home. While Washington’s death rate is nowhere near as bad, it had the first diagnosed Covid-19 case in the US, as well as 14 of the country’s first 19 deaths – all of which took place in a single ill-fated nursing home – and can be considered a resounding failure at containing the epidemic.
With such dismal track records, these states’ governments are lucky their citizens trust them to pick up the trash, never mind to responsibly exercise the ever-expanding surveillance powers that have been seized under cover of the coronavirus.
No one is suggesting we abandon the notion of quarantining the sick – a tried and true method of containing epidemics. But after two months of quarantining even the healthy with a lockdown begun too late to provide the security for which Americans have traded our liberty, it’s time for government to show some restraint for a change.


newswars--2020-05-14--Netflix Epstein Documentary Produced by Co-Author of Bill Clinton Book

A trailer for Netflix ’ s documentary based on the life of Jeffrey Epstein shows former President Bill Clinton buddy James Patterson was involved in its production , making it likely the Clintons ’ connection to the convicted pedophile will be glossed over .
In the trailer for the documentary “ Jeffrey Epstein : Filthy Rich , ” debuted Wednesday , author James Patterson is credited with writing the book the four-part series is based on .
Patterson authored the book , “ Filthy Rich : A Powerful Billionaire , the Sex Scandal that Undid Him , and All the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein , ” but in 2018 he also helped Bill Clinton write his latest fiction novel , “ The President is Missing.
” The pair ’ s collaboration on the book project is leading many to question whether the Clintons ’ ties to Epstein will be accurately portrayed in the documentary .
Indeed no photos of Bill Clinton appear in the two-minute trailer , despite his name appearing in Epstein ’ s flight logs no less than 26 times , five of those times without Secret Service agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partying with the deceased hedge fund billionaire does appear in the trailer , despite Trump saying he never visited Epstein ’ s pedophile island , and in fact threw him out of Mar-a-Lago at one time .
Interestingly , Trump cites Patterson as one person who can confirm his ejection of Epstein .
Alex Jones exposes the Pedophile connections to the elite power structure after the mainstream media finally acknowledges Bill Clinton ’ s connection to Epstein and his pedophile network .

A trailer for Netflix’s documentary based on the life of Jeffrey Epstein shows former President Bill Clinton buddy James Patterson was involved in its production, making it likely the Clintons’ connection to the convicted pedophile will be glossed over.
In the trailer for the documentary “Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich,” debuted Wednesday, author James Patterson is credited with writing the book the four-part series is based on.
Patterson authored the book, “Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him, and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein,” but in 2018 he also helped Bill Clinton write his latest fiction novel, “The President is Missing.”
The pair’s collaboration on the book project is leading many to question whether the Clintons’ ties to Epstein will be accurately portrayed in the documentary.
This Epstein doc is from James Patterson who is buddies with Bill Clinton and co-authored a recent book with him It will cover up the Clinton Crime Family’s role in Epstein’s reign of terror https://t.co/NZ3Be3T6Vv — Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) May 13, 2020
Indeed no photos of Bill Clinton appear in the two-minute trailer, despite his name appearing in Epstein’s flight logs no less than 26 times, five of those times without Secret Service agents.
Meanwhile, footage of President Trump partying with the deceased hedge fund billionaire does appear in the trailer, despite Trump saying he never visited Epstein’s pedophile island, and in fact threw him out of Mar-a-Lago at one time.
Interestingly, Trump cites Patterson as one person who can confirm his ejection of Epstein.
Alex Jones exposes the Pedophile connections to the elite power structure after the mainstream media finally acknowledges Bill Clinton’s connection to Epstein and his pedophile network.


newswars--2020-05-14--Crisis or Opportunity? To Politicians, It’s the Same Thing

They sport taxpayer-funded windbreakers , speak with authority and urgency , and lead a brigade of specialists .
When a crisis unfolds , whether it is a hurricane or a virus outbreak , politicians stand before the cameras , appearing to be in control of the situation—but they see an opportunity .
As the catastrophe intensifies , the public recoils in fear and cowers before their dear leaders , amid uncertainty and upheaval .
Does being a master performer transform a politician into an apotheosis ?
Governors and mayors have been on top of the emergency response to the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were reported in their jurisdictions .
With furrowed brows and a quiver in their voices , these public officials regularly speak in earnest before the press , informing their constituents that they will do whatever they can to ensure your grandmother stays safe at this unprecedented time .
And that includes violating your constitutional rights .
Like Hamlet with Yorick ’ s skull , politicians can now take advantage of props to further enhance their performance and add to the gripping saga .
Due to the highly infectious nature of this respiratory illness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tremendous acting in front of activists pretending to be journalists .
As we gaze upon our television screens or computer monitors , we become even giddier when politicians park their partisanship at the door and applaud everybody regardless of the letter next to their name .
If California governor Gavin Newsom or New York governor Andrew Cuomo praises President Donald Trump for his cooperation rather than participating in petulant and partisan bickering , they must mean business .
This is the cherry on top that can help them secure their version of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they are not seeking another two or four years in the position , then their micromanaging can elevate their status in the political arena .
The chief bureaucrats ’ showmanship in the coronapocalypse or a natural disaster can produce the nation ’ s next president or god-emperor .
Of course , this can not be done without members of the press .
Over the years , politicians have taken full advantage of the media to highlight their management abilities in a disaster zone .
For some , it has lifted their polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their future electoral hopes and dreams .
President Trump ’ s approval rating for his handling of COVID-19 had been climbing among independents and undecided voters for weeks .
Although the polling bump appears to be over , the spike in the polling data suggests the power of the phrase “ never let a crisis go to waste.
” After an administration plagued by scandals and incompetence seemed to be on the precipice of the abyss , Governor Cuomo turned his sinking ship around in a couple of weeks and became America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future ?
No matter what , he will certainly not say goodbye to politics once he exits Albany .
Governor Chris Christie thought he could substitute stairs for an escalator to the White House in 2016 for his leadership throughout the Hurricane Sandy tale .
He used all the typical props for officials during a calamity : the windbreaker , the urgency , and the cordiality with individuals on the other side of the aisle .
It turned out that his hugs and camaraderie with then president Barack Obama , who also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much for primary voters to endure .
Do politicians act based on an opportunistic endeavor to secure additional time in office or to land a promotion elsewhere in public life ?
The cynic will nod his or her head , while the optimist will say no .
Either way , presidents , governors , and mayors use crises to advance their careers .
Politicians tap into their mawkish reserves when they witness scores of deaths or communities destroyed by an enemy—seen or unseen .
Should this be viewed as emotional intelligence or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics is to connect with your fellow man , showing that the average person could have a beer with the guy or gal in charge .
Anytime a president or a state official is photographed consoling a crying citizen , the picture screams a thousand words that campaign strategists exploit .
As H.L .
Mencken wrote in 1919 : “ The public demands certainties.
” That is why even some of the most strident critics of the state run into the arms of politicians—Republican or Democrat , progressive or conservative—when the occasion arises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state is mostly imaginary when uncertainty develops , and this is how you end up with an erosion of freedoms and liberties that will never be reinstated when normalcy returns .
Be it a terrorist attack or a virus outbreak , we heed the politicians and beg them to take care of the problem .
We want to be left alone to our Netflix binging , to our celebrity worshiping , and our debating over the superiority of the Nile River to the Amazon River .
By the time the next crisis strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and feast on your rights , shipping you off to a claustrophobic solitary confinement cell in the heart of the Swamp .

Forget performing William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. The real art form is politicking.
They sport taxpayer-funded windbreakers, speak with authority and urgency, and lead a brigade of specialists. When a crisis unfolds, whether it is a hurricane or a virus outbreak, politicians stand before the cameras, appearing to be in control of the situation—but they see an opportunity. As the catastrophe intensifies, the public recoils in fear and cowers before their dear leaders, amid uncertainty and upheaval. Does being a master performer transform a politician into an apotheosis?
The Deification of Politicians
Governors and mayors have been on top of the emergency response to the coronavirus pandemic since the very first confirmed cases were reported in their jurisdictions. With furrowed brows and a quiver in their voices, these public officials regularly speak in earnest before the press, informing their constituents that they will do whatever they can to ensure your grandmother stays safe at this unprecedented time. And that includes violating your constitutional rights.
Like Hamlet with Yorick’s skull, politicians can now take advantage of props to further enhance their performance and add to the gripping saga. Due to the highly infectious nature of this respiratory illness, face masks and gloves complement their tremendous acting in front of activists pretending to be journalists.
As we gaze upon our television screens or computer monitors, we become even giddier when politicians park their partisanship at the door and applaud everybody regardless of the letter next to their name. If California governor Gavin Newsom or New York governor Andrew Cuomo praises President Donald Trump for his cooperation rather than participating in petulant and partisan bickering, they must mean business. This is the cherry on top that can help them secure their version of the Academy Award: reelection. Or, if they are not seeking another two or four years in the position, then their micromanaging can elevate their status in the political arena.
The chief bureaucrats’ showmanship in the coronapocalypse or a natural disaster can produce the nation’s next president or god-emperor. Of course, this cannot be done without members of the press. Over the years, politicians have taken full advantage of the media to highlight their management abilities in a disaster zone. For some, it has lifted their polling numbers. For others, it destroyed their future electoral hopes and dreams.
President Trump’s approval rating for his handling of COVID-19 had been climbing among independents and undecided voters for weeks. Although the polling bump appears to be over, the spike in the polling data suggests the power of the phrase “never let a crisis go to waste.”
After an administration plagued by scandals and incompetence seemed to be on the precipice of the abyss, Governor Cuomo turned his sinking ship around in a couple of weeks and became America’s governor. A presidential bid in the future? No matter what, he will certainly not say goodbye to politics once he exits Albany.
Governor Chris Christie thought he could substitute stairs for an escalator to the White House in 2016 for his leadership throughout the Hurricane Sandy tale. He used all the typical props for officials during a calamity: the windbreaker, the urgency, and the cordiality with individuals on the other side of the aisle. It turned out that his hugs and camaraderie with then president Barack Obama, who also donned the windbreaker, were a bit too much for primary voters to endure.
Do politicians act based on an opportunistic endeavor to secure additional time in office or to land a promotion elsewhere in public life? The cynic will nod his or her head, while the optimist will say no. Either way, presidents, governors, and mayors use crises to advance their careers.
Love Thy Politician
Politicians tap into their mawkish reserves when they witness scores of deaths or communities destroyed by an enemy—seen or unseen. Should this be viewed as emotional intelligence or political strategizing? The purpose of practical politics is to connect with your fellow man, showing that the average person could have a beer with the guy or gal in charge. Anytime a president or a state official is photographed consoling a crying citizen, the picture screams a thousand words that campaign strategists exploit.
As H.L. Mencken wrote in 1919: “The public demands certainties.” That is why even some of the most strident critics of the state run into the arms of politicians—Republican or Democrat, progressive or conservative—when the occasion arises. Our love of autonomy from the state is mostly imaginary when uncertainty develops, and this is how you end up with an erosion of freedoms and liberties that will never be reinstated when normalcy returns.
Be it a terrorist attack or a virus outbreak, we heed the politicians and beg them to take care of the problem. We want to be left alone to our Netflix binging, to our celebrity worshiping, and our debating over the superiority of the Nile River to the Amazon River. By the time the next crisis strikes the nation, politicians consolidate their power and feast on your rights, shipping you off to a claustrophobic solitary confinement cell in the heart of the Swamp.


newswars--2020-05-14--The Clenched COVID Fist of Government

The Clenched COVID Fist of Government

Years ago , Leonard Read came up with a fine analogy for understanding what citizens want government to do for them .
Now , it also provides insight into the current COVID circus .
Read ’ s analogy arises from the fact that since government has no resources that it does not extract from its citizenry , it can only benefit all citizens when it can make more efficient use of resources than they can .
Consequently , we must ask where government has a comparative advantage over voluntary organizations .
The answer is coercion .
In our mutually agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is why some define government as the entity generally agreed to have a monopoly over coercion .
Then the question becomes , When does government ’ s ability to coerce improve the well-being of its citizens ?
One way is using that power to ensure that people live up to their voluntary contracts .
That is an example of what Hayek once termed “ planning for competition , ” which enables voluntary market arrangements to work more effectively ( by creating a more efficient legal system ) , in contrast to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as central planning .
However , beyond enabling competition to work better , we must ask when government ’ s coercive power improves citizens ’ well-being .
Experience tells us the answer is seldom .
Would you be better off if someone else could dictate to you how to dress , what to eat , where to live , what employment to choose , how long to work at that employment , and almost innumerable other things ?
Did you answer yes to any of those applications of coercion ?
I doubt it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the one choosing for others , your answer may differ .
Leonard Read asked us to think about this question in terms of a clenched fist : “ Symbolize this physical force by the clenched fist .
Find out what the fist can and can not do and you will know what government should and should not do.
” What can you do more effectively by making your hands into fists ?
Not much .
Mainly you lose the ability to do productive things .
With your hands in fists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smartphone effectively , type your magnum opus , perform your music , paint your Mona Lisa , manufacture something ( maybe even something considered essential ) , safely drive a vehicle , play most sports ( although boxing and soccer get exemptions ) , shake hands , give a blessing , sign contracts , and much more .
Keeping your hands in fists undermines all these capabilities .
But making fists can enforce your decisions on those who would choose differently .
As mentioned above , enforcing contracts is a positive aspect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived up to , the better social coordination via markets works .
More generally , Read argued that the answer to “ What should the government fist restrain and penalize ?
” was “ fraud , violence , misrepresentations , stealing , predations , killing—that is , all destructive activities.
” But we must remember that “ the fist , this physical force… can not create.
” We all gain from the government ’ s fist restraining destructive acts .
But that fist does not create the ideas and innovations that improve people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expands beyond restraining destructive acts , it increasingly contracts its citizens ’ sphere of creative action .
Fewer useful new ideas will be imagined and implemented .
And in the process , liberty—both a means to valuable ends and itself an extremely valuable end—is contracted , as well .
The application of the fist analogy to the COVID crisis is instructive .
Did governments throughout the country use their coercive power solely to restrain destructive acts ?
No .
They used their fists to close down whole areas of the economy that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , were nonessential .
They closed whole coastlines , jailed hairdressers and others who were noncompliant with their orders , and imposed virtual house arrest on vast numbers .
It frequently seemed that brandishing fists was all politicians could think of to stave off criticism that they were indecisive or weak , not that it effectively addressed citizens ’ circumstances .
And now that pressure is rising to relax governments ’ clenched fists , how eager are those in control to comply ?
Eagerness is frequently an antonym for what we see .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phased-in unclenching plans proposed are the most effective way of parceling freedoms taken away back out to the people ?
I don ’ t see it .
But that is because to those in charge of government , clenching fists and forcing compliance is often the easiest-to-think-up “ solution ” to their political problems in a crisis , even when it worsens citizens ’ problems .
In contrast , figuring out how to best undo their coercive “ solutions ” is much harder .
And a comparative advantage in coercing does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best to reduce coercion .
There are policy complexities faced now , but they are primarily the result of earlier interventions .
However , we should remember that restoring freedom only requires government to stop denying it to those whom they supposedly serve .

Years ago, Leonard Read came up with a fine analogy for understanding what citizens want government to do for them. Now, it also provides insight into the current COVID circus.
Read’s analogy arises from the fact that since government has no resources that it does not extract from its citizenry, it can only benefit all citizens when it can make more efficient use of resources than they can. Consequently, we must ask where government has a comparative advantage over voluntary organizations.
The answer is coercion. In our mutually agreed arrangements, we cannot coerce others. That is why some define government as the entity generally agreed to have a monopoly over coercion.
Then the question becomes, When does government’s ability to coerce improve the well-being of its citizens? One way is using that power to ensure that people live up to their voluntary contracts. That is an example of what Hayek once termed “planning for competition,” which enables voluntary market arrangements to work more effectively (by creating a more efficient legal system), in contrast to the “planning against competition” known as central planning.
However, beyond enabling competition to work better, we must ask when government’s coercive power improves citizens’ well-being. Experience tells us the answer is seldom. Would you be better off if someone else could dictate to you how to dress, what to eat, where to live, what employment to choose, how long to work at that employment, and almost innumerable other things? Did you answer yes to any of those applications of coercion? I doubt it. Of course, if you plan to be the one choosing for others, your answer may differ.
Leonard Read asked us to think about this question in terms of a clenched fist: “Symbolize this physical force by the clenched fist. Find out what the fist can and cannot do and you will know what government should and should not do.”
What can you do more effectively by making your hands into fists? Not much. Mainly you lose the ability to do productive things. With your hands in fists, you cannot use your computer or smartphone effectively, type your magnum opus, perform your music, paint your Mona Lisa, manufacture something (maybe even something considered essential), safely drive a vehicle, play most sports (although boxing and soccer get exemptions), shake hands, give a blessing, sign contracts, and much more. Keeping your hands in fists undermines all these capabilities. But making fists can enforce your decisions on those who would choose differently.
As mentioned above, enforcing contracts is a positive aspect of this, because the better agreements are lived up to, the better social coordination via markets works. More generally, Read argued that the answer to “What should the government fist restrain and penalize?” was “fraud, violence, misrepresentations, stealing, predations, killing—that is, all destructive activities.” But we must remember that “the fist, this physical force…cannot create.”
We all gain from the government’s fist restraining destructive acts. But that fist does not create the ideas and innovations that improve people’s lives. So as government expands beyond restraining destructive acts, it increasingly contracts its citizens’ sphere of creative action. Fewer useful new ideas will be imagined and implemented. And in the process, liberty—both a means to valuable ends and itself an extremely valuable end—is contracted, as well.
The application of the fist analogy to the COVID crisis is instructive. Did governments throughout the country use their coercive power solely to restrain destructive acts? No. They used their fists to close down whole areas of the economy that they decided, often with little convincing reasons, were nonessential. They closed whole coastlines, jailed hairdressers and others who were noncompliant with their orders, and imposed virtual house arrest on vast numbers. It frequently seemed that brandishing fists was all politicians could think of to stave off criticism that they were indecisive or weak, not that it effectively addressed citizens’ circumstances.
And now that pressure is rising to relax governments’ clenched fists, how eager are those in control to comply? Eagerness is frequently an antonym for what we see. And how much evidence is there that the phased-in unclenching plans proposed are the most effective way of parceling freedoms taken away back out to the people? I don’t see it. But that is because to those in charge of government, clenching fists and forcing compliance is often the easiest-to-think-up “solution” to their political problems in a crisis, even when it worsens citizens’ problems. In contrast, figuring out how to best undo their coercive “solutions” is much harder. And a comparative advantage in coercing does not imply a comparative advantage in knowing how best to reduce coercion. There are policy complexities faced now, but they are primarily the result of earlier interventions. However, we should remember that restoring freedom only requires government to stop denying it to those whom they supposedly serve.


newswars--2020-05-14--Why Media Coverage of COVID-19 Has Been So Bad

In my lifetime , I never have seen anything dominate news coverage like the COVID-19 virus and how federal , state , and local governments have dealt with the death , illness , and uncertainty it has created .
That is a lifetime that has included the assassination of John F. Kennedy , the Vietnam War , the moon landing , Watergate , and the 9/11 attacks .
Suffice it to say that these were big events , yet I can not say that I have seen anything quite like it , even in this modern media age .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I can not say much for it except that with just a few exceptions , the coverage has been uniformly bad .
When I mean bad , I mean that I as a reader , and especially as a reader who also is an academic economist and economic journalist , can not trust it to be accurate .
For example , when Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in London more than two months ago reported his model that predicted up to 2.2 million coronavirus deaths in the United States , the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported fact , both in its news and editorial coverage .
Despite the fact that Ferguson has a long record of making wild exaggerations in his death-from-disease models , the media treated his dire predictions as Oracles from the Gods and demanded radical measures to counter this alleged threat .
Those of us who are skeptical of many apocalyptic claims from progressives—from Paul Ehrlich ’ s false predictions in The Population Bomb to Al Gore ’ s fabricated claims that sea ice was supposed to disappear from the Arctic fifteen years ago—wondered aloud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reprise of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic and concluded that we were not .
However , whenever so-called experts predict doom , members of the press eagerly await the next oracles .
What always follows is the demand that government , with its stable of experts , step in and save us .
This is not just the mainstream media such as the New York Times or the network news stations running the gamut from CBS News to CNN to Fox News .
This also includes the more ideological publications such as The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , if one were to read both the news and editorial sections of the New York Times on any day , one would find the coverage to be one sided and slanted toward what is a progressive view of society and governance , a viewpoint that is highly critical of the legal and social tradition of limitations upon state power .
At the same time , one can read on the pages of TAC that the government should not only regulate consumer prices during the pandemic , but that the government should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” A broad-brush view of progressivism , which today really is the dominant governing philosophy in the United States , is that constitutional limits upon government power are inadequate in a complex society like ours and that we should not be governed by bumbling politicians , but rather by experts .
For example , a progressive would tout the difference between Anthony Fauci and Donald Trump ; one is a public health expert , and the other is , well , Donald Trump , which goes without saying .
Given that most American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would proudly call themselves progressives , we should not be surprised when news coverage follows progressive narratives that hold to the view that expansion of state power is also the expansion of civilization itself .
When I was in journalism school nearly a half century ago , my professors drilled into all of us that it was the press—the free press—that protected the rights of Americans from predatory government .
Of course , the professors also happened to teach that maybe corporations might be more dangerous than government and that , well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good thing and should be encouraged , since progressive government is not the same as predatory government .
If one wished to probe my professors ’ thinking even more , they really believed that the media really should be in the business of promoting “ good government , ” which was , in their minds , government by “ experts.
” What they meant by “ good government ” was not government that operated within strict constitutional limits , but rather progressive government , a government that could do things well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the poor and providing food for hungry people .
They wanted a competent government , the kind of government that to the generation that gave us the Progressive Era dreamed of occupying Washington , DC , and the rest of the country , the kind of government that they fervently believed that FDR had created with the New Deal .
Although my journalism professors didn ’ t teach me The Narratives in the classroom , over the years while I worked as a newspaper reporter and in my years as an academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists work according to what one might call narratives .
We see them in spades whenever we watch network news .
On Fox News , Democrats in power always are weak in national defense .
On MSNBC , you will hear that anyone who espouses free markets really wants black people to be thrown back into slavery and poor people to starve to death .
Narratives are sets of beliefs that one holds that explain how things work in the world .
Journalists forever are shaping their coverage to fit those narratives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caricatures .
Perhaps the strongest narrative of all is informed by the belief that experts hold everything we need to know and that when there are emergencies we need experts to tell us what to do .
As Ryan McMaken recently wrote , so-called progressive governance is what one would call a technocracy , a government by the Competent Ones : Over the past several decades—and especially since the New Deal—official experts in government have gradually replaced elected representatives as the primary decision-makers in government .
Public debate has been abandoned in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technocrats .
Politics has been replaced by “ science , ” whether social science or physical science .
These powerful and largely unaccountable decision-makers are today most noticeable in federal courts , in “ intelligence ” agencies , at the Federal Reserve , and—long ignored until now—in government public health agencies .
One can see the endorsement such a regime clearly by visiting the editorial page of the New York Times , which is not only the standard bearer for progressive America , but also is called “ the Newspaper of Record ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists , print and electronic .
What the NYT chooses to put on its editorial and news pages matters , because whatever the paper ’ s leadership selects ultimately is what is covered by the rest of the mainstream media .
Yes , there are independent journalists , and once in a while something from outside progressive political circles that the NYT would rather ignore becomes so public that the paper can not ignore it .
Not surprisingly , it is the NYT and like media outlets that have turned Anthony Fauci ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if what he said actually was not true ) , and if Fauci is cautious about allowing people to reopen their businesses and go back to work , then we should all remain self-quarantined .
But why Fauci ?
For that matter , why would the “ Newspaper of Record ” take Neil Ferguson seriously when none of his vaunted models have been even near-accurate ?
Why do mainstream journalists still believe that Paul Ehrlich is an authority on population ?
There are two reasons .
First—and this is standard for any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news always will get the headlines as long as it fits within the narratives of that particular outlet ’ s leaders .
For example , the NYT and mainstream media reported every sensational accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court then nominee Brett Kavanagh , because it fit the liberal left ’ s narrative that Republicans don ’ t care about women being sexually assaulted .
Likewise , when Tara Reade recently said that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 , Fox News reported it in part because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are hypocrites .
( True to form , the NYT refused to report on the accusations for nearly three weeks , giving fuel to the conservatives ’ beliefs about that paper . )
Second , although bad news sells , how journalists define bad news is even more important .
Most journalists fall into the category of being progressives and have worldviews in line with such an ideology .
As noted earlier , progressives are far more likely to defer to so-called experts , and experts have found that people are far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they predict doom than when they say all is ( nearly ) well .
For most of their formal education , journalists have been taught that we are running out of resources , that overpopulation of the planet is a dire threat , and that environmental catastrophe ( this time with climate change ) is always around the corner .
Most journalists I know have not even developed the intellectual capacity to believe otherwise , even when time and again the dire predictions that they have come to religiously believe don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the New York Times editorialized that acid rain was destroying the forests of New York State even when extensive scientific research at that same time demonstrated otherwise .
The editors had come to believe that the environmentalist narrative was true and were not about to be confused by facts , even if legitimate scientific inquiry pointed in another direction .
Something like the COVID-19 saga fits into nearly every narrative from progressive journalists that one can imagine .
First , it is easy to blame Donald Trump given that it seems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other media outlets have made it their collective mission in life to have him ousted from the White House—and Trump ’ s “ leadership style ” in something like a pandemic makes him an easy target .
Second , given that progressives are more likely to believe in all things apocalyptic when it comes to the environment and health issues , they are less likely to be skeptical when the Neil Fergusons of the scientific world predict millions of deaths .
Third , because of their reflexive belief that experts have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more likely to frame the story as one of the experts versus the uneducated ( who want to go back to work or open their shuttered businesses ) .
Anyone who contradicts such wisdom is treated as an ignorant pariah , even if that person is a scientist with an elite background in higher education .
Last , journalists can clearly see that politicians are much more likely to act on what seems to be certain catastrophe , and in return journalists heap praise on those politicians that take the most extreme measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York , for example .
Despite the fact that Cuomo ordered nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients—despite the vulnerability of elderly people to the coronavirus—with his directive leading to numerous deaths , the media coverage is largely positive precisely because he is seen as “ doing something.
” Conversely , South Dakota governor Kristi Noem has received scathing national news coverage , because she refused to force businesses and individuals to lock down and “ shelter in place.
” Much of the coverage insinuated that the death toll there was likely to skyrocket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date South Dakota has suffered thirty-four COVID-19 deaths , hardly a hot spot .
It would be nice if we could count on the mainstream news outlets to give reliable news on the coronavirus , but that will remain unlikely .
Most journalists are wedded to the progressive narratives , and even if for a moment they are swatted by a reasonable interpretation of the facts at hand , they quickly recover and go on preaching doom and more doom .

In my lifetime, I never have seen anything dominate news coverage like the COVID-19 virus and how federal, state, and local governments have dealt with the death, illness, and uncertainty it has created. That is a lifetime that has included the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Vietnam War, the moon landing, Watergate, and the 9/11 attacks.
Suffice it to say that these were big events, yet I cannot say that I have seen anything quite like it, even in this modern media age. But although news coverage clearly has been extensive, I cannot say much for it except that with just a few exceptions, the coverage has been uniformly bad. When I mean bad, I mean that I as a reader, and especially as a reader who also is an academic economist and economic journalist, cannot trust it to be accurate.
For example, when Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in London more than two months ago reported his model that predicted up to 2.2 million coronavirus deaths in the United States, the New York Times accepted the predictions as near reported fact, both in its news and editorial coverage. Despite the fact that Ferguson has a long record of making wild exaggerations in his death-from-disease models, the media treated his dire predictions as Oracles from the Gods and demanded radical measures to counter this alleged threat.
Those of us who are skeptical of many apocalyptic claims from progressives—from Paul Ehrlich’s false predictions in The Population Bomb to Al Gore’s fabricated claims that sea ice was supposed to disappear from the Arctic fifteen years ago—wondered aloud if we really were to see a reprise of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic and concluded that we were not. However, whenever so-called experts predict doom, members of the press eagerly await the next oracles. What always follows is the demand that government, with its stable of experts, step in and save us.
This is not just the mainstream media such as the New York Times or the network news stations running the gamut from CBS News to CNN to Fox News. This also includes the more ideological publications such as The Nation or the American Conservative. For example, if one were to read both the news and editorial sections of the New York Times on any day, one would find the coverage to be one sided and slanted toward what is a progressive view of society and governance, a viewpoint that is highly critical of the legal and social tradition of limitations upon state power. At the same time, one can read on the pages of TAC that the government should not only regulate consumer prices during the pandemic, but that the government should arrest anyone accused of “price gouging.”
A broad-brush view of progressivism, which today really is the dominant governing philosophy in the United States, is that constitutional limits upon government power are inadequate in a complex society like ours and that we should not be governed by bumbling politicians, but rather by experts. For example, a progressive would tout the difference between Anthony Fauci and Donald Trump; one is a public health expert, and the other is, well, Donald Trump, which goes without saying.
Given that most American journalists, both print and electronic, would proudly call themselves progressives, we should not be surprised when news coverage follows progressive narratives that hold to the view that expansion of state power is also the expansion of civilization itself. When I was in journalism school nearly a half century ago, my professors drilled into all of us that it was the press—the free press—that protected the rights of Americans from predatory government. Of course, the professors also happened to teach that maybe corporations might be more dangerous than government and that, well, you know, progressive government is really a good thing and should be encouraged, since progressive government is not the same as predatory government.
If one wished to probe my professors’ thinking even more, they really believed that the media really should be in the business of promoting “good government,” which was, in their minds, government by “experts.” What they meant by “good government” was not government that operated within strict constitutional limits, but rather progressive government, a government that could do things well, from providing medical care to building homes for the poor and providing food for hungry people. They wanted a competent government, the kind of government that to the generation that gave us the Progressive Era dreamed of occupying Washington, DC, and the rest of the country, the kind of government that they fervently believed that FDR had created with the New Deal.
Although my journalism professors didn’t teach me The Narratives in the classroom, over the years while I worked as a newspaper reporter and in my years as an academic economist, I have found that most journalists work according to what one might call narratives. We see them in spades whenever we watch network news. On Fox News, Democrats in power always are weak in national defense. On MSNBC, you will hear that anyone who espouses free markets really wants black people to be thrown back into slavery and poor people to starve to death. Narratives are sets of beliefs that one holds that explain how things work in the world. Journalists forever are shaping their coverage to fit those narratives, and often they turn into just plain caricatures.
Perhaps the strongest narrative of all is informed by the belief that experts hold everything we need to know and that when there are emergencies we need experts to tell us what to do. As Ryan McMaken recently wrote, so-called progressive governance is what one would call a technocracy, a government by the Competent Ones:
Over the past several decades—and especially since the New Deal—official experts in government have gradually replaced elected representatives as the primary decision-makers in government. Public debate has been abandoned in favor of meetings among small handfuls of unelected technocrats. Politics has been replaced by “science,” whether social science or physical science. These powerful and largely unaccountable decision-makers are today most noticeable in federal courts, in “intelligence” agencies, at the Federal Reserve, and—long ignored until now—in government public health agencies.
One can see the endorsement such a regime clearly by visiting the editorial page of the New York Times, which is not only the standard bearer for progressive America, but also is called “the Newspaper of Record” and a media mecca for most American journalists, print and electronic. What the NYT chooses to put on its editorial and news pages matters, because whatever the paper’s leadership selects ultimately is what is covered by the rest of the mainstream media. Yes, there are independent journalists, and once in a while something from outside progressive political circles that the NYT would rather ignore becomes so public that the paper cannot ignore it. Not surprisingly, it is the NYT and like media outlets that have turned Anthony Fauci’s every word into fulfilled prophecy (even if what he said actually was not true), and if Fauci is cautious about allowing people to reopen their businesses and go back to work, then we should all remain self-quarantined.
But why Fauci? For that matter, why would the “Newspaper of Record” take Neil Ferguson seriously when none of his vaunted models have been even near-accurate? Why do mainstream journalists still believe that Paul Ehrlich is an authority on population?
There are two reasons. First—and this is standard for any news outlet—bad news and especially sensational bad news always will get the headlines as long as it fits within the narratives of that particular outlet’s leaders. For example, the NYT and mainstream media reported every sensational accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court then nominee Brett Kavanagh, because it fit the liberal left’s narrative that Republicans don’t care about women being sexually assaulted.
Likewise, when Tara Reade recently said that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, Fox News reported it in part because its reporters live by the narrative that Democrats are hypocrites. (True to form, the NYT refused to report on the accusations for nearly three weeks, giving fuel to the conservatives’ beliefs about that paper.)
Second, although bad news sells, how journalists define bad news is even more important. Most journalists fall into the category of being progressives and have worldviews in line with such an ideology. As noted earlier, progressives are far more likely to defer to so-called experts, and experts have found that people are far more likely to listen to them when they predict doom than when they say all is (nearly) well. For most of their formal education, journalists have been taught that we are running out of resources, that overpopulation of the planet is a dire threat, and that environmental catastrophe (this time with climate change) is always around the corner. Most journalists I know have not even developed the intellectual capacity to believe otherwise, even when time and again the dire predictions that they have come to religiously believe don’t actually occur. Thus, in 1989, the New York Times editorialized that acid rain was destroying the forests of New York State even when extensive scientific research at that same time demonstrated otherwise. The editors had come to believe that the environmentalist narrative was true and were not about to be confused by facts, even if legitimate scientific inquiry pointed in another direction.
Something like the COVID-19 saga fits into nearly every narrative from progressive journalists that one can imagine.
First, it is easy to blame Donald Trump given that it seems that journalists employed by the NYT, CNN, and other media outlets have made it their collective mission in life to have him ousted from the White House—and Trump’s “leadership style” in something like a pandemic makes him an easy target.
Second, given that progressives are more likely to believe in all things apocalyptic when it comes to the environment and health issues, they are less likely to be skeptical when the Neil Fergusons of the scientific world predict millions of deaths.
Third, because of their reflexive belief that experts have all of the answers, they are more likely to frame the story as one of the experts versus the uneducated (who want to go back to work or open their shuttered businesses). Anyone who contradicts such wisdom is treated as an ignorant pariah, even if that person is a scientist with an elite background in higher education.
Last, journalists can clearly see that politicians are much more likely to act on what seems to be certain catastrophe, and in return journalists heap praise on those politicians that take the most extreme measures. Take Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, for example. Despite the fact that Cuomo ordered nursing homes to admit COVID-19 patients—despite the vulnerability of elderly people to the coronavirus—with his directive leading to numerous deaths, the media coverage is largely positive precisely because he is seen as “doing something.”
Conversely, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem has received scathing national news coverage, because she refused to force businesses and individuals to lock down and “shelter in place.” Much of the coverage insinuated that the death toll there was likely to skyrocket as a result, yet at this date South Dakota has suffered thirty-four COVID-19 deaths, hardly a hot spot.
It would be nice if we could count on the mainstream news outlets to give reliable news on the coronavirus, but that will remain unlikely. Most journalists are wedded to the progressive narratives, and even if for a moment they are swatted by a reasonable interpretation of the facts at hand, they quickly recover and go on preaching doom and more doom.


newswars--2020-05-14--New York: Woman Handcuffed by Police For “Not Fully Wearing Mask”

A woman was dragged to the floor and handcuffed by police at a subway station in Brooklyn during an altercation over her “ not fully wearing ” her face mask .
“ Mom placed in handcuffs after altercation with # NYPD & # MTA over not fully wearing her mask in # Brooklyn # NYCSubway station .
Police say woman wouldn ’ t listen , but wasn ’ t arrested and charged , rather taken out of station , ” tweeted reporter Dean Meminger .
The video clip shows the woman , who was with her child , having an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her up the stairs .
She appears to briefly lash out before immediately being dragged to the ground and handcuffed .
The woman was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct .
However , after a backlash , Mayor Bill DeBlasio was forced to address the incident in a tweet .
“ Face coverings are important to protect everybody — they ’ re not optional .
But no one wants to see an interaction turn into this .
We ’ ve made progress with de-escalation .
This isn ’ t it , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement confirming that the confrontation began as a result of the woman improperly wearing her mask .
“ Officers approached the woman & politely informed her that she can not enter the Transit system w/out properly wearing a face mask .
She responded to the officers w/ vulgar language & repeatedly refused requests to properly wear her face covering over her nose/mouth.
” “ Officers then informed her she would be ejected from the station and began to escort her from the location .
Officers stated to the woman , “ Do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mam.
” The woman then waived her arms and struck an officer with her hand.
” “ As a result of these actions , she was taken into custody & placed under arrest .
We are confident that the police officers in this incident acted appropriately & with respect .
This individual was arrested only after her behavior toward officers warranted police action.
” As we previously highlighted , a man was also dragged off a bus by police in Philadelphia because he was not wearing a face mask .
My voice is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behemoths who want me disappeared forever .
It is CRUCIAL that you support me .
Please sign up for the free newsletter here .
Donate to me on SubscribeStar here .
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown .

A woman was dragged to the floor and handcuffed by police at a subway station in Brooklyn during an altercation over her “not fully wearing” her face mask.
“Mom placed in handcuffs after altercation with #NYPD & #MTA over not fully wearing her mask in #Brooklyn #NYCSubway station. Police say woman wouldn’t listen, but wasn’t arrested and charged, rather taken out of station,” tweeted reporter Dean Meminger.
Mom placed in handcuffs after altercation with #NYPD & #MTA over not fully wearing her mask in #Brooklyn #NYCSubway station. Police say woman wouldn’t listen, but wasn’t arrested and charged, rather taken out of station. Courtesy: Anthony Davis on FB pic.twitter.com/nohs9NpuGj — Dean Meminger (@DeanMeminger) May 13, 2020
The video clip shows the woman, who was with her child, having an argument with NYPD officers as they follow her up the stairs.
She appears to briefly lash out before immediately being dragged to the ground and handcuffed. The woman was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
However, after a backlash, Mayor Bill DeBlasio was forced to address the incident in a tweet.
“Face coverings are important to protect everybody — they’re not optional. But no one wants to see an interaction turn into this. We’ve made progress with de-escalation. This isn’t it,” he commented.
Face coverings are important to protect everybody — they’re not optional. But no one wants to see an interaction turn into this. We’ve made progress with de-escalation. This isn’t it. https://t.co/jVx22uLSj8 — Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) May 14, 2020
The NYPD issued a statement confirming that the confrontation began as a result of the woman improperly wearing her mask.
“Officers approached the woman & politely informed her that she cannot enter the Transit system w/out properly wearing a face mask. She responded to the officers w/ vulgar language & repeatedly refused requests to properly wear her face covering over her nose/mouth.”
“Officers then informed her she would be ejected from the station and began to escort her from the location. Officers stated to the woman, “Do not do this in front of your kid mam.” The woman then waived her arms and struck an officer with her hand.”
“As a result of these actions, she was taken into custody & placed under arrest. We are confident that the police officers in this incident acted appropriately & with respect. This individual was arrested only after her behavior toward officers warranted police action.”
As we previously highlighted, a man was also dragged off a bus by police in Philadelphia because he was not wearing a face mask.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
———————————————————————————————————————
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
———————————————————————————————————————


Watch: Bye-Bye Barack!

Kaitlin discusses Trump ’ s plans for Obama and what it could mean for our country .
Will ObamaGate be @ @ @ @ @ for the globalist movement ?

Kaitlin discusses Trump’s plans for Obama and what it could mean for our country.
Will ObamaGate be the nail in the coffin for the globalist movement?


newswars--2020-05-14--Impeachment Boomerang: Contacts Exposed Between US Embassy & Hunter Biden-Connected Ukraine Energy F

Impeachment Boomerang: Contacts Exposed Between US Embassy & Hunter Biden-Connected Ukraine Energy Firm

During President Trump ’ s impeachment , former U.S .
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified to Congress that she knew little beyond an initial briefing and “ press reports ” about Burisma Holdings , the Ukrainian natural gas firm that had hired Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter and was dogged by a corruption investigation .
But newly unearthed State Department memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show Yovanovitch ’ s embassy in Kiev , including the ambassador herself , was engaged in several discussions and meetings about Burisma as the gas firm scrambled during the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption investigation and polish its image before President Trump took office .
Yovanovitch , for instance , was specifically warned in an email by her top deputy in September 2016 — three years before her testimony — that Burisma had hired an American firm with deep Democratic connections called Blue Star Strategies to “ rehabilitate the reputation ” of the Ukrainian gas firm and that it had placed “ Hunter Biden on its board , ” the memos show .
She also met directly with a representative for Burisma in her embassy office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took office , a contact she did not mention during her impeachment deposition .
The discussions about Burisma inside Yovanovitch ’ s embassy were so extensive , in fact , that they filled more than 160 pages of emails , memos and correspondence in fall 2016 alone , according to the State Department records obtained under FOIA by the conservative group Citizens United .
The contacts included a detailed private letter hand-delivered to Yovanovitch by one of Burisma ’ s lawyers in September 2016 , a briefing later that month from her staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a meeting scheduled between the ambassador and a Burisma representative shortly before Christmas 2016 as the Obama administration was preparing to leave office .
Yovanovitch , who recently retired from State , did not respond Tuesday to a message sent to her private email seeking comment .
Her lawyer during the impeachment proceedings , Lawrence S. Robbins , also did not respond to an emailed request for comment .
David Bossie , a former congressional investigator and current outside adviser to Trump who runs Citizen United , said the documents his group obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last fall and what else Congress may not know about the embassy ’ s involvement with the Hunter Biden-connected Burisma firm .
The impeachment hearings last fall , which focused on efforts by Trump and his lawyer Rudy Guiliani to find evidence inside Ukraine on the Bidens and Burisma and to remove Yovanovitch from her job as U.S. ambassador , included testimony from Yovanovitch herself .
During that deposition in October 2019 she made no mention of direct contact with Burisma representatives and instead suggested her knowledge about the company and its legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she received in preparation for Senate confirmation as ambassador in summer 2016 and subsequent news media reports .
Hunter Biden ’ s work for one of Ukraine ’ s largest energy companies , which generated more than $ 3 million in payments to his American firm over two years , stirred controversy in both Ukraine and the United States because his father oversaw U.S. policy for Ukraine while Burisma was long a focus of a criminal corruption probe in Ukraine .
State Department officials have said they believed the relationship created the appearance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she believed she learned from press reports that Burisma ’ s criminal case had been dormant by the time she arrived in Kiev in late summer 2016 .
During a nationally televised impeachment hearing a month later in the House , Yovanovitch doubled down on her testimony that Burisma and Hunter Biden weren ’ t on her radar when she took over as ambassador .
“ It was not a focus of what I was doing in that six-month period , ” she testified anew .
But the memos show Yovanovitch was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being settled in fall 2016 and that Burisma and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky were trying to repair the company ’ s reputation with the U.S. Embassy .
For instance , a briefing memo prepared for Yovanovitch ’ s 30-minute meeting Dec. 8 , 2016 inside the U.S. Embassy with Burisma representative Karen Tramontano noted that Tramantano worked for the lobbying and strategy firm Blue Star Strategies .
“ An Atlantic Council member and Washington veteran , Tramontano informally represents Mykola Zlochevsky , the Burisma CEO , who has long been the target of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the memo stated .
The memo added that “ his [ Zlochevsky ’ s ] official US representatives sent a letter in September ( attached ) asking that the embassy reconsider its position on him.
” The new memos aren ’ t the first to raise questions about Yovanovitch ’ s testimony .
Last November , Fox News challenged another portion of her testimony denying she had contact with a Democratic House staffer after the network said it obtained emails showing Yovanovitch did in fact have the contact on her private email , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Ron Johnson , R-Wis. , the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee , has been trying to subpoena documents about Blue Star Strategies and its work for Burisma for weeks but has been blocked by opposition from Republican Sen. Mitt Romney , whose friend serves on the Burisma board .
Johnson and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley , R-Iowa , are now seeking to interview witnesses who previously served at the embassy .
The memos show that both Blue Star Strategies and the Atlantic Council , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fall 2016 pressing the U.S. embassy in Kiev to change its position on Burisma and Zlochevsky , whom the embassy viewed as corrupt .
Zlochevsky has long denied any wrongdoing .
For instance , after the U.S. Agency for International Development , the State Department foreign funding arm , was told by the embassy ’ s Deputy Chief of Mission George Kent not to accept a $ 7,500 donation for Burisma for a clean energy event in Ukraine in late summer 2016 , a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine named John Herbst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Herbst asked to meet with Yovanovitch in September 2016 and secured a private dinner date instead with Kent in Ukraine , the memos show .
“ I will factor into our conversation the Zlochevsky Affair , ” Herbst wrote to Kent as he prepared for their dinner .
Kent , long a critic of Burisma , is one of the witnesses Johnson and Grassley are seeking to interview .
He went out of his way to mention the Burisma-Hunter Biden connection during one of his pre-dinner email exchanges with Herbst in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian officials “ to do nothing ” about the Burisma investigation .
“ I have no doubt such arrangements were made , apart from Mr. Zlochevsky ( who also put Hunter Biden on the board of his Burisma Energy company ) , ” Kent wrote .
One of the maneuvers Blue Star planned was to take the new Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko , who held the fate of Burisma in his hands , to the United States for an event with the Atlantic Council , a move that would have created positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the memos state .
Kent discouraged doing so and eventually sent a memo to Yovanovitch alerting her that “ Lutsenko now likely not to go to DC with Blue Star.
” She followed up with a request to be briefed .
“ Thanks George .
At some point appreciate discussing in more detail some of the folks referenced , ” the ambassador wrote in a Sept. 4 , 2016 email .
Within a few days , Yovanovitch received a direct letter from one of Burisma ’ s American lawyers , John Buretta of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm in New York , alerting her that Lutsenko ’ s office was dropping a long-running corruption investigation of Burisma without filing charges based on a Ukrainian court ruling favorable to Zlochevsky .
Buretta ’ s letter to Yovanovitch said the allegations against Zlochevsky were “ baseless , ” and the lawyer asked the U.S. embassy to drop its long-running narrative that Burisma was somehow corrupt .
Yovanovitch immediately forwarded the letter to Kent .
“ What is this about ?
” she emailed .
Kent , the memos show , then arranged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September to get up to speed .
The planned subject of the briefing , the memos show , was “ Zlochevsky , Burisma , Cravath and image rehab campaigns.
” One of the topics for the briefing , Kent wrote colleagues on Sept. 16 , 2016 , was “ Zlochevsky/Burisma – asset recovery and past crimes of the Yanu regime as they intersect U.S. corporate/individual interest , ” an apparent reference to Hunter Biden ’ s role with the company .
In a separate email to Yovanovitch , Kent was more explicit about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further to the Blue Star effort to rehabilitate the reputation of their non-client in the US , former ministry of ecologies Zlochevsky , who clearly has retained the services of a blue chip law firm ( Cravath ) and his energy company Burisma , which in turn has Hunter Biden on its board , ” Kent emailed the ambassador .
By November 2016 , with Trump now the president-elect , Burisma ’ s American emissaries were in full motion to get a second corruption case against Burisma — this one involving tax evasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by early January , just days before Trump took office .
The American legal team for Burisma also wanted to improve relations between the gas firm , where Hunter Biden worked , and the U.S. embassy and USAID , the foreign aid arm , the memos show .
The Dec. 8 , 2016 briefing memo prepared for Yovanovitch detailed the lobbying efforts by Blue Star .
U.S. officials directly familiar with the Dec. 8 , 2016 meeting confirmed it took place and that Yovanovich attended , but did not know whether the ambassador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yovanovitch met with Blue Star ’ s Tramantano , word surfaced in Ukraine that Zlochevsky had settled the second case against Burisma with a fine , and the Ukrainian news media was up in arms , critical that the owner and his company with Hunter Biden on its board had escaped more serious penalty .
One headline forwarded by email to the ambassador read , “ Activists cry foul as courts , prosecutors clear Zlochevsky.
” A few hours later on that same day , the embassy ’ s deputy economic counselor followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The dumping part is true , ” the official wrote .
By early January 2017 , as Vice President Joe Biden prepared to make a final visit to Ukraine before leaving office , officials around Yovanovitch worried the Burisma scandal might taint the visit .
They forwarded news articles to the ambassador , some which were critical of the Bidens .
A Jan. 7 , 2017 email from a State official to Yovanovitch , for instance , provided a summary of recent news reports about the impending Biden visit .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the visit , ” the email told Yovanovitch .
One of the speculations quoted in the memo was that Biden “ has a business interest ” in Ukraine because his son worked for Burisma .
“ Perhaps the behind the scenes part of the visit can be attributed to the fact that the Ukranian authorities guaranteed some business positions to the former Vice President and his family , ” the memo quoted one Ukrainian figure as saying .
Kent had long feared the Bidens had created the appearance of a conflict of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during impeachment he tried to warn the vice president about his concerns in 2015 but got rebuffed .
As the media speculation about Biden ’ s last visit got more intense and nasty , Kent lamented to colleagues in a Jan. 17 , 2017 email that copied Yovanovitch : “ Burisma – gift that keeps on giving.
” For the Atlantic Council and Herbst , Kent ’ s line was prophetically , and literally , true .
On Jan. 13 , 2017 , Herbst emailed Kent that the Atlantic Council had just accepted @ @ @ @ @

Authored by John Solomon via JustTheNews.com,
During President Trump’s impeachment, former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified to Congress that she knew little beyond an initial briefing and “press reports” about Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian natural gas firm that had hired Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and was dogged by a corruption investigation.
“It just wasn’t a big deal,” she declared under oath on Oct. 11, 2019.
But newly unearthed State Department memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show Yovanovitch’s embassy in Kiev, including the ambassador herself, was engaged in several discussions and meetings about Burisma as the gas firm scrambled during the 2016 election and transition to settle a long-running corruption investigation and polish its image before President Trump took office.
Yovanovitch, for instance, was specifically warned in an email by her top deputy in September 2016 — three years before her testimony — that Burisma had hired an American firm with deep Democratic connections called Blue Star Strategies to “rehabilitate the reputation” of the Ukrainian gas firm and that it had placed “Hunter Biden on its board,” the memos show.
She also met directly with a representative for Burisma in her embassy office, less than 45 days before Trump took office, a contact she did not mention during her impeachment deposition.
The discussions about Burisma inside Yovanovitch’s embassy were so extensive, in fact, that they filled more than 160 pages of emails, memos and correspondence in fall 2016 alone, according to the State Department records obtained under FOIA by the conservative group Citizens United.
The contacts included a detailed private letter hand-delivered to Yovanovitch by one of Burisma’s lawyers in September 2016, a briefing later that month from her staff on Burisma’s issues, and a meeting scheduled between the ambassador and a Burisma representative shortly before Christmas 2016 as the Obama administration was preparing to leave office.
Yovanovitch, who recently retired from State, did not respond Tuesday to a message sent to her private email seeking comment. Her lawyer during the impeachment proceedings, Lawrence S. Robbins, also did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
State officials declined comment.
David Bossie, a former congressional investigator and current outside adviser to Trump who runs Citizen United, said the documents his group obtained raise questions about Yovanovitch’s testimony last fall and what else Congress may not know about the embassy’s involvement with the Hunter Biden-connected Burisma firm.
“These new records clearly don’t support Ambassador Yovanovitch’s testimony under oath during [Rep. Adam] Schiff’s sham impeachment. Her sworn testimony must be investigated and scrutinized just like in the case of General [Michael] Flynn,” he said. “You can’t have two sets of rules.”
The impeachment hearings last fall, which focused on efforts by Trump and his lawyer Rudy Guiliani to find evidence inside Ukraine on the Bidens and Burisma and to remove Yovanovitch from her job as U.S. ambassador, included testimony from Yovanovitch herself.
During that deposition in October 2019 she made no mention of direct contact with Burisma representatives and instead suggested her knowledge about the company and its legal travails was limited mostly to a briefing she received in preparation for Senate confirmation as ambassador in summer 2016 and subsequent news media reports.
Hunter Biden’s work for one of Ukraine’s largest energy companies, which generated more than $3 million in payments to his American firm over two years, stirred controversy in both Ukraine and the United States because his father oversaw U.S. policy for Ukraine while Burisma was long a focus of a criminal corruption probe in Ukraine. State Department officials have said they believed the relationship created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
“What do you know about the investigation of Burisma?” Yovanovitch was asked at one point during her October testimony. “Not very much. And, again, that happened before I arrived,” she testified. “… Burisma wasn’t a big issue in the fall of 2018 — 2016 when I arrived.” “Were you aware at that time of Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma?” she was asked at another point. “Yes. As I mentioned, I became aware during the Q&A in the prep for my testimony,” she answered.
Yovanovitch said she believed she learned from press reports that Burisma’s criminal case had been dormant by the time she arrived in Kiev in late summer 2016.
“I’m trying to understand your testimony, because earlier in the day you said that, based on press reports, your understanding was that it was dormant. You may have had additional information it was dormant, or you don’t know?” Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., inquired at one point. “Yes. And all I can tell you is it was a long time ago and it just wasn’t a big issue,” she said. “So I just want to understand your position. Obviously, you knew that Burisma was dormant, based on press reports. That was what you stated earlier,” Zeldin pressed. “Uh-huh,” she answered. “But you’re saying that you may have had other information, but you don’t recall that now?” the lawmaker followed. “I may have had other information, but I don’t recall how I had that impression …” she answered.
During a nationally televised impeachment hearing a month later in the House, Yovanovitch doubled down on her testimony that Burisma and Hunter Biden weren’t on her radar when she took over as ambassador. “It was not a focus of what I was doing in that six-month period,” she testified anew.
But the memos show Yovanovitch was informed that the criminal cases were actively being settled in fall 2016 and that Burisma and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky were trying to repair the company’s reputation with the U.S. Embassy.
For instance, a briefing memo prepared for Yovanovitch’s 30-minute meeting Dec. 8, 2016 inside the U.S. Embassy with Burisma representative Karen Tramontano noted that Tramantano worked for the lobbying and strategy firm Blue Star Strategies.
“An Atlantic Council member and Washington veteran, Tramontano informally represents Mykola Zlochevsky, the Burisma CEO, who has long been the target of law enforcement proceedings in Ukraine,” the memo stated.
The memo added that “his [Zlochevsky’s] official US representatives sent a letter in September (attached) asking that the embassy reconsider its position on him.”
The new memos aren’t the first to raise questions about Yovanovitch’s testimony. Last November, Fox News challenged another portion of her testimony denying she had contact with a Democratic House staffer after the network said it obtained emails showing Yovanovitch did in fact have the contact on her private email, and not her official State email.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has been trying to subpoena documents about Blue Star Strategies and its work for Burisma for weeks but has been blocked by opposition from Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, whose friend serves on the Burisma board. Johnson and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, are now seeking to interview witnesses who previously served at the embassy.
The memos show that both Blue Star Strategies and the Atlantic Council, a nonprofit policy organization, played a role in fall 2016 pressing the U.S. embassy in Kiev to change its position on Burisma and Zlochevsky, whom the embassy viewed as corrupt. Zlochevsky has long denied any wrongdoing.
For instance, after the U.S. Agency for International Development, the State Department foreign funding arm, was told by the embassy’s Deputy Chief of Mission George Kent not to accept a $7,500 donation for Burisma for a clean energy event in Ukraine in late summer 2016, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine named John Herbst working for the Atlantic Council reached out.
Herbst asked to meet with Yovanovitch in September 2016 and secured a private dinner date instead with Kent in Ukraine, the memos show. “I will factor into our conversation the Zlochevsky Affair,” Herbst wrote to Kent as he prepared for their dinner.
Kent, long a critic of Burisma, is one of the witnesses Johnson and Grassley are seeking to interview. He went out of his way to mention the Burisma-Hunter Biden connection during one of his pre-dinner email exchanges with Herbst in which he decried alleged “payoffs” to Ukrainian officials “to do nothing” about the Burisma investigation.
“I have no doubt such arrangements were made, apart from Mr. Zlochevsky (who also put Hunter Biden on the board of his Burisma Energy company),” Kent wrote.
One of the maneuvers Blue Star planned was to take the new Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko, who held the fate of Burisma in his hands, to the United States for an event with the Atlantic Council, a move that would have created positive press for Lutsenko in both countries, the memos state.
Kent discouraged doing so and eventually sent a memo to Yovanovitch alerting her that “Lutsenko now likely not to go to DC with Blue Star.”
She followed up with a request to be briefed. “Thanks George. At some point appreciate discussing in more detail some of the folks referenced,” the ambassador wrote in a Sept. 4, 2016 email.
Within a few days, Yovanovitch received a direct letter from one of Burisma’s American lawyers, John Buretta of the Cravath, Swaine and Moore law firm in New York, alerting her that Lutsenko’s office was dropping a long-running corruption investigation of Burisma without filing charges based on a Ukrainian court ruling favorable to Zlochevsky.
Buretta’s letter to Yovanovitch said the allegations against Zlochevsky were “baseless,” and the lawyer asked the U.S. embassy to drop its long-running narrative that Burisma was somehow corrupt.
“We respectfully request that Your Excellency take into consideration these objective facts when considering the narrative promoted by some, and no doubt to be repeated again, in disregard of the facts and the law and the decisions by courts,” Buretta wrote the ambassador.
Yovanovitch immediately forwarded the letter to Kent. “What is this about?” she emailed.
Kent, the memos show, then arranged a special briefing for Yovanovitch later in September to get up to speed. The planned subject of the briefing, the memos show, was “Zlochevsky, Burisma, Cravath and image rehab campaigns.”
One of the topics for the briefing, Kent wrote colleagues on Sept. 16, 2016, was “Zlochevsky/Burisma – asset recovery and past crimes of the Yanu regime as they intersect U.S. corporate/individual interest,” an apparent reference to Hunter Biden’s role with the company.
In a separate email to Yovanovitch, Kent was more explicit about the Biden connection. “This is further to the Blue Star effort to rehabilitate the reputation of their non-client in the US, former ministry of ecologies Zlochevsky, who clearly has retained the services of a blue chip law firm (Cravath) and his energy company Burisma, which in turn has Hunter Biden on its board,” Kent emailed the ambassador.
By November 2016, with Trump now the president-elect, Burisma’s American emissaries were in full motion to get a second corruption case against Burisma — this one involving tax evasion — settled in Ukraine. They succeeded by early January, just days before Trump took office.
The American legal team for Burisma also wanted to improve relations between the gas firm, where Hunter Biden worked, and the U.S. embassy and USAID, the foreign aid arm, the memos show.
The Dec. 8, 2016 briefing memo prepared for Yovanovitch detailed the lobbying efforts by Blue Star.
“USAID spoke to Blue Star Strategies representative Sally Painter by phone and indicated that we would be open to discussing other forms of cooperation between USAID and Burisma, and agreed to meet with Burisma Government and Public Affairs representative Vadim Pozharskyi,” the memo to Yovanovitch explained. “In the November meeting, Pozharskyi briefed USAID on Burisma and the gas sector more broadly but did not propose specific ideas for cooperation.”
U.S. officials directly familiar with the Dec. 8, 2016 meeting confirmed it took place and that Yovanovich attended, but did not know whether the ambassador read the briefing memo beforehand.
After Yovanovitch met with Blue Star’s Tramantano, word surfaced in Ukraine that Zlochevsky had settled the second case against Burisma with a fine, and the Ukrainian news media was up in arms, critical that the owner and his company with Hunter Biden on its board had escaped more serious penalty.
One headline forwarded by email to the ambassador read, “Activists cry foul as courts, prosecutors clear Zlochevsky.”
“Lots of accusations/innuendo,” a State official wrote Yovanovitch and Kent on Dec. 29, 2016, forwarding another news article that alleged Burisma may have dumped natural gas into the market as a political payoff for getting off in the criminal case. “Mentions Biden’s son and Kwasniewski are on board of Burisma, which allegedly had a subsidiary dump natural gas recently as a way to pay bribes” to Ukrainian officials, the State official wrote Yovanovitch.
A few hours later on that same day, the embassy’s deputy economic counselor followed up with Yovanovitch about the payoff allegations. “The dumping part is true,” the official wrote.
By early January 2017, as Vice President Joe Biden prepared to make a final visit to Ukraine before leaving office, officials around Yovanovitch worried the Burisma scandal might taint the visit. They forwarded news articles to the ambassador, some which were critical of the Bidens.
A Jan. 7, 2017 email from a State official to Yovanovitch, for instance, provided a summary of recent news reports about the impending Biden visit. “Ukrainian political scientists speculate on the purpose of the visit,” the email told Yovanovitch.
One of the speculations quoted in the memo was that Biden “has a business interest” in Ukraine because his son worked for Burisma. “Perhaps the behind the scenes part of the visit can be attributed to the fact that the Ukranian authorities guaranteed some business positions to the former Vice President and his family,” the memo quoted one Ukrainian figure as saying.
Kent had long feared the Bidens had created the appearance of a conflict of interest with the Burisma relationship and testified during impeachment he tried to warn the vice president about his concerns in 2015 but got rebuffed. As the media speculation about Biden’s last visit got more intense and nasty, Kent lamented to colleagues in a Jan. 17, 2017 email that copied Yovanovitch: “Burisma – gift that keeps on giving.”
For the Atlantic Council and Herbst, Kent’s line was prophetically, and literally, true.
On Jan. 13, 2017, Herbst emailed Kent that the Atlantic Council had just accepted a donation from Burisma.