powerlineblog--2020-10-21--DOJ offers to assist Minneapolis police; city council not thrilled

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that is offering to collaborate with the Minneapolis police as part of a new initiative to assist police departments with training and other policing practices .
The program includes creating a new national coordination center run by the International Association of Chiefs of Police for training and technical assistance .
Federal officials say the partnership could involve anything from reviewing a police department ’ s use-of-force policies to supporting the mental health and well-being of officers and community members .
Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo is excited about the DOJ ’ s offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during an appearance with DOJ officials , including Eric Dreiband , the Assistant Attorney General for Civil rights .
Arradondo said the national coordination center could provide important support for his department , which has seen staffing levels decline by 130 officers in the last year .
He noted that lack of resources has meant the department has had to become “ one-dimensional ” in its activities , focusing more on patrol and investigation to the detriment of other police department responsibilities .
“ What this offer would do is it would provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of training , in terms of looking at our policies , ” Arradondo explained .
Unfortunately , but not surprisingly , Minneapolis ’ left-wing city council is less than thrilled about this development .
Council president Lisa Bender complained that members of the council were not notified of Arradondo ’ s appearance or of Mayor Jacob Frey ’ s conversations with the U.S. Department of Justice before the announcement .
I doubt that this is Bender ’ s primary beef .
Notification or not , I assume she doesn ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOJ .
I also believe there ’ s more to it than that .
This summer , Bender and her colleagues promised to abolish the Minneapolis Police Department .
Although they have walked back this promise , it tells you the direction in which they want to go .
Clearly , the DOJ ’ s initiative would take things in a different direction — that of reform , rather than neutering .
It would increase police resources , not diminish them .
No wonder Lisa Bender is unhappy .
Bender warned that any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the program administered by the International Association of Chiefs of Police first requires council approval .
Similarly any grants accepted directly by the city would require such approval .
A city council that demonizes , and has spoken of abolishing , its police force isn ’ t likely to approve any initiative that will improve that force ’ s ability to enforce the law .
After all , Bender has said that the desire for help from the police “ comes from a place of privilege.
” Bender probably expects Joe Biden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expects , as I do , that a Biden DOJ would curb policing , the way the Obama administration did , rather than enhance it , the way the Trump administration proposes .
Meanwhile , in the wake of plummeting morale and a wave of departures by police officers , violent crime is surging in Minneapolis .
It is up by 17 percent in the city ’ s low-income neighborhoods so far this year , and by 30 percent in the city ’ s higher-income neighborhoods .

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that is offering to collaborate with the Minneapolis police as part of a new initiative to assist police departments with training and other policing practices.
The program includes creating a new national coordination center run by the International Association of Chiefs of Police for training and technical assistance. Federal officials say the partnership could involve anything from reviewing a police department’s use-of-force policies to supporting the mental health and well-being of officers and community members.
Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo is excited about the DOJ’s offer to assist. He made this clear during an appearance with DOJ officials, including Eric Dreiband, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil rights.
Arradondo said the national coordination center could provide important support for his department, which has seen staffing levels decline by 130 officers in the last year. He noted that lack of resources has meant the department has had to become “one-dimensional” in its activities, focusing more on patrol and investigation to the detriment of other police department responsibilities. “What this offer would do is it would provide that additional support for us, in terms of training, in terms of looking at our policies,” Arradondo explained.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Minneapolis’ left-wing city council is less than thrilled about this development. Council president Lisa Bender complained that members of the council were not notified of Arradondo’s appearance or of Mayor Jacob Frey’s conversations with the U.S. Department of Justice before the announcement.
I doubt that this is Bender’s primary beef. Notification or not, I assume she doesn’t want the police chief working with the Trump DOJ.
I also believe there’s more to it than that. This summer, Bender and her colleagues promised to abolish the Minneapolis Police Department. Although they have walked back this promise, it tells you the direction in which they want to go.
Clearly, the DOJ’s initiative would take things in a different direction — that of reform, rather than neutering. It would increase police resources, not diminish them.
No wonder Lisa Bender is unhappy.
Bender warned that any collaboration between the city of Minneapolis and the program administered by the International Association of Chiefs of Police first requires council approval. Similarly any grants accepted directly by the city would require such approval.
A city council that demonizes, and has spoken of abolishing, its police force isn’t likely to approve any initiative that will improve that force’s ability to enforce the law. After all, Bender has said that the desire for help from the police “comes from a place of privilege.”
Bender probably expects Joe Biden to defeat President Trump. She also probably expects, as I do, that a Biden DOJ would curb policing, the way the Obama administration did, rather than enhance it, the way the Trump administration proposes.
Meanwhile, in the wake of plummeting morale and a wave of departures by police officers, violent crime is surging in Minneapolis. It is up by 17 percent in the city’s low-income neighborhoods so far this year, and by 30 percent in the city’s higher-income neighborhoods.


powerlineblog--2020-10-21--How Hunter Biden’s crew peddled influence with his dad to the Chinese

In November 2011 , an elite group of Chinese Communist Party members and cronies of the Chinese regime secured a meeting in the White House thanks to the efforts of Hunter Biden ’ s associates .
The meeting is said to have been with Vice President Biden and other Obama administration officials .
Reports of the meeting come from Peter Schweizer and Seamus Bruner .
Andy McCarthy summarizes their findings here .
Schweizer and Bruner were able to break this story thanks to the cooperation of Hunter Biden ’ s former business partner , Bevan Cooney , who is serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme .
Cooney gave them access to his email account , which contains years of correspondence with Hunter Biden and his former associates .
Based on Cooney ’ s emails , Schweitzer and Bruner report that in November 2011 , Hunter Biden ’ s business associates , including Devon Archer who has also been convicted in federal court , arranged meetings at the Obama White House for a delegation of the China Entrepreneur Club ( CEC ) .
According to McCarthy , the CEC “ is led by high officials of the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including diplomats ) , and billionaire business executives with close ties to the regime.
” Schweizer and Bruner say the CEC had been unable to secure a meeting with top Obama officials until it contacted Hunter Biden ’ s associates through Mohamed Kashoggi , an intermediary .
Kashoggi told one of Hunter Biden ’ s associates that “ if your friend in D.C. can help [ obtain a White House meeting ] , we would be extremely grateful.
” Hunter Biden had recently set up shop in D.C. , along with Archer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese be manifested ?
According to Schweizer and Bruner , in discussions among themselves , Hunter Biden ’ s crew made it clear that they anticipated cashing in on business prospects that were expected to arise from providing the Chinese with high-level access to the Obama administration .
As we will see below , they succeeded .
That ’ s known as influence peddling — in this case for the benefit of powerful adversaries of America .
Devon Archer tried to keep Hunter Biden ’ s fingerprints off of the effort to secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In an email to Cooney and another associate , he said , “ Couldn ’ t confirm this with Hunter on the line , but we got him [ presumably , Kashoggi ] his meeting at the WH Monday for the Chinese folks.
” However , Hunter Biden was copied on an email sent a minute earlier discussing dealings with Kashoggi .
The visit occurred on November 14 .
The CEC delegation was logged in as guests of the deputy director of Obama ’ s Office of Management and Budget .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a personal meeting with Vice President Biden .
This was later memorialized in a CEC publication ( at page 53 ) by CEC Secretary General , Maggie Cheng .
The reporting of Schweizer and Bruner is independent of the New York Post ’ s reporting on emails from Hunter Biden ’ s laptop .
It is based not on those emails , but on Cooney ’ s .
However , McCarthy notes a connection between the CEC story and what Hunter Biden ’ s emails reveal : This , it seems , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer for setting up that meeting at the White House for Liu Chuanzhi and the other Chinese Communist bigwigs .

In November 2011, an elite group of Chinese Communist Party members and cronies of the Chinese regime secured a meeting in the White House thanks to the efforts of Hunter Biden’s associates. The meeting is said to have been with Vice President Biden and other Obama administration officials.
Reports of the meeting come from Peter Schweizer and Seamus Bruner. Andy McCarthy summarizes their findings here.
Schweizer and Bruner were able to break this story thanks to the cooperation of Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Bevan Cooney, who is serving a federal prison sentence for a fraud scheme. Cooney gave them access to his email account, which contains years of correspondence with Hunter Biden and his former associates.
Based on Cooney’s emails, Schweitzer and Bruner report that in November 2011, Hunter Biden’s business associates, including Devon Archer who has also been convicted in federal court, arranged meetings at the Obama White House for a delegation of the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC). According to McCarthy, the CEC “is led by high officials of the Chinese Communist Party, some government officials (including diplomats), and billionaire business executives with close ties to the regime.”
Schweizer and Bruner say the CEC had been unable to secure a meeting with top Obama officials until it contacted Hunter Biden’s associates through Mohamed Kashoggi, an intermediary. Kashoggi told one of Hunter Biden’s associates that “if your friend in D.C. can help [obtain a White House meeting], we would be extremely grateful.” Hunter Biden had recently set up shop in D.C., along with Archer.
How would the extreme gratitude of the Chinese be manifested? According to Schweizer and Bruner, in discussions among themselves, Hunter Biden’s crew made it clear that they anticipated cashing in on business prospects that were expected to arise from providing the Chinese with high-level access to the Obama administration. As we will see below, they succeeded.
That’s known as influence peddling — in this case for the benefit of powerful adversaries of America.
Devon Archer tried to keep Hunter Biden’s fingerprints off of the effort to secure a White House meeting for the Chinese. In an email to Cooney and another associate, he said, “Couldn’t confirm this with Hunter on the line, but we got him [presumably, Kashoggi] his meeting at the WH Monday for the Chinese folks.” However, Hunter Biden was copied on an email sent a minute earlier discussing dealings with Kashoggi.
The visit occurred on November 14. The CEC delegation was logged in as guests of the deputy director of Obama’s Office of Management and Budget. However, it received high-level access, including a personal meeting with Vice President Biden. This was later memorialized in a CEC publication (at page 53) by CEC Secretary General, Maggie Cheng.
The reporting of Schweizer and Bruner is independent of the New York Post’s reporting on emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop. It is based not on those emails, but on Cooney’s.
However, McCarthy notes a connection between the CEC story and what Hunter Biden’s emails reveal:
Hunter and Archer later formed the Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) investment fund backed by lavish Chinese government funding. The arrangement was being negotiated when Hunter accompanied his father on Air Force Two for a 2013 trip to China. BHR eventually made investments in a ride-sharing company said to be closely connected to Liu Chuanzhi, the CEC chairman — a former Communist Party delegate who was among the leaders at the 2011 White House visit.
(Emphasis added)
This, it seems, was the payoff (or part of it) to Hunter Biden and Devon Archer for setting up that meeting at the White House for Liu Chuanzhi and the other Chinese Communist bigwigs.


powerlineblog--2020-10-22--Breaking: College President Finds a Spine

As I ’ ve long joked , I think truth in advertising for college presidencies would require the job qualification clause , “ Spinal removal surgery necessary.
” And among university presidents I have regarded suspiciously ( which is nearly all of them ) is Northwestern ’ s Morton Schapiro .
I may need to rethink my attitude about Shapiro .
Unsurprisingly there is a critical mass of radical students and leftist hangers-on who are demanding that Northwestern University abolish its campus police department .
The mob decided to take their protest to President Schapiro ’ s residence in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Shapiro .
There have also been predictable breaches of the “ mostly peaceful ” protests involving arson and vandalism .
President Schapiro has sent the following letter to the Northwestern community : Over the weekend I received many messages of concern about protests organized by some of our students , among others , who are demanding the abolition of the Northwestern University Police Department .
We , as a University , recognize the many injustices faced by Black and other marginalized groups .
We also acknowledge that the policing and criminal justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stacked against those same communities .
Your concerns are valid and necessary , and we encourage and , in fact , rely on your active engagement with us to make your school and our society equitable and safe for everyone .
That said , while the University has every intention to continue improving NUPD , we have absolutely no intention to abolish it .
Northwestern firmly supports vigorous debate and the free expression of ideas — abiding principles that are fundamental for our University .
We encourage members of our community to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for causes they believe in — and to do so safely and peacefully .
The University protects the right to protest , but we do not condone breaking the law .
What started as peaceful protests have recently grown into expressions that have been anything but peaceful or productive .
Crowds blocked the streets of downtown Evanston and nearby residential areas , disrupting businesses and local families , defacing property and violating laws and University standards .
Some of the instigators appear not to be Northwestern students at all , but rather outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are just trying to get our attention , that is simply not true .
Several administrators — including our Provost , Deans , Interim Chief Diversity Officer and Vice Presidents for Research and Student Affairs — have held numerous discussions with concerned students , faculty and staff , and I am participating in a community dialogue tomorrow evening that was scheduled weeks ago .
Events in recent days seem to indicate an intent by organizers to escalate matters , and to provoke NUPD into retaliation .
I condemn , in the strongest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters .
They have no right to menace members of our academic and surrounding communities .
When students and other participants are vandalizing property , lighting fires and spray-painting phrases such as “ kill the pigs , ” we have moved well past legitimate forms of free speech .
I want to offer a personal illustration of the pain these protesters have caused .
Many gathered outside my home this weekend into the early hours of the morning , chanting “ f— you Morty ” and “ piggy Morty.
” The latter comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observant Jews like myself .
Whether it was done out of ignorance or out of anti-Semitism , it is completely unacceptable , and I ask them to consider how their parents and siblings would feel if a group came to their homes in the middle of the night to wake up their families with such vile and personal attacks .
To those protesters and their supporters who justify such actions , I ask you to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that this isn ’ t actually “ speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause .
It is an abomination and you should be ashamed of yourselves .
An essential aspect of education is the discernment of actions and consequences .
If you , as a member of the Northwestern community , violate rules and laws , I am making it abundantly clear that you will be held accountable .
If you haven ’ t yet gotten my point , I am disgusted by those who chose to disgrace this University in such a fashion .
I especially condemn the effect of their actions on our friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community who are trying to sustain viable businesses , raise families , study and do research , while facing a global pandemic and the injustices of the world without losing their sense of humanity .
I remain as open and willing as ever to speak to any member of the Northwestern family who has concerns about the safety of this campus and everyone who is part of it .
But I refuse to engage with individuals who continue to use the tactics of intimidation and violence .

As I’ve long joked, I think truth in advertising for college presidencies would require the job qualification clause, “Spinal removal surgery necessary.” And among university presidents I have regarded suspiciously (which is nearly all of them) is Northwestern’s Morton Schapiro.
I may need to rethink my attitude about Shapiro. Unsurprisingly there is a critical mass of radical students and leftist hangers-on who are demanding that Northwestern University abolish its campus police department. The mob decided to take their protest to President Schapiro’s residence in the middle of the night, shouting obscenities at Shapiro. There have also been predictable breaches of the “mostly peaceful” protests involving arson and vandalism. President Schapiro has sent the following letter to the Northwestern community:
Dear members of the Northwestern community,
Over the weekend I received many messages of concern about protests organized by some of our students, among others, who are demanding the abolition of the Northwestern University Police Department.
We, as a University, recognize the many injustices faced by Black and other marginalized groups. We also acknowledge that the policing and criminal justice system in our country is too often stacked against those same communities. Your concerns are valid and necessary, and we encourage and, in fact, rely on your active engagement with us to make your school and our society equitable and safe for everyone. That said, while the University has every intention to continue improving NUPD, we have absolutely no intention to abolish it.
Northwestern firmly supports vigorous debate and the free expression of ideas — abiding principles that are fundamental for our University. We encourage members of our community to find meaningful ways to get involved and advocate for causes they believe in — and to do so safely and peacefully. The University protects the right to protest, but we do not condone breaking the law.
What started as peaceful protests have recently grown into expressions that have been anything but peaceful or productive. Crowds blocked the streets of downtown Evanston and nearby residential areas, disrupting businesses and local families, defacing property and violating laws and University standards. Some of the instigators appear not to be Northwestern students at all, but rather outside activists.
While the protesters claim that they are just trying to get our attention, that is simply not true. Several administrators — including our Provost, Deans, Interim Chief Diversity Officer and Vice Presidents for Research and Student Affairs — have held numerous discussions with concerned students, faculty and staff, and I am participating in a community dialogue tomorrow evening that was scheduled weeks ago.
Events in recent days seem to indicate an intent by organizers to escalate matters, and to provoke NUPD into retaliation.
I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the overstepping of the protesters. They have no right to menace members of our academic and surrounding communities. When students and other participants are vandalizing property, lighting fires and spray-painting phrases such as “kill the pigs,” we have moved well past legitimate forms of free speech.
I want to offer a personal illustration of the pain these protesters have caused. Many gathered outside my home this weekend into the early hours of the morning, chanting “f— you Morty” and “piggy Morty.” The latter comes dangerously close to a longstanding trope against observant Jews like myself. Whether it was done out of ignorance or out of anti-Semitism, it is completely unacceptable, and I ask them to consider how their parents and siblings would feel if a group came to their homes in the middle of the night to wake up their families with such vile and personal attacks. To those protesters and their supporters who justify such actions, I ask you to take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that this isn’t actually “speaking truth to power” or furthering your cause. It is an abomination and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
An essential aspect of education is the discernment of actions and consequences. If you, as a member of the Northwestern community, violate rules and laws, I am making it abundantly clear that you will be held accountable.
If you haven’t yet gotten my point, I am disgusted by those who chose to disgrace this University in such a fashion. I especially condemn the effect of their actions on our friends, neighbors and other members of our community who are trying to sustain viable businesses, raise families, study and do research, while facing a global pandemic and the injustices of the world without losing their sense of humanity.
I remain as open and willing as ever to speak to any member of the Northwestern family who has concerns about the safety of this campus and everyone who is part of it. But I refuse to engage with individuals who continue to use the tactics of intimidation and violence.


powerlineblog--2020-10-22--Portrait of the mediocrity as a young man

Kyle Smith of NRO writes about what he calls a “ bizarre and revealing ” interview of Joe Biden from 1974 .
The interview was conducted by Kitty Kelly and resulted in this profile .
Readers of a certain age may remember Kitty Kelly .
Smith ’ s description of the interview as bizarre and revealing is accurate .
So is his statement that “ Biden emerges as arrogant and determined to make more money , one way or another.
” I was struck by Biden ’ s homage to the physical appearance and “ sensuality ” of his first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years earlier in a car crash .
Biden showed Kelly a picture of Neilia in a bikini and said : He boasted about their sex life , stating : Talking about his early days as a campaigner , Biden offered too much information : At first [ Neilia ] stayed at home with the kids while I campaigned but that didn ’ t work out because I ’ d come back too tired to talk to her .
I might satisfy her in bed but I didn ’ t have much time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Fredo like , his own intelligence .
“ I ’ m smart , ” he declared .
He also insisted , “ I know I can be a good President.
” “ I know I could have easily made the White House with Neilia , ” he added .
Biden represented himself to Kelly as a “ football hero ” at the time he met Neilia .
But he also said he met her during a college vacation .
Biden never played a down of football in college .
At various points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lied about his ( non-existent ) college football career .
Some of Biden ’ s comments ( though not the lying about football ) remind me of a certain incumbent president .
I can easily imagine what leftist doctors and armchair psychologist would say about Trump had Kelly written the same profile about him .
Finally , there was this throwaway line : It turns out that Biden isn ’ t just prejudiced against Blacks .
He is ( or was ) anti-Semitic , too .

Kyle Smith of NRO writes about what he calls a “bizarre and revealing” interview of Joe Biden from 1974. The interview was conducted by Kitty Kelly and resulted in this profile. Readers of a certain age may remember Kitty Kelly.
Smith’s description of the interview as bizarre and revealing is accurate. So is his statement that “Biden emerges as arrogant and determined to make more money, one way or another.”
I was struck by Biden’s homage to the physical appearance and “sensuality” of his first wife, Neilia. She had died two years earlier in a car crash.
Biden showed Kelly a picture of Neilia in a bikini and said:
She had the best body of any woman I ever saw. She looks better than a Playboy bunny, doesn’t she?
He boasted about their sex life, stating:
The longer we lived together the more we enjoyed everything from sex to sports. Most guys don’t really know what I lost because they never knew what I had.
Talking about his early days as a campaigner, Biden offered too much information:
At first [Neilia] stayed at home with the kids while I campaigned but that didn’t work out because I’d come back too tired to talk to her. I might satisfy her in bed but I didn’t have much time for anything else.
Biden also touted, Fredo like, his own intelligence. “I’m smart,” he declared. He also insisted, “I know I can be a good President.” “I know I could have easily made the White House with Neilia,” he added.
Biden represented himself to Kelly as a “football hero” at the time he met Neilia. But he also said he met her during a college vacation. Biden never played a down of football in college. At various points in his political career, Biden has lied about his (non-existent) college football career.
Some of Biden’s comments (though not the lying about football) remind me of a certain incumbent president. I can easily imagine what leftist doctors and armchair psychologist would say about Trump had Kelly written the same profile about him.
Finally, there was this throwaway line:
Biden tells [Sen. Tom Eagleton] a joke with an antisemitic punchline and asks that it be off the record.
It turns out that Biden isn’t just prejudiced against Blacks. He is (or was) anti-Semitic, too.
Joe Biden: Equal opportunity bigot.


powerlineblog--2020-10-22--My New Hero: Kemi Badenoch

My New Hero: Kemi Badenoch

“ Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
” Winston Churchill “ Proclaim Liberty throughout @ @ @ @ @ the Inhabitants Thereof.
” Inscription on the Liberty Bell

“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell


powerlineblog--2020-10-22--Joe Biden’s excuse for forcing Ukraine to sack its chief prosecutor is bogus

There is no dispute that , as vice president and point man on U.S. policy towards Ukraine , Joe Biden caused the Ukrainian government to sack its lead prosecutor , Viktor Shokin .
Biden has bragged about doing so .
There is also evidence that , before his removal , Shokin was investigating Burisma , the shady company on whose board Hunter Biden served .
And there ’ s no dispute that Hunter Biden had no background relevant to Ukraine or the work Burisma did .
He has acknowledged that , but for his status as Joe Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked to serve on Burisma ’ s board .
However , Joe Biden has claimed that he had the Ukrainian prosecutor dumped not to help Burisma , but to combat corruption .
According to Joe and his defenders , the prosecutor in question wasn ’ t doing enough in this regard .
But if a desire to combat corruption was the reason for Joe Biden ’ s involvement in what normally would be a decision for the Ukrainian government to make on its own , it should be the case that Ukraine replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong , competent prosecutor who could be expected to take a tough action against corruption .
However , Glenn Greenwald shows that this wasn ’ t the case .
Indeed , he calls Yuriy Lutsenko , Shokin ’ s replacement as prosecutor , “ a joke.
” Greenwald writes : In a prior job , Lutsenko had been jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office ( but released after a few years for reasons of his health ) .
Earlier in his career , he had resigned as interior minister after being detained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disorderly .
One Ukrainian reformer said this about Luchenko ’ s elevation to top prosecutor : Burisma and the oligarchs who ran it were among the “ untouchables.
” It seems clear , therefore , that Joe Biden ’ s motive in demanding the removal of Shokin was not , as Greenwald puts it , “ noble anti-corruption fervor.
” Biden wasn ’ t interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine .
Otherwise , he would have used the same power he exercised in dumping Shokin to replace him with a serious prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Promoting his son ’ s business dealings , from some of which he ( “ the big guy ” ) apparently got a cut .

There is no dispute that, as vice president and point man on U.S. policy towards Ukraine, Joe Biden caused the Ukrainian government to sack its lead prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Biden has bragged about doing so.
There is also evidence that, before his removal, Shokin was investigating Burisma, the shady company on whose board Hunter Biden served. And there’s no dispute that Hunter Biden had no background relevant to Ukraine or the work Burisma did. He has acknowledged that, but for his status as Joe Biden’s son, he would not have been asked to serve on Burisma’s board.
However, Joe Biden has claimed that he had the Ukrainian prosecutor dumped not to help Burisma, but to combat corruption. According to Joe and his defenders, the prosecutor in question wasn’t doing enough in this regard.
But if a desire to combat corruption was the reason for Joe Biden’s involvement in what normally would be a decision for the Ukrainian government to make on its own, it should be the case that Ukraine replaced its allegedly lax chief prosecutor with a strong, competent prosecutor who could be expected to take a tough action against corruption.
However, Glenn Greenwald shows that this wasn’t the case. Indeed, he calls Yuriy Lutsenko, Shokin’s replacement as prosecutor, “a joke.” Greenwald writes:
Not only was the new prosecutor appointed after Biden coerced the Ukrainian Government someone with no legal experience [note, or even a law degree], he himself had a history of corruption.
In a prior job, Lutsenko had been jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office (but released after a few years for reasons of his health). Earlier in his career, he had resigned as interior minister after being detained by police in Frankfurt for being drunk and disorderly.
One Ukrainian reformer said this about Lutsenko’s elevation to top prosecutor:
All his actions will be the imitation of work. The basic idea is making sure nothing gets done. It is clear that the oligarchs will be untouchable, that the basic units of kleptocracy in the SBU [security service], courts and prosecutors will also remain intact.
Burisma and the oligarchs who ran it were among the “untouchables.”
It seems clear, therefore, that Joe Biden’s motive in demanding the removal of Shokin was not, as Greenwald puts it, “noble anti-corruption fervor.” Biden wasn’t interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine. Otherwise, he would have used the same power he exercised in dumping Shokin to replace him with a serious prosecutor.
What was Joe Biden interested in? Promoting his son’s business dealings, from some of which he (“the big guy”) apparently got a cut.


powerlineblog--2020-10-22--Trump moves to fill Judge Barrett’s court of appeals seat

The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to advance Amy Coney Barrett ’ s Supreme Court nomination to the Senate floor .
The Senate is expected to vote on Monday , with confirmation seemingly in the bag .
The Judiciary Committee vote was unanimous .
Democrats boycotted the session .
Committee rules require that two members of the minority party to be present for business to be conducted .
However , chairman Lindsey Graham proceeded with the vote anyway .
“ We ’ re not going to allow [ Democrats ] to take over the committee , ” he stated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ replacement for Judge Barrett on the Seventh Circuit Court Appeals .
The nominee is Thomas Kirsch , age 46 , currently the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana .
A Harvard Law graduate , Kirsch has also served as counsel to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ ’ s Office of Legal Policy .
He also has experience in private practice as a partner at a major law firm where he handled complex litigation .
I understand that Vice President Pence , a fellow Hoosier , advocated Kirsch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In any event , Kirsch seems well qualified for the position , given his high level experience in both criminal and civil litigation .
The Senate approved Kirsch ’ s nomination for U.S. Attorney by a voice vote .
This time around , he will face fierce opposition from Democrats .
However , Republicans have the votes to confirm Kirsch and enough time ( approximately two months ) in which to get it done .
Barring unforeseen developments , Kirsch will be confirmed by the end of the year .

The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to advance Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination to the Senate floor. The Senate is expected to vote on Monday, with confirmation seemingly in the bag.
The Judiciary Committee vote was unanimous. Democrats boycotted the session.
Committee rules require that two members of the minority party to be present for business to be conducted. However, chairman Lindsey Graham proceeded with the vote anyway. “We’re not going to allow [Democrats] to take over the committee,” he stated.
Meanwhile, President Trump has nominated a replacement for Judge Barrett on the Seventh Circuit Court Appeals. The nominee is Thomas Kirsch, age 46, currently the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana.
A Harvard Law graduate, Kirsch has also served as counsel to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy. He also has experience in private practice as a partner at a major law firm where he handled complex litigation.
I understand that Vice President Pence, a fellow Hoosier, advocated Kirsch’s nomination to the Seventh Circuit. In any event, Kirsch seems well qualified for the position, given his high level experience in both criminal and civil litigation.
The Senate approved Kirsch’s nomination for U.S. Attorney by a voice vote. This time around, he will face fierce opposition from Democrats.
However, Republicans have the votes to confirm Kirsch and enough time (approximately two months) in which to get it done. Barring unforeseen developments, Kirsch will be confirmed by the end of the year.


I’m with her


powerlineblog--2020-10-22--The Biden Influence Empire Is Unraveling [Updated]

Fox News has more on the Biden family ’ s dealings with the Chinese Communists .
This information doesn ’ t come from Hunter Biden ’ s laptop , but rather from the Gmail account of one of the Bidens ’ former associates who is now in prison : A list of “ key domestic contacts ” for a joint venture involving Jim and Hunter Biden and now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co. included former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s current running mate Sen. Kamala Harris , among other prominent Democrats , Fox News has learned .
*** The list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. ; Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. ; Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. ; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand , D-N.Y. ; New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ; New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio ; former Virginia Gov .
Terry McCauliffe , among others .
But that isn ’ t the big news .
The big news is that a Biden insider is going public : [ Tony ] Bobulinksi was an institutional investor who was recruited by the Biden family to run their joint-venture with now-bankrupt CEFC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy , and served as the CEO of SinoHawk Holdings , which he said was the partnership between the CEFC/ Chairman Ye and the Biden family .
“ I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden , ” Bobulinski said in a statement to Fox News .
“ The reference to “ the Big Guy ” in the much-publicized May 13 , 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden .
The other “ JB ” referenced in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s brother.
” *** Bobulinski , in a statement to Fox News , said “ Hunter Biden called his dad ‘ the Big Guy ’ or ‘ my Chairman , ’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing.
” “ I ’ ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business , ” Bobulinski said “ I ’ ve seen firsthand that that ’ s not true , because it wasn ’ t just Hunter ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.
” He added : “ I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI .
They were looking at this as a political or influence investment.
” “ Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese , I took steps to prevent that from happening , ” Bobulinski said , adding that he asks “ the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant — and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those questions for them.
” Bobulinski said he doesn ’ t “ have a political ax to grind.
” “ I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw , ” he said .
“ The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist-controlled China .
”

Fox News has more on the Biden family’s dealings with the Chinese Communists. This information doesn’t come from Hunter Biden’s laptop, but rather from the Gmail account of one of the Bidens’ former associates who is now in prison:
A list of “key domestic contacts” for a joint venture involving Jim and Hunter Biden and now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co. included former Vice President Joe Biden’s current running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, among other prominent Democrats, Fox News has learned. *** The list, included Harris, D-Calif.; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo; New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio; former Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe, among others.
But that isn’t the big news. The big news is that a Biden insider is going public:
[Tony] Bobulinksi was an institutional investor who was recruited by the Biden family to run their joint-venture with now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.
Bobulinski is a former Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, and served as the CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, which he said was the partnership between the CEFC/ Chairman Ye and the Biden family.
“I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden,” Bobulinski said in a statement to Fox News. “The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much-publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.”
***
Bobulinski, in a statement to Fox News, said “Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing.”
“I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business,” Bobulinski said “I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.”
He added: “ I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment.”
“Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening,” Bobulinski said, adding that he asks “the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant — and so I am not put in a position to have to answer those questions for them.”
Bobulinski said he doesn’t “have a political ax to grind.”
“I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw,” he said. “The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist-controlled China.”


Tonight’s debate

If President Trump loses the election , I believe it will be because voters aren ’ t satisfied with his response to the Wuhan coronavirus and/or with the way he conducts himself .
If Joe Biden loses the election , it will be because Americans don ’ t think he ’ s up to the job , or because they think his administration will be too radical , or ( and this is a longshot ) because they think he and his son used Biden ’ s vice presidency to make money in China and Ukraine .
Did tonight ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these reasons for voting against Trump or Biden ?
I don ’ t think Trump moved the needle on the coronavirus .
Once again , he did not answer Biden ’ s allegation that he knew in January what a serious threat the virus posed but didn ’ t tell the American people because he didn ’ t want them to panic .
Trump did conduct himself much better tonight than he did in the first debate .
However , I think that after four years , voters ’ impressions of his behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters who were inclined to move away from Trump after the way he handled himself in the first debate .
If they watched tonight , some within this group may move back into his column .
So Trump might gain some benefit from tonight ’ s performance by virtue of behaving better .
However , any benefit is likely to be quite small .
As for Biden , he did well enough tonight to dispel the notion that he ’ s not up to the job of being president .
He stumbled over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the night wore on .
However , in my view he never looked like a man with diminished capacity .
Biden tried hard to assuage fears that he will govern from the far left .
I think he made a plausible-sounding case that he won ’ t socialize our medicine ( though I ’ m pretty sure he will ) .
I think he was effective when he chided Trump for being “ confused ” about whether the Democratic nominee is Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders .
Trump never really showed that Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( though I believe he is ) .
But Biden confessed to wanting to phase out the oil and gas industry .
He also said that , if elected , he will promptly move to create a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants .
And he assented more than he should have to the notion that America is racist .
Some or all of these positions may cost him votes he might otherwise have received .
In fact , I believe his position on oil and gas will cost him a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s admission was probably the most significant thing that happened in the debate .
Biden denied having ever said he would ban fracking .
This , I believe , is a lie .
If so , and if the Trump campaign presses the point effectively , this will cost Biden votes .
As to the issue of Biden ’ s corruption , Trump may have planted a seed , but the format didn ’ t afford him the opportunity to make it grow .
And Biden was reasonably effective , I think , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter of Trump ’ s tax returns .
The NBC moderator ( an improvement over Chris Wallace , but that ’ s a very low bar ) helped Biden by not pressing him hard on the matter .
She did ask Biden whether his son had done anything inappropriate or unethical in his business dealings .
Biden simply said that Hunter hadn ’ t , and the matter was left there .
Still , Trump ’ s reference to Biden as “ the big man ” in Hunter ’ s operation might at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the mainstream media has tried to suppress .
Whether , in the time left , Trump can gain traction with this theme remains to be seen .
I hope I ’ m wrong , but my guess is that the issue won ’ t really take hold until after the election .
It will , however , cast a big cloud on Biden ’ s presidency if he wins .
Who won the debate ?
I would give it to Trump narrowly on points .
However , for the reasons discussed above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is extremely close , tonight ’ s debate won ’ t affect its outcome .

If President Trump loses the election, I believe it will be because voters aren’t satisfied with his response to the Wuhan coronavirus and/or with the way he conducts himself. If Joe Biden loses the election, it will be because Americans don’t think he’s up to the job, or because they think his administration will be too radical, or (and this is a longshot) because they think he and his son used Biden’s vice presidency to make money in China and Ukraine.
Did tonight’s debate cement or dispel any of these reasons for voting against Trump or Biden?
I don’t think Trump moved the needle on the coronavirus. Once again, he did not answer Biden’s allegation that he knew in January what a serious threat the virus posed but didn’t tell the American people because he didn’t want them to panic.
Trump did conduct himself much better tonight than he did in the first debate. However, I think that after four years, voters’ impressions of his behavior are fixed.
There are probably some voters who were inclined to move away from Trump after the way he handled himself in the first debate. If they watched tonight, some within this group may move back into his column. So Trump might gain some benefit from tonight’s performance by virtue of behaving better. However, any benefit is likely to be quite small.
As for Biden, he did well enough tonight to dispel the notion that he’s not up to the job of being president. He stumbled over his words at times, especially as the night wore on. However, in my view he never looked like a man with diminished capacity.
Biden tried hard to assuage fears that he will govern from the far left. I think he made a plausible-sounding case that he won’t socialize our medicine (though I’m pretty sure he will). I think he was effective when he chided Trump for being “confused” about whether the Democratic nominee is Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. Trump never really showed that Biden is a stalking horse for the left (though I believe he is).
But Biden confessed to wanting to phase out the oil and gas industry. He also said that, if elected, he will promptly move to create a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants. And he assented more than he should have to the notion that America is racist.
Some or all of these positions may cost him votes he might otherwise have received. In fact, I believe his position on oil and gas will cost him a considerable number of votes. Biden’s admission was probably the most significant thing that happened in the debate.
Biden denied having ever said he would ban fracking. This, I believe, is a lie. If so, and if the Trump campaign presses the point effectively, this will cost Biden votes.
As to the issue of Biden’s corruption, Trump may have planted a seed, but the format didn’t afford him the opportunity to make it grow. And Biden was reasonably effective, I think, in dodging the issue by raising the matter of Trump’s tax returns.
The NBC moderator (an improvement over Chris Wallace, but that’s a very low bar) helped Biden by not pressing him hard on the matter. She did ask Biden whether his son had done anything inappropriate or unethical in his business dealings. Biden simply said that Hunter hadn’t, and the matter was left there.
Still, Trump’s reference to Biden as “the big man” in Hunter’s operation might at least alert voters to this issue, which the mainstream media has tried to suppress. Whether, in the time left, Trump can gain traction with this theme remains to be seen.
I hope I’m wrong, but my guess is that the issue won’t really take hold until after the election. It will, however, cast a big cloud on Biden’s presidency if he wins.
Who won the debate? I would give it to Trump narrowly on points. However, for the reasons discussed above, I conclude that unless this election is extremely close, tonight’s debate won’t affect its outcome.


powerlineblog--2020-10-23--Nice Job by Trump

Nice Job by Trump

Tonight ’ s debate went well for President Trump , I thought .
The moderator was pro-Biden ; she didn ’ t ask him any hard questions and avoided the subjects where he is most vulnerable .
But that was a given .
She was considerably better than Chris Wallace , and better than most .
Unlike the first debate , President Trump stayed calm and in control .
His answers were generally sharp and he got in plenty of shots against Joe Biden .
Biden didn ’ t do too badly , probably reflecting the fact that he rested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he faded noticeably as the evening wore on .
Maybe the most significant moment was when Biden admitted ( no surprise to anyone who has paid attention ) that his administration would phase out oil and gas production–not exactly a winning platform .
Trump also came back repeatedly to the theme that Biden is full of promises , but what did he accomplish when he was in Washington for 47 years and Vice President for 8 ?
Biden could only respond by implicitly throwing Barack Obama under the bus .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s longstanding corruption , which Biden could answer only with blanket denials .
One striking thing about Biden is how often he lies .
He apparently feels secure in the knowledge that all press “ fact checkers ” are members of his party ; otherwise he might hesitate to tell such bald-face whoppers .
No doubt he will , for now , get away with his offenses against truth .
But I think his chances of winning the election grew a little dimmer tonight .

Tonight’s debate went well for President Trump, I thought. The moderator was pro-Biden; she didn’t ask him any hard questions and avoided the subjects where he is most vulnerable. But that was a given. She was considerably better than Chris Wallace, and better than most.
Unlike the first debate, President Trump stayed calm and in control. His answers were generally sharp and he got in plenty of shots against Joe Biden. Biden didn’t do too badly, probably reflecting the fact that he rested up for several days before the event. But he faded noticeably as the evening wore on.
Maybe the most significant moment was when Biden admitted (no surprise to anyone who has paid attention) that his administration would phase out oil and gas production–not exactly a winning platform.
Trump also came back repeatedly to the theme that Biden is full of promises, but what did he accomplish when he was in Washington for 47 years and Vice President for 8? Biden could only respond by implicitly throwing Barack Obama under the bus. And there were plenty of references to Biden’s longstanding corruption, which Biden could answer only with blanket denials.
One striking thing about Biden is how often he lies. He apparently feels secure in the knowledge that all press “fact checkers” are members of his party; otherwise he might hesitate to tell such bald-face whoppers. No doubt he will, for now, get away with his offenses against truth. But I think his chances of winning the election grew a little dimmer tonight.


powerlineblog--2020-10-23--Foreign Policy? What’s That?

Foreign Policy? What’s That?

Some presidential elections have been dominated by foreign policy issues .
Not this one .
In fact , has it @ @ @ @ @ of the two presidential debates ?
Does Joe Biden ever talk about it ?
Scott @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy where the President reigns supreme .
Most talk about what a presidential candidate @ @ @ @ @ by $ 4 trillion !
–is hypothetical at best , since presidents propose legislation , @ @ @ @ @ Or doesn ’ t .
And yet , foreign policy apparently is not even an @ @ @ @ @ s campaign .
To some degree , this may be due to a tendency among @ @ @ @ @ and not to worry about foreign policy unless something is going wrong .
Like a @ @ @ @ @ I think it is due to the liberal media ’ s determination not to give @ @ @ @ @ , combined with its inability to criticize his foreign policy record .

Some presidential elections have been dominated by foreign policy issues. Not this one. In fact, has it even been mentioned in either of the two presidential debates? Does Joe Biden ever talk about it? Scott Adams comments:
How would you like to run for president against an incumbent who did so well on foreign policy that the debates don't even need to include that topic? That's actually happening. — Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) October 22, 2020
It is foreign policy where the President reigns supreme. Most talk about what a presidential candidate will do if elected–raise taxes by $4 trillion!–is hypothetical at best, since presidents propose legislation, but Congress enacts it. Or doesn’t.
And yet, foreign policy apparently is not even an issue in this year’s campaign. To some degree, this may be due to a tendency among Americans to be insular, and not to worry about foreign policy unless something is going wrong. Like a war. But mostly, I think it is due to the liberal media’s determination not to give President Trump credit for anything, combined with its inability to criticize his foreign policy record.


powerlineblog--2020-10-23--Biden’s biggest asset is his lie-ability

Apologies for recycling this tired lawyer joke , but it popped into my head after last night ’ s debate .
And with good reason .
Biden lied repeatedly throughout the affair .
Scott has pointed to three of Biden ’ s major lies .
Biden claimed he has never opposed fracking .
That ’ s not true .
Even CNN ’ s fact checker said so .
Biden also asserted that not a single person lost his private health insurance under Obamacare .
That ’ s not true .
As Scott points out , Politifact named Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health plan , you can keep it ” the lie of the year in 2013 .
President Obama apologized for saying this .
Yet , there was Joe Biden regurgitating the lie last night .
He must figure ( 1 ) the American people have short memories and ( 2 ) the mainstream media won ’ t refresh them .
Lie number three is Biden ’ s claim that he didn ’ t condemn Trump ’ s shutdown of travel from China in January as “ xenophobic.
” Biden ’ s denial is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ xenophobic fear mongering ” for banning travel from China .
Biden ’ s lying did not stop with these three whoppers .
In fact , it commenced with the third sentence out of Biden ’ s mouth last night .
He claimed that Trump said the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic would end by Easter .
Trump did not .
The president expressed his hope that the country could reopen by Easter .
However , he never said we ’ d be able to reopen then , must less that the pandemic would end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the second sentence out of Biden ’ s mouth was that , in dealing with the virus , he would look to the scientists .
However , in the Winter of this year , the “ scientists ” and other key advisers on Biden ’ s team were saying that the coronavirus was nothing much to worry about .
Here ’ s another Biden lie from last night : “ There is no evidence that when you raise the minimum wage , businesses go out of business ; that is simply not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such evidence .
This article in the Washington Post cites some of it .
John Brennan , himself a liar , would probably say anything Biden asked him to .
However , neither Brennan , nor any other former CIA director , nor any former national intelligence official has publicly made the statement Biden attributed to them .
In fact , they have disavowed Biden ’ s claim .
Their letter says : At this point , no serious doubt exists that the documents are , indeed , genuine .
Even Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the non-denial variety .
But his non-denial denial contained a lie .
Biden claimed he never took any money from a foreign country .
But texts from one of Hunter Biden ’ s associates show that Joe was due a 10 percent share of the money from a deal Hunter was arranging .
And Hunter complained to his daughter that he had to kick back half of his “ salary ” — the money he made peddling his Joe ’ s influence and name — to “ Pop.
” Biden told a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminals he targeted in his 1990s crime bill ( a disproportionate share of whom were Black ) “ super predators.
” He called them predators .
It was Hillary Clinton who called them super predators .
Americans are deluding themselves if they believe we would get an upgrade in presidential honesty were Joe Biden to be elected .

Apologies for recycling this tired lawyer joke, but it popped into my head after last night’s debate. And with good reason. Biden lied repeatedly throughout the affair.
Scott has pointed to three of Biden’s major lies. Biden claimed he has never opposed fracking. That’s not true. Even CNN’s fact checker said so.
Biden also asserted that not a single person lost his private health insurance under Obamacare. That’s not true. As Scott points out, Politifact named Obama’s promise that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it” the lie of the year in 2013.
President Obama apologized for saying this. Yet, there was Joe Biden regurgitating the lie last night. He must figure (1) the American people have short memories and (2) the mainstream media won’t refresh them.
Lie number three is Biden’s claim that he didn’t condemn Trump’s shutdown of travel from China in January as “xenophobic.” Biden’s denial is not true. Biden accused Trump of “xenophobic fear mongering” for banning travel from China.
Biden’s lying did not stop with these three whoppers. In fact, it commenced with the third sentence out of Biden’s mouth last night. He claimed that Trump said the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic would end by Easter. Trump did not.
The president expressed his hope that the country could reopen by Easter. However, he never said we’d be able to reopen then, must less that the pandemic would end at that time.
By the way, the second sentence out of Biden’s mouth was that, in dealing with the virus, he would look to the scientists. However, in the Winter of this year, the “scientists” and other key advisers on Biden’s team were saying that the coronavirus was nothing much to worry about.
Here’s another Biden lie from last night: “There is no evidence that when you raise the minimum wage, businesses go out of business; that is simply not true.” Actually, there is plenty of such evidence. This article in the Washington Post cites some of it.
Biden lied when he asserted:
There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said what he’s accusing me of [regarding Hunter Biden’s business dealings and Joe Biden’s enrichment therefrom) is a Russian plant. Five former heads of the CIA — both parties — say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.
John Brennan, himself a liar, would probably say anything Biden asked him to. However, neither Brennan, nor any other former CIA director, nor any former national intelligence official has publicly made the statement Biden attributed to them.
In fact, they have disavowed Biden’s claim. Their letter says:
We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement. [But] there are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.
(Emphasis added)
At this point, no serious doubt exists that the documents are, indeed, genuine. Even Joe Biden’s denial last night was of the non-denial variety. But his non-denial denial contained a lie.
This takes a special kind of liar.
Biden claimed he never took any money from a foreign country. But texts from one of Hunter Biden’s associates show that Joe was due a 10 percent share of the money from a deal Hunter was arranging. And Hunter complained to his daughter that he had to kick back half of his “salary” — the money he made peddling his Joe’s influence and name — to “Pop.”
Biden told a half truth when he denied calling the criminals he targeted in his 1990s crime bill (a disproportionate share of whom were Black) “super predators.” He called them predators. It was Hillary Clinton who called them super predators.
Americans are deluding themselves if they believe we would get an upgrade in presidential honesty were Joe Biden to be elected.


powerlineblog--2020-10-23--When You’ve Lost Gene Simmons . . .

When You’ve Lost Gene Simmons . . .

After a certain point it becomes wanton cruelty to keep dunking on California ’ s slow motion suicide , but some stories are too good to pass unremarked .
Today ’ s Wall Street Journal reports that rocker Gene Simmons is KISS-ing California goodbye and moving to no-income tax Washington state , and in high KISS-my-ass style : [ Simmons ] is now putting the property , which they later redeveloped into a sprawling European-style mansion , on the market for $ 22 million .
The reason : They are moving to a 24-acre estate in Washington , near Mount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of living in California , Mr. Simmons said .
“ California and Beverly Hills have been treating folks that create jobs badly and the tax rates are unacceptable , ” he said .
“ I work hard and pay my taxes and I don ’ t want to cry the Beverly Hills blues but enough is enough.
” But California won ’ t be the same without him .
How can such a person be replaced : Incidentally , if Joe Biden wins and his tax plans are enacted , California ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be 62 percent for high earners—a higher rate than in the days before the Reagan tax cuts of 1981 .
Back to the future indeed !

After a certain point it becomes wanton cruelty to keep dunking on California’s slow motion suicide, but some stories are too good to pass unremarked. Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that rocker Gene Simmons is KISS-ing California goodbye and moving to no-income tax Washington state, and in high KISS-my-ass style:
[Simmons] is now putting the property, which they later redeveloped into a sprawling European-style mansion, on the market for $22 million. The reason: They are moving to a 24-acre estate in Washington, near Mount Rainier, to escape the tax burden of living in California, Mr. Simmons said. “California and Beverly Hills have been treating folks that create jobs badly and the tax rates are unacceptable,” he said. “I work hard and pay my taxes and I don’t want to cry the Beverly Hills blues but enough is enough.”
But California won’t be the same without him. How can such a person be replaced:
Incidentally, if Joe Biden wins and his tax plans are enacted, California’s combined state-federal marginal income tax rate will be 62 percent for high earners—a higher rate than in the days before the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. Back to the future indeed!


powerlineblog--2020-10-23--The Biden family business

The Biden family business

Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal provides a summary of what Tony Bobulinski , backed up by documents , has to say about the business dealings of Joe and Hunter Biden .
Bobulinski , a former Navy officer and past supporter of Democrats , was Hunter Biden ’ s business partner .
Strassel ’ s entire article is well worth reading .
I want to focus on the portions of it that pertain directly to Joe Biden — aka “ the big guy.
” Joe Biden has denied any involvement in Hunter ’ s business dealings , including his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , and any claim that he stood to gain from such dealings .
Yet Bobulinski has produced a May 2017 “ expectations ” document showing Hunter receiving 20 percent of the equity in a venture with the Chinese and holding another 10 percent for “ the big guy , ” i.e .
Joe Biden .
The deal , which apparently fell through , involved CEFC , which had close connections with the Chinese government and military .
Bobulinski says he met with Joe Biden , and a text message refers to face-to-face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but not paranoid enough to forego his cut .
Other texts show that Joe Biden had final say in decisions of Hunter ’ s business .
One text , from Hunter , states : “ my Chairman gave an emphatic NO ” to a proposed deal .
Another , from a partner of the two , explains to Bobulinski that when Hunter “ said his chairman he was talking about his dad.
” Clearly , Joe Biden is lying when he denies involvement in Hunter ’ s business .
Indeed , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the shots .
Emails from Hunter himself confirm that the deal with CEFC was a Biden family affair .
When Bobulinski balked at the amount of money Hunter would be taking out of the deal for very little work ( Hunter thought he should take even more ) , Hunter fired back that the CEFC heads are “ coming to be MY partner to be partners with the Bidens.
” ( Emphasis added ) .
He added : “ [ I ] n this instance only one player holds the trump card @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be fair but it ’ s the reality because I ’ m the only one putting an entire family legacy on the line.
” ( Emphasis added ) Another partner backed Hunter , telling Bobulinski , “ I know why [ CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming ] wants the deal and what makes it enormous , It ’ s the family name.
” There can be no doubt that Hunter Biden was peddling his father ’ s name and influence .
And there can be no doubt that Joe Biden not only knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enterprise and is lying when he claims otherwise .

Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal provides a summary of what Tony Bobulinski, backed up by documents, has to say about the business dealings of Joe and Hunter Biden. Bobulinski, a former Navy officer and past supporter of Democrats, was Hunter Biden’s business partner.
Strassel’s entire article is well worth reading. I want to focus on the portions of it that pertain directly to Joe Biden — aka “the big guy.”
Joe Biden has denied any involvement in Hunter’s business dealings, including his dealings with CEFC China Energy (CEFC), and any claim that he stood to gain from such dealings. Yet Bobulinski has produced a May 2017 “expectations” document showing Hunter receiving 20 percent of the equity in a venture with the Chinese and holding another 10 percent for “the big guy,” i.e. Joe Biden. The deal, which apparently fell through, involved CEFC, which had close connections with the Chinese government and military.
Bobulinski says he met with Joe Biden, and a text message refers to face-to-face meetings:
Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.
(Emphasis added)
Joe may have been paranoid, but not paranoid enough to forego his cut.
Other texts show that Joe Biden had final say in decisions of Hunter’s business. One text, from Hunter, states: “my Chairman gave an emphatic NO” to a proposed deal. Another, from a partner of the two, explains to Bobulinski that when Hunter “said his chairman he was talking about his dad.”
Clearly, Joe Biden is lying when he denies involvement in Hunter’s business. Indeed, he appears to have called at least some of the shots.
Emails from Hunter himself confirm that the deal with CEFC was a Biden family affair. When Bobulinski balked at the amount of money Hunter would be taking out of the deal for very little work (Hunter thought he should take even more), Hunter fired back that the CEFC heads are “coming to be MY partner to be partners with the Bidens.” (Emphasis added). He added: “[I]n this instance only one player holds the trump card and that’s me. May not be fair but it’s the reality because I’m the only one putting an entire family legacy on the line.” (Emphasis added) Another partner backed Hunter, telling Bobulinski, “I know why [CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming] wants the deal and what makes it enormous, It’s the family name.”
There can be no doubt that Hunter Biden was peddling his father’s name and influence. And there can be no doubt that Joe Biden not only knew this, but was involved in the enterprise and is lying when he claims otherwise.


powerlineblog--2020-10-23--Lyin’ like a Biden

Lyin’ like a Biden

I have no idea who won the last night ’ s second and last presidential debate .
Perhaps most notably , Joe Biden effectively put his character up front to make his pitch against President Trump and lied like the proverbial rug at key points .
Anyone who knows anything knows it , too , but Biden seeks to exploit the ignorance of voters who don ’ t follow the news .
Take Biden ’ s statement that he has never opposed fracking , for example , and his invitation to “ go to the tape.
” He must have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fracking that Trump played at his Pennsylvania rally this week .
Let ’ s take up Biden ’ s invitation to go to the tape .
Trump can rightly claim credit for the energy development that has freed us from the the sheikdoms of the Middle East .
Our independence was an impossible dream and , just in case it wasn ’ t , they sought to hobble the industry .
We were supposed to reconcile ourselves to immiseration in the service of controlling the climate .
These people are nuts .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit for acknowledging his goal of killing the oil industry .
You lie like a Biden .
That is the new locution I propose coming out of last night ’ s debate .
Biden even regurgitated the great lie of Obamacare .
According to Biden , not a single person lost his private health insurance under Obamacare .
In 2013 Politifact made Obama ’ s promise If you like your health plan , you can keep it lie of the year .
As the Washington Examiner put it in an editorial late last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s most infamous lie.
” I know , it ’ s ancient history .
Perhaps it slipped Biden ’ s mind .
Perhaps he forgot .
However , Biden was vice president at the time .
He must remember if he ’ s got half a mind to be president .
Biden also asserted that he didn ’ t condemn Trump ’ s shutdown of travel from China in January as “ xenophobic.
” Straight from the left ’ s playbook of character assassination , this is now an inconvenient lie .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was talking about .
With a little help from Andrea Widburg , let ’ s go to the tweet .
Come on , man .
You lie like a Biden .
Biden made a Kinsley gaffe when he referred to Hunter Biden ’ s abandoned laptop as the “ laptop from hell.
” ( Or was it Trump who nailed it ? )
It is , but not in the sense that Biden intended ( if it was Biden who said it ) — the sense of “ Russia disinformation.
” No one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the laptop emails .
Russia , Russia , Russia !
What a crock .
As a player in the Russia hoax that sought to take Trump out , Biden deserves special recognition for his audacity retailing this particular whopper .

I have no idea who won the last night’s second and last presidential debate.
Perhaps most notably, Joe Biden effectively put his character up front to make his pitch against President Trump and lied like the proverbial rug at key points. Anyone who knows anything knows it, too, but Biden seeks to exploit the ignorance of voters who don’t follow the news.
Take Biden’s statement that he has never opposed fracking, for example, and his invitation to “go to the tape.” He must have missed the compilation of Biden statements on fracking that Trump played at his Pennsylvania rally this week. Let’s take up Biden’s invitation to go to the tape.
Trump can rightly claim credit for the energy development that has freed us from the the sheikdoms of the Middle East. Our independence was an impossible dream and, just in case it wasn’t, they sought to hobble the industry. We were supposed to reconcile ourselves to immiseration in the service of controlling the climate. These people are nuts. To be fair, however, Biden deserves credit for acknowledging his goal of killing the oil industry.
You lie like a Biden. That is the new locution I propose coming out of last night’s debate.
Biden even regurgitated the great lie of Obamacare. According to Biden, not a single person lost his private health insurance under Obamacare. In 2013 Politifact made Obama’s promise If you like your health plan, you can keep it lie of the year. As the Washington Examiner put it in an editorial late last night, “Joe Biden revived Obama’s most infamous lie.”
I know, it’s ancient history. Perhaps it slipped Biden’s mind. Perhaps he forgot. However, Biden was vice president at the time. He must remember if he’s got half a mind to be president.
Biden also asserted that he didn’t condemn Trump’s shutdown of travel from China in January as “xenophobic.” Straight from the left’s playbook of character assassination, this is now an inconvenient lie. Biden denied that’s what he was talking about.
With a little help from Andrea Widburg, let’s go to the tweet. Come on, man. You lie like a Biden.
Joe Biden called President Trump a xenophobe for closing our borders to China in response to coronavirus. #factsarefacts #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/0buleiQjkD — David Leatherwood (@brokebackUSA) October 23, 2020
Biden made a Kinsley gaffe when he referred to Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop as the “laptop from hell.” (Or was it Trump who nailed it?) It is, but not in the sense that Biden intended (if it was Biden who said it) — the sense of “Russia disinformation.” No one speaking for Biden has denied the authenticity of the laptop emails. Russia, Russia, Russia! What a crock. As a player in the Russia hoax that sought to take Trump out, Biden deserves special recognition for his audacity retailing this particular whopper.


powerlineblog--2020-10-23--It Will Be Hard to Carry Pennsylvania…  [Updated]

…or Ohio , or New Mexico , not to mention Texas , North Dakota or Louisiana ( not that he was going to win them anyway ) now that Joe Biden has made it clear that he wants to destroy the oil and gas industries .
Note , too , that Colorado , a state counted on by Democrats , produces four percent of American oil .
The Trump campaign quickly followed up on Biden ’ s admission in last night ’ s debate : I ’ d like to see similar ads in other states , especially Colorado and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do away with oil and gas .
Why on Earth would Joe Biden and many other Democrats , including Kamala Harris , advocate such an impractical idea ?
I think it is because they live in a bubble in which the fantasy of “ green ” energy is accepted as reality .
In fact , the laws of physics dictate that we will never get all , or most , of our energy from obsolete sources like wind and solar .
Liberals can dream to their hearts ’ content , and pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solar , but they might as well order the tides to stop rising .
It won ’ t happen .
Meanwhile , it is good that Biden is fully out of the closet on this important issue .
UPDATE : Vulnerable Democrats are distancing themselves from Biden ’ s rare burst of honesty .
So you know where the votes are .

…or Ohio, or New Mexico, not to mention Texas, North Dakota or Louisiana (not that he was going to win them anyway) now that Joe Biden has made it clear that he wants to destroy the oil and gas industries. Note, too, that Colorado, a state counted on by Democrats, produces four percent of American oil. The Trump campaign quickly followed up on Biden’s admission in last night’s debate:
I’d like to see similar ads in other states, especially Colorado and New Mexico.
It would be lunacy to do away with oil and gas. Why on Earth would Joe Biden and many other Democrats, including Kamala Harris, advocate such an impractical idea? I think it is because they live in a bubble in which the fantasy of “green” energy is accepted as reality. In fact, the laws of physics dictate that we will never get all, or most, of our energy from obsolete sources like wind and solar. Liberals can dream to their hearts’ content, and pass legislation demanding more and more wind and solar, but they might as well order the tides to stop rising. It won’t happen.
Meanwhile, it is good that Biden is fully out of the closet on this important issue.
UPDATE: Vulnerable Democrats are distancing themselves from Biden’s rare burst of honesty. So you know where the votes are.


powerlineblog--2020-10-24--Hamlet of the far north will vote to confirm Judge Barrett

Lisa Murkowski has announced that she will vote in favor of confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
It now appears that Susan Collins will be the only Republican Senator not to support Barrett ’ s confirmation .
Initially , Murkowski was opposed to confirming Barrett .
Her gripe , she said , was with the process .
That is , she opposed confirming a Supreme Court Justice , no matter how well qualified , in a presidential election year Then came word that Murkowski was not a definite “ no ” on confirming Barrett .
She would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up her mind .
Next , it was reported that Murkowski , after talking to Barrett , seemed to be sticking with her decision .
She did not rule out voting to confirm Barrett , though .
Today , Murkowski stated on the Senate floor that she will vote to confirm Barrett .
She reiterated that , in her view , Republicans should not be holding a vote on Barrett before the presidential election .
For this reason , she explained , she will oppose ending debate on the nomination — i.e.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But once the vote occurs , Murkowski will vote in favor of confirming Barrett because the nominee is well qualified , and it ’ s not her fault that the process ( in Murkowski ’ s view ) is flawed .
Got all that ?
This is a coherent , if strange , position .
I would note , however , that Murkowski has made an art form of tying herself in knots over whether to support confirming high quality conservative jurists nominated to the Supreme Court .
She agonized — we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to back Brett Kavanaugh ’ s nomination .
In the end she didn ’ t .
Now , she has agonized over whether to back Amy Barrett ’ s .
In the end , she will — sort of .
Just about every other Senator finds it easy enough to take a position in these cases .
For some reason , Murkowski finds it a monumentally difficult .

Lisa Murkowski has announced that she will vote in favor of confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. It now appears that Susan Collins will be the only Republican Senator not to support Barrett’s confirmation.
Initially, Murkowski was opposed to confirming Barrett. Her gripe, she said, was with the process. That is, she opposed confirming a Supreme Court Justice, no matter how well qualified, in a presidential election year
Then came word that Murkowski was not a definite “no” on confirming Barrett. She would meet with the nominee and then make up her mind.
Next, it was reported that Murkowski, after talking to Barrett, seemed to be sticking with her decision. She did not rule out voting to confirm Barrett, though.
Today, Murkowski stated on the Senate floor that she will vote to confirm Barrett. She reiterated that, in her view, Republicans should not be holding a vote on Barrett before the presidential election. For this reason, she explained, she will oppose ending debate on the nomination — i.e., oppose having a vote on confirmation.
But once the vote occurs, Murkowski will vote in favor of confirming Barrett because the nominee is well qualified, and it’s not her fault that the process (in Murkowski’s view) is flawed.
Got all that?
This is a coherent, if strange, position. I would note, however, that Murkowski has made an art form of tying herself in knots over whether to support confirming high quality conservative jurists nominated to the Supreme Court.
She agonized — we know because she told us — over whether to back Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. In the end she didn’t.
Now, she has agonized over whether to back Amy Barrett’s. In the end, she will — sort of.
Just about every other Senator finds it easy enough to take a position in these cases. For some reason, Murkowski finds it a monumentally difficult.


powerlineblog--2020-10-24--DOJ draws non-liberal judge in suit against Yale

I wrote here about the Department of Justice ’ s suit against Yale University for race discrimination in undergraduate admissions .
The action was filed in federal district court in Connecticut .
The DOJ has strong evidence of unlawful discrimination .
As importantly , the case falls within the jurisdiction of a reasonably hospitable court of appeals ( the Second Circuit ) , with the prospect of ultimately being decided by a Supreme Court that ( assuming it isn ’ t packed ) won ’ t be predisposed in favor of race-based admissions .
In addition , the district court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge — Charles S. Haight , Jr .
I was surprised by this news because I remember reading opinions by Judge Haight in the 1980s from the Southern District of New York .
I wondered whether this is this the same judge .
It is .
He was appointed by Gerald Ford to the SDNY .
Since taking senior status , Judge Haight , now 90 years old , sits by designation in Connecticut .
Judge Haight is probably a good draw for the DOJ .
According to this study he is slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting .
It assesses the ideological leanings of judges based on those of their law clerks , as measured by their contributions to political candidates .
This is probably a sound methodology when it comes to Supreme Court Justices and court of appeals judges .
Certainly , the findings for these two groups of jurists seem consistent with what we know about them from their opinion .
I ’ m less confident in using law clerks as ideological surrogates for district court judges .
However , I believe Judge Haight ’ s reputation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study .
There ’ s a wrinkle , though .
Haight received his undergraduate and his law degree from Yale .
In the case of DOJ ’ s discrimination claims , Haight ’ s status as a Yale alum could cut either way or , most likely , no way at all .
It ’ s worth noting , however .
In my mind , the big question is what will happen to the DOJ ’ s case if Joe Biden is elected president .
I assume a Biden administration would dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor discriminating in favor of Blacks and Latinos and against Whites and Asians in college admissions ( and much else ) .
However , if private plaintiffs intervene in the case , it can proceed even if the Justice Department bows out .
Naturally , I ’ m hoping for one or more intervenors with standing to pursue the case as presented by the DOJ .

I wrote here about the Department of Justice’s suit against Yale University for race discrimination in undergraduate admissions. The action was filed in federal district court in Connecticut.
The DOJ has strong evidence of unlawful discrimination. As importantly, the case falls within the jurisdiction of a reasonably hospitable court of appeals (the Second Circuit), with the prospect of ultimately being decided by a Supreme Court that (assuming it isn’t packed) won’t be predisposed in favor of race-based admissions.
In addition, the district court case has been assigned to a non-liberal judge — Charles S. Haight, Jr. I was surprised by this news because I remember reading opinions by Judge Haight in the 1980s from the Southern District of New York. I wondered whether this is this the same judge.
It is. He was appointed by Gerald Ford to the SDNY. Since taking senior status, Judge Haight, now 90 years old, sits by designation in Connecticut.
Judge Haight is probably a good draw for the DOJ. According to this study he is slightly right of center.
The study is interesting. It assesses the ideological leanings of judges based on those of their law clerks, as measured by their contributions to political candidates.
This is probably a sound methodology when it comes to Supreme Court Justices and court of appeals judges. Certainly, the findings for these two groups of jurists seem consistent with what we know about them from their opinions.
I’m less confident in using law clerks as ideological surrogates for district court judges. However, I believe Judge Haight’s reputation is generally consistent with his score in the study.
There’s a wrinkle, though. Haight received his undergraduate and his law degree from Yale.
In the case of DOJ’s discrimination claims, Haight’s status as a Yale alum could cut either way or, most likely, no way at all. It’s worth noting, however.
In my mind, the big question is what will happen to the DOJ’s case if Joe Biden is elected president. I assume a Biden administration would dismiss the case. Biden and his party favor discriminating in favor of Blacks and Latinos and against Whites and Asians in college admissions (and much else).
However, if private plaintiffs intervene in the case, it can proceed even if the Justice Department bows out. Naturally, I’m hoping for one or more intervenors with standing to pursue the case as presented by the DOJ.


Loose Ends (117)

• M. Stanton Evans , writing about The New Yorker , circa 1961 : “ No other journal so elegantly combines the comforts of privilege with the glamor of dissent.
” Some things never change .
• As your deep cover operative behind enemy lines in academia , I had the opportunity yesterday to see some deep-in-the-weeds survey data ( not to be confused with the daily horserace polls ) some left-leaning political scientists are hawking at the moment .
Among the interesting findings : —Young voters ages 18 – 30 are heavily for Joe Biden , by a 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are questions as to how strongly they will turn out .
Young voters tend to turn out somewhat weakly , except when a candidate excites them , as Obama did in 2008 .
Is there much excitement for Biden among youth ?
Hatred of Trump may be sufficient , but this is a large unknown variable .
Add to this the displacement of students from their campus environment where some may be registered and where get-out-the-vote efforts are more easily organized in normal times , and I can easily see a light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast already supposedly favor Biden ( assuming respondents are being truthful with surveyors that they have in fact cast their ballots ) , but of people saying they intend to vote in person on election day , Trump is ahead almost 3 to 1 in some states .
My conclusion : Trump is going to win a landslide among votes cast on election day .
But with more than 50 million votes or more being cast by mail , even a small lead may disappear in the week after , depending on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this point here . )
—Even among black voters who say they approve of Trump ’ s job performance , more than half intend to vote for Biden , reflecting the deep loyalty of black voters for the Democratic Party .
Once again the question is enthusiasm and turnout .
There is not much enthusiasm for Biden among black voters ; will dislike of Trump be a sufficient motivator for marginal black voters ?
Another imponderable .
—Bottom line : the political scientists I listened to believe Biden is ahead , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• The stock market continues to be twitchy , though it is holding up fairly well in general terms .
But I keep seeing the financial press , especially the Wall Street Journal and Barron ’ s , saying that the markets will be glad when the election is over because it will end “ uncertainty , ” and moreover that Wall Street is copacetic about a Biden victory .
This is wrongheaded in the extreme : If Biden wins , the uncertainty will just be getting started .
How much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get enacted , and will a Democratic Congress make it worse and even more punitive ?
What kind of regulation might we get from Treasury Secretary Elizabeth Warren and EPA administrator Mary Nichols ?
What kind of health care regulation will be get from HHS Secretary Wretched Gwitmer ?
• A blast from the past : Politico magazine did a big feature on “ Biden , Inc ” in August 2019 that is obviously relevant to the present moment but is strangely forgotten .
Here are the opening graphs : The day the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a memorable one .
In the late summer of 2006 Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter and Joe ’ s younger brother , James , purchased the firm .
On their first day on the job , they showed up with Joe ’ s other son , Beau , and two large men and ordered the hedge fund ’ s chief of compliance to fire its president , according to a Paradigm executive who was present .
After the firing , the two large men escorted the fund ’ s president out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and James Biden laid out his vision for the fund ’ s future .
“ Don ’ t worry about investors , ” he said , according to the executive , who spoke on the condition of anonymity , citing fear of retaliation .
“ We ’ ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.
” At the time , the senator was just months away from both assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second presidential bid .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account .
“ We ’ ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company , ” the executive remembers James Biden saying .
At this , the executive recalled , Beau Biden , who was then running for attorney general of Delaware , turned bright red .
He told his uncle , “ This can never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever say it again , I will have nothing to do with this.
” Read the whole thing , as the saying goes .

A few stray items for Saturday afternoon ruminations. . .
• M. Stanton Evans, writing about The New Yorker, circa 1961: “No other journal so elegantly combines the comforts of privilege with the glamor of dissent.” Some things never change.
• As your deep cover operative behind enemy lines in academia, I had the opportunity yesterday to see some deep-in-the-weeds survey data (not to be confused with the daily horserace polls) some left-leaning political scientists are hawking at the moment. Among the interesting findings:
—Young voters ages 18 – 30 are heavily for Joe Biden, by a 2 to 1 margin or more. But there are questions as to how strongly they will turn out. Young voters tend to turn out somewhat weakly, except when a candidate excites them, as Obama did in 2008. Is there much excitement for Biden among youth? Hatred of Trump may be sufficient, but this is a large unknown variable. Add to this the displacement of students from their campus environment where some may be registered and where get-out-the-vote efforts are more easily organized in normal times, and I can easily see a light turnout from young voters. —Early votes cast already supposedly favor Biden (assuming respondents are being truthful with surveyors that they have in fact cast their ballots), but of people saying they intend to vote in person on election day, Trump is ahead almost 3 to 1 in some states. My conclusion: Trump is going to win a landslide among votes cast on election day. But with more than 50 million votes or more being cast by mail, even a small lead may disappear in the week after, depending on how the vote count goes. (More on this point here.) —Even among black voters who say they approve of Trump’s job performance, more than half intend to vote for Biden, reflecting the deep loyalty of black voters for the Democratic Party. Once again the question is enthusiasm and turnout. There is not much enthusiasm for Biden among black voters; will dislike of Trump be a sufficient motivator for marginal black voters? Another imponderable. —Bottom line: the political scientists I listened to believe Biden is ahead, but are terrified of a rerun of 2016.
• The stock market continues to be twitchy, though it is holding up fairly well in general terms. But I keep seeing the financial press, especially the Wall Street Journal and Barron’s, saying that the markets will be glad when the election is over because it will end “uncertainty,” and moreover that Wall Street is copacetic about a Biden victory. This is wrongheaded in the extreme: If Biden wins, the uncertainty will just be getting started. How much of Biden’s tax hike plan will get enacted, and will a Democratic Congress make it worse and even more punitive? What kind of regulation might we get from Treasury Secretary Elizabeth Warren and EPA administrator Mary Nichols? What kind of health care regulation will be get from HHS Secretary Wretched Gwitmer?
• A blast from the past: Politico magazine did a big feature on “Biden, Inc” in August 2019 that is obviously relevant to the present moment but is strangely forgotten. Here are the opening graphs:
The day the Bidens took over Paradigm Global Advisors was a memorable one. In the late summer of 2006 Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Joe’s younger brother, James, purchased the firm. On their first day on the job, they showed up with Joe’s other son, Beau, and two large men and ordered the hedge fund’s chief of compliance to fire its president, according to a Paradigm executive who was present. After the firing, the two large men escorted the fund’s president out of the firm’s midtown Manhattan office, and James Biden laid out his vision for the fund’s future. “Don’t worry about investors,” he said, according to the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation. “We’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.” At the time, the senator was just months away from both assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second presidential bid. According to the executive, James Biden made it clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying. At this, the executive recalled, Beau Biden, who was then running for attorney general of Delaware, turned bright red. He told his uncle, “This can never leave this room, and if you ever say it again, I will have nothing to do with this.”
Read the whole thing, as the saying goes.


powerlineblog--2020-10-24--Coronavirus in one state (117)

Coronavirus in one state (117)

In part 116 of this series , I noted that Minnesota had matched its daily high in new deaths ( 35 ) earlier this week .
Over the past two days , however , the daily death totals have receded to 20 ( 10/22 , 13 among residents of long-term care facilities ) and 13 ( 10/23 , two among LTC residents ) .
New cases and other related numbers continue at a high rate .
If the elections were not impending , the authorities would be shutting things down big time .
Beyond the doom and gloom of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the great unmentionable .
Kevin Roche urges the Minnesota authorities to take a clue from Sweden ( chart below ) .
“ In the long run , ” Kevin observes , “ we may not all end up in the same place [ . ]
Sweden may have fewer cases and deaths , because it was more sensible at the start .
Minnesota ’ s death rate is creeping up on Sweden ’ s .
When it passes Sweden ’ s , how will the IB [ i.e.
, Incompetent Blowhard Governor Tim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ ? ]
” Yesterday ’ s briefing ( audio below ) included Professor Tai Mendenhall of the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development .
Mendenhall addressed mental health issues raised by the epidemic with a focus on depression .
The state has opened a COVID stress line at ( 833 ) HERE-4MN .
The incredibly depressive tone of Mendenhall ’ s comments brought to mind my favorite bumper sticker : SUPPORT MENTAL HEALTH OR I ’ LL KILL YOU .
It ’ s a joke !
I certainly have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a challenge to my own mental health .
That much I can tell you .

In part 116 of this series, I noted that Minnesota had matched its daily high in new deaths (35) earlier this week. Over the past two days, however, the daily death totals have receded to 20 (10/22, 13 among residents of long-term care facilities) and 13 (10/23, two among LTC residents). New cases and other related numbers continue at a high rate.
If the elections were not impending, the authorities would be shutting things down big time. Beyond the doom and gloom of the Department of Health press briefings it is the great unmentionable.
Kevin Roche urges the Minnesota authorities to take a clue from Sweden (chart below). “In the long run,” Kevin observes, “we may not all end up in the same place[.] Sweden may have fewer cases and deaths, because it was more sensible at the start. Minnesota’s death rate is creeping up on Sweden’s. When it passes Sweden’s, how will the IB [i.e., Incompetent Blowhard Governor Tim Walz] and his administration explain that[?]”
Yesterday’s briefing (audio below) included Professor Tai Mendenhall of the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development. Mendenhall addressed mental health issues raised by the epidemic with a focus on depression. The state has opened a COVID stress line at (833) HERE-4MN.
The incredibly depressive tone of Mendenhall’s comments brought to mind my favorite bumper sticker: SUPPORT MENTAL HEALTH OR I’LL KILL YOU. It’s a joke! I certainly have found the Minnesota Department of Health briefings a challenge to my own mental health. That much I can tell you.


powerlineblog--2020-10-24--The Week in Pictures: #MeToobin Edition

The Week in Pictures: #MeToobin Edition