powerlineblog--2020-04-15--Media Fail of the Day

Media Fail of the Day

To paraphrase the great Will Rogers , it ’ s hard to single out the most glaring media embarrassment of @ @ @ @ @ the whole media competing to see who can be the most stupid .
* But @ @ @ @ @ Press story , as it appeared in a New Orleans paper yesterday : And yet @ @ @ @ @ the idea of “ fake news ” has so much traction with the public .
@ @ @ @ @ quip is : “ It ’ s no trouble being a humorist when you have @ @ @ @ @ you.
” Of course , it morning out here on the Left Coast where I @ @ @ @ @ s still plenty of time for someone else—the Washington Post maybe—to surpass this idiocy .

To paraphrase the great Will Rogers, it’s hard to single out the most glaring media embarrassment of the day when you have the whole media competing to see who can be the most stupid.* But the winner is this Associated Press story, as it appeared in a New Orleans paper yesterday:
And yet our media overlords wonder why the idea of “fake news” has so much traction with the public.
* The original Will Rogers quip is: “It’s no trouble being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.”
Of course, it morning out here on the Left Coast where I am, so there’s still plenty of time for someone else—the Washington Post maybe—to surpass this idiocy.


powerlineblog--2020-04-15--Observations on the Great Hunkering (9)

Observations on the Great Hunkering (9)

• Don ’ t look now , but it seems China ’ s mendacious deception is not limited just to concealing disease vectors .
From the Wall Street Journal early this afternoon : China might be secretly conducting nuclear tests with very low explosive power despite Beijing ’ s assertions that it is strictly adhering to an international accord banning all nuclear tests , according to a new arms-control report to be made public by the State Department .
.
.
The concerns stem from the high tempo of activity at China ’ s Lop Nur test site , extensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s purported use of special chambers to contain explosions .
Another factor feeding U.S. suspicions is the interruption in past years of data transmissions from monitoring stations on Chinese territory that are designed to detect radioactive emissions and seismic tremors .
To keep up with all things China , bookmark the Committee on the Present Danger/China .
Their hour has come .
• One of the thing I hope will come out of the current mess is a heightened skepticism of data charts ( especially climate change charts ) .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charts about COVID-19 owing to the usual two problems : incomplete or incorrect data , and corrupting assumptions in models .
Of course , I ’ m sure this just never happens in the climate change domain .
That said , one of my favorite data analysis sources is Our World in Data , run by Max Roser at Oxford University .
A lot of the data analysis coming from the site illustrates the extraordinary human progress in recent decades all around the world , showing how in most ways , the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Naturally , this infuriates the Malthusian left , who hate human progress with the intensity of a thousand white-hot desert solar panels .
Max and his team are all over tracking COVID-19 , and one of the things I like about their approach is that every chart includes this disclaimer : “ Limited testing and challenges in the attribution of the cause of death means that the number of confirmed deaths may not be an accurate count of the true number of deaths from COVID-19.
” I encourage interested readers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can customize a data analysis by checking off individual countries .
I did this one , which shows the death-rate-pre-million population , highlighting a few countries including the U.S. ( the tan line ) and Sweden .
We keep being told that Sweden is a disaster—or will be a disaster—because they aren ’ t shutting down their economy and locking people in .
This chart clearly shows that the death rate in Sweden is not much different than the U.S. ( where we may be over-attributing COVID-19 deaths , as has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper at MedRxIv , “ Indoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 , ” ratifies the common sense conclusion that the risk of outdoor transmission can ’ t justify the extreme lockdowns of parks , tennis courts , etc .
Here ’ s the abstract , highlighted : By early April 2020 , the COVID-19 pandemic had infected nearly one million people and had spread to nearly all countries worldwide .
It is essential to understand where and how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted .
Methods : Case reports were extracted from the local Municipal Health Commissions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China , not including Hubei province , between 4 January and 11 February 2020 .
We identified all outbreaks involving three or more cases and reviewed the major characteristics of the enclosed spaces in which the outbreaks were reported and associated indoor environmental issues .
Results : Three hundred and eighteen outbreaks with three or more cases were identified , involving 1245 confirmed cases in 120 prefectural cities .
We divided the venues in which the outbreaks occurred into six categories : homes , transport , food , entertainment , shopping , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 53.8 % involved three cases , 26.4 % involved four cases , and only 1.6 % involved ten or more cases .
Home outbreaks were the dominant category ( 254 of 318 outbreaks ; 79.9 % ) , followed by transport ( 108 ; 34.0 % ; note that many outbreaks involved more than one venue category ) .
Most home outbreaks involved three to five cases .
We identified only a single outbreak in an outdoor environment , which involved two cases .
Conclusions : All identified outbreaks of three or more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk .
Memo to Michigan Gov .
Whitless : Planting seeds in your garden is one of the best things people can do right now as spring begins .
• Breaking : Germany will start re-opening its economy next week .
From Barron ’ s :

• Don’t look now, but it seems China’s mendacious deception is not limited to concealing disease vectors. From the Wall Street Journal early this afternoon:
China might be secretly conducting nuclear tests with very low explosive power despite Beijing’s assertions that it is strictly adhering to an international accord banning all nuclear tests, according to a new arms-control report to be made public by the State Department. . . The concerns stem from the high tempo of activity at China’s Lop Nur test site, extensive excavations at the site, and Beijing’s purported use of special chambers to contain explosions. Another factor feeding U.S. suspicions is the interruption in past years of data transmissions from monitoring stations on Chinese territory that are designed to detect radioactive emissions and seismic tremors.
To keep up with all things China, bookmark the Committee on the Present Danger/China. Their hour has come.
• One of the thing I hope will come out of the current mess is a heightened skepticism of data charts (especially climate change charts). We’re awash right now in conflicting data charts about COVID-19 owing to the usual two problems: incomplete or incorrect data, and corrupting assumptions in models. Of course, I’m sure this just never happens in the climate change domain.
That said, one of my favorite data analysis sources is Our World in Data, run by Max Roser at Oxford University. A lot of the data analysis coming from the site illustrates the extraordinary human progress in recent decades all around the world, showing how in most ways, the world is getting better and better all the time. Naturally, this infuriates the Malthusian left, who hate human progress with the intensity of a thousand white-hot desert solar panels.
Max and his team are all over tracking COVID-19, and one of the things I like about their approach is that every chart includes this disclaimer: “Limited testing and challenges in the attribution of the cause of death means that the number of confirmed deaths may not be an accurate count of the true number of deaths from COVID-19.” I encourage interested readers to check out their interactive slide-deck, where you can customize a data analysis by checking off individual countries. I did this one, which shows the death-rate-per-million population, highlighting a few countries including the U.S. (the tan line) and Sweden. We keep being told that Sweden is a disaster—or will be a disaster—because they aren’t shutting down their economy and locking people in. This chart clearly shows that the death rate in Sweden is not much different than the U.S. (where we may be over-attributing COVID-19 deaths, as has been argued).
• This interesting pre-print paper at MedRxIv, “Indoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” ratifies the common sense conclusion that the risk of outdoor transmission can’t justify the extreme lockdowns of parks, tennis courts, etc. Here’s the abstract, highlighted:
By early April 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had infected nearly one million people and had spread to nearly all countries worldwide. It is essential to understand where and how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted. Methods: Case reports were extracted from the local Municipal Health Commissions of 320 prefectural cities (municipalities) in China, not including Hubei province, between 4 January and 11 February 2020. We identified all outbreaks involving three or more cases and reviewed the major characteristics of the enclosed spaces in which the outbreaks were reported and associated indoor environmental issues. Results: Three hundred and eighteen outbreaks with three or more cases were identified, involving 1245 confirmed cases in 120 prefectural cities. We divided the venues in which the outbreaks occurred into six categories: homes, transport, food, entertainment, shopping, and miscellaneous. Among the identified outbreaks, 53.8% involved three cases, 26.4% involved four cases, and only 1.6% involved ten or more cases. Home outbreaks were the dominant category (254 of 318 outbreaks; 79.9%), followed by transport (108; 34.0%; note that many outbreaks involved more than one venue category). Most home outbreaks involved three to five cases. We identified only a single outbreak in an outdoor environment, which involved two cases. Conclusions: All identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk.
Memo to Michigan Gov. Whitless: Planting seeds in your garden is one of the best things people can do right now as spring begins.
• Breaking: Germany will start re-opening its economy next week. From Barron’s:


powerlineblog--2020-04-15--The Wuhan coronavirus in China, and other suggested reading

I think I ’ ll take a day off from looking at Wuhan coronavirus numbers and writing about the pandemic .
Instead , I will refer readers to a few articles on the subject .
This one is from Townhall .
It reports that an Israeli professor , Yitzhak Ben Israel of Tel Aviv University , has concluded that this virus follows its own pattern , irrespective of social distancing measures .
He found that whether the country quarantined like Israel or went about business like Sweden , coronavirus peaked and subsided in the exact same way .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m just offering it for your consideration .
Here ’ s what I consider good news from the Washington Post .
According this report , China ’ s Wuhan coronavirus charm offensive is backfiring .
It ’ s not just President Trump who ’ s attacking China for this pandemic .
Even nations normally friendly with China , including Iran , have been critical , according to the Post .
And naturally , countries like France , Germany , Britain , and Japan are reassessing their reliance on China for critical health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China , this report from the American Enterprise Institute estimates the real number of Wuhan conoravirus cases in that nation .
It estimates that China has around 2.9 million cases .
That ’ s more than the total number of cases reported worldwide .
China itself reports only around 82,000 cases .
Back to the good news .
Abbott Laboratories announces that it has developed an immunity test and will ship nearly 1 million of them to U.S. customers before the end of the week .
It intends to ship about 4 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to produce about 20 million per month by June .
The test determines whether someone had the virus ( some people have it without knowing ) and developed antibodies that protect them from future infections .
Policymakers say that such knowledge is a key to understanding the disease and to promoting safety when America starts returning to work .

I think I’ll take a day off from looking at Wuhan coronavirus numbers and writing about the pandemic. Instead, I will refer readers to a few articles on the subject.
This one is from Townhall. It reports that an Israeli professor, Yitzhak Ben Israel of Tel Aviv University, has concluded that this virus follows its own pattern, irrespective of social distancing measures. He found that whether the country was quarantined like Israel or went about business like Sweden, the coronavirus peaked and subsided in the exact same way. I’m not endorsing this view, I’m just offering it for your consideration.
Here’s what I consider good news from the Washington Post. According to this report, China’s Wuhan coronavirus charm offensive is backfiring. It’s not just President Trump who’s attacking China for this pandemic. Even nations normally friendly with China, including Iran, have been critical, according to the Post. And naturally, countries like France, Germany, Britain, and Japan are reassessing their reliance on China for critical health and national security-related supplies.
Speaking of China, this report from the American Enterprise Institute estimates the real number of Wuhan conoravirus cases in that nation. It estimates that China has around 2.9 million cases. That’s more than the total number of cases reported worldwide. China itself reports only around 82,000 cases.
Back to the good news. Abbott Laboratories announces that it has developed an immunity test and will ship nearly 1 million of them to U.S. customers before the end of the week. It intends to ship about 4 million tests in April and claims it will be able to produce about 20 million per month by June. The test determines whether someone had the virus (some people have it without knowing) and developed antibodies that protect them from future infections. Policymakers say that such knowledge is a key to understanding the disease and to promoting safety when America starts returning to work.


powerlineblog--2020-04-15--Coronavirus In Five States (2)

Coronavirus In Five States (2)

On April 11 , I critiqued the University of Washington ’ s IHME model ’ s treatment of five similar states in the Upper Midwest .
I pointed out that IHME was projecting far higher per capita death rates for Iowa , North Dakota and South Dakota than for Minnesota and Wisconsin , based on zero empirical evidence .
I surmised that IHME must be jacking up the projections for those three states because , unlike Minnesota and Wisconsin , they did not have shutdown orders in effect–notwithstanding the unambiguous assertion on the IHME web site that its projections “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through May 2020.
” As of April 11 , IHME projected the following fatality totals for the Upper Midwestern states , through August .
All of these numbers had been revised on April 10 : On April 13 , IHME again revised all of its U.S. projections .
For some reason , its Upper Midwestern predictions changed radically .
IHME now projects these fatality totals : I would love to see the alleged mathematical model that , in the space of three days , caused the South Dakota projection to decline by 49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a whopping 91 % .
None of these numbers have anything to do with experience , as North Dakota and South Dakota have so far reported ( per IHME ) 6 deaths apiece .
Maybe someone at IHME read my post and decided to adjust predictions that were obviously unfounded , if not ridiculous .
Or maybe the model was tweaked in some way to give radically different results .
There is also no apparent reason why IHME increased Minnesota ’ s death total by 48 % .
As Scott has pointed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 70 as of April 13 , when IHME issued its new numbers ) with more than two-thirds occurring in nursing homes and assisted living facilities .
One way or another , public officials should not be basing major policy decisions , affecting millions of people , on the IHME model , or any other model .
A model is not evidence , it is a hypothesis .
The hypothesis is tested by experience .
To my knowledge , no one has come up with a COVID-19 model that has been verified by experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modeling , too .

On April 11, I critiqued the University of Washington’s IHME model’s treatment of five similar states in the Upper Midwest. I pointed out that IHME was projecting far higher per capita death rates for Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota than for Minnesota and Wisconsin, based on zero empirical evidence. I surmised that IHME must be jacking up the projections for those three states because, unlike Minnesota and Wisconsin, they did not have shutdown orders in effect–notwithstanding the unambiguous assertion on the IHME web site that its projections “assume[e] full social distancing through May 2020.”
As of April 11, IHME projected the following fatality totals for the Upper Midwestern states, through August. All of these numbers had been revised on April 10:
Minnesota: 442
Wisconsin: 357
Iowa: 743
South Dakota: 356
North Dakota: 369
On April 13, IHME again revised all of its U.S. projections. For some reason, its Upper Midwestern predictions changed radically. IHME now projects these fatality totals:
Minnesota: 656
Wisconsin: 338
Iowa: 618
South Dakota: 181
North Dakota: 32
I would love to see the alleged mathematical model that, in the space of three days, caused the South Dakota projection to decline by 49% and the North Dakota projection by a whopping 91%. None of these numbers have anything to do with experience, as North Dakota and South Dakota have so far reported (per IHME) 6 deaths apiece.
Maybe someone at IHME read my post and decided to adjust predictions that were obviously unfounded, if not ridiculous. Or maybe the model was tweaked in some way to give radically different results. There is also no apparent reason why IHME increased Minnesota’s death total by 48%. As Scott has pointed out, Minnesota currently has 79 deaths (70 as of April 13, when IHME issued its new numbers) with more than two-thirds occurring in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
One way or another, public officials should not be basing major policy decisions, affecting millions of people, on the IHME model, or any other model. A model is not evidence, it is a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested by experience. To my knowledge, no one has come up with a COVID-19 model that has been verified by experience. This is typical of past epidemic modeling, too.


powerlineblog--2020-04-15--Coronavirus in one state (13)

Coronavirus in one state (13)

As of this morning , the death toll attributed to COVID-19 by the Minnesota authorities ramped up to 79 .
Over two-thirds of the 79 have died in nursing homes or assisted-care living facilities , a fact which comports with the median age of decedents : 87 .
See the Minnesota Department of Health COVID-19 Situation Update .
Decedents so far have fallen within an age range from 56 to 100 ( screenshot below ) .
Today the Star Tribune looks at the trends represented in the numbers .
Glenn Howatt and Jeremy Olson report the story in “ Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trends.
” Subhead : “ Death certificate records reveal the things the state ’ s first victims had in common and what made them unique.
” They add this glaring fact to the mix : “ Most of those who died were living out their retirement years .
Nearly 90 % of the 79 reported deaths have been among those over age 70.
” Howatt and Olson also note that most of the elderly decedents suffered with compromised physical conditions : “ Heart disease and hypertension were common illnesses among those who died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kidney disease.
” They add : At least 17 of the deceased had two or more of the most common conditions , while others had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease — which makes it hard to breathe — asthma , Parkinson ’ s disease , multiple sclerosis and obesity .
Of all deaths reviewed so far , 98.5 % had pre-existing conditions , said Kris Ehresmann , infectious disease director at the Minnesota Department of Health .
Dementia afflicted 15 who passed away , reflecting the fact that about 70 % of all deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilities .
At least 18 elder-care institutions had lost one or more residents to COVID-19 as of April 10 , the most recent death record reviewed by the Star Tribune .
The state of Minnesota remains on lockdown under the shutdown order announced by Governor Tim Walz on March 25 and now extended to May 4 .
Although Walz predicated his shutdown orders on utterly absurd projections , not a discouraging word is heard in the Minnesota press about these projections .
To this record of journalistic nonfeasance we can add today ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest assured that Howatt and Olson do not ask their interlocutors among the state authorities the obvious question .
Was it — is it — really necessary to shut the state down to protect those whose lives are put at risk by COVID-19 ?

As of this morning, the death toll attributed to COVID-19 by the Minnesota authorities ramped up to 79. Over two-thirds of the 79 have died in nursing homes or assisted-care living facilities, a fact which comports with the median age of decedents: 87. See the Minnesota Department of Health COVID-19 Situation Update. Decedents so far have fallen within an age range from 56 to 100 (screenshot below).
Today the Star Tribune looks at the trends represented in the numbers. Glenn Howatt and Jeremy Olson report the story in “Minnesota COVID-19 stories show personal tragedies, larger trends.” Subhead: “Death certificate records reveal the things the state’s first victims had in common and what made them unique.” They add this glaring fact to the mix: “Most of those who died were living out their retirement years. Nearly 90% of the 79 reported deaths have been among those over age 70.”
Howatt and Olson also note that most of the elderly decedents suffered with compromised physical conditions: “Heart disease and hypertension were common illnesses among those who died of COVID-19, along with diabetes and kidney disease.” They add:
At least 17 of the deceased had two or more of the most common conditions, while others had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease — which makes it hard to breathe — asthma, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and obesity. Of all deaths reviewed so far, 98.5% had pre-existing conditions, said Kris Ehresmann, infectious disease director at the Minnesota Department of Health. Dementia afflicted 15 who passed away, reflecting the fact that about 70% of all deaths have been among residents of long-term care facilities. At least 18 elder-care institutions had lost one or more residents to COVID-19 as of April 10, the most recent death record reviewed by the Star Tribune.
The state of Minnesota remains on lockdown under the shutdown order announced by Governor Tim Walz on March 25 and now extended to May 4. Although Walz predicated his shutdown orders on utterly absurd projections, not a discouraging word is heard in the Minnesota press about these projections.
To this record of journalistic nonfeasance we can add today’s Star Tribune article. You can rest assured that Howatt and Olson do not ask their interlocutors among the state authorities the obvious question. Was it — is it — really necessary to shut the state down to protect those whose lives are put at risk by COVID-19?


powerlineblog--2020-01-09--Poll:  Jump ball in New Hampshire

Poll:  Jump ball in New Hampshire

Monmouth University is out with a new poll of the New Hampshire primary , the first one conducted entirely in 2020 .
It shows a logjam at the top .
Pete Buttigieg leads with 20 percent .
Joe Biden is right behind at 19 percent , followed closely by Bernie Sanders at 18 percent ( the three are tied , statistically speaking ) .
Elizabeth Warren is next .
She polls 15 percent .
After that , it ’ s all the way down to Amy Klobuchar with 6 percent .
Buttigieg has surged , having doubled his support since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warren has faltered , losing nearly half of her support during the same period .
The polls suggest that Buttigieg might win in both Iowa ( where RCP the poll average nearly mirrors Monmouth ’ s Granite State results ) and New Hampshire , although the odds remain against that “ double.
” Having paid considerable attention to Buttigieg ’ s campaign from almost its beginning , I ’ m not surprised that he broke away from the no-hopers with whom he originally was bunched .
However , I did not expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he seems to be doing .
Buttigeig ’ s advantages over the other three first-tier candidates are obvious , though .
He ’ s 37 years old .
The other three are in their 70s .
Buttigieg is , I think , smarter than Warren and Sanders , and much smarter than Biden .
At a minimum , he ’ s more intellectually nimble than all three .
He ’ s smoother , as well .
Buttigieg has not tied himself to the far left , but neither is he clearly tied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unlike Biden , he is not burdened by past votes and utterances .
But despite his relative obscurity ( until recently ) , Buttigieg has a ready and generous source of funding — gay America ( and maybe the LBT America , though this seems less clear ) .
Candidates like Klobuchar , Cory Booker , Julian Castro , Kirsten Gillibrand never had that .
Even if Buttigieg wins in Iowa and New Hampshire , he still faces the daunting task of gaining delegates in states with sizable African-American populations .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as has almost everyone else who analyzes the Democratic field .
Unless Biden gets knocked for a loop in the two earliest states ( and polls don ’ t suggest that he will ) , he should retain the bulk of African-American support .
But if Biden falters , the task of competing with Warren and Sanders for those votes might not be so daunting .
In May of last year , President Trump said of Buttigieg , “ Alfred E. Neuman can not become president of the United States.
” Back then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not even become the Democratic nominee for president , not 2020 anyway .
It ’ s less obvious today .

Monmouth University is out with a new poll of the New Hampshire primary, the first one conducted entirely in 2020. It shows a logjam at the top.
Pete Buttigieg leads with 20 percent. Joe Biden is right behind at 19 percent, followed closely by Bernie Sanders at 18 percent (the three are tied, statistically speaking). Elizabeth Warren is next. She polls 15 percent. After that, it’s all the way down to Amy Klobuchar with 6 percent.
Buttigieg has surged, having doubled his support since Monmouth’s last poll in September. Warren has faltered, losing nearly half of her support during the same period.
The polls suggest that Buttigieg might win in both Iowa (where RCP the poll average nearly mirrors Monmouth’s Granite State results) and New Hampshire, although the odds remain against that “double.” Having paid considerable attention to Buttigieg’s campaign from almost its beginning, I’m not surprised that he broke away from the no-hopers with whom he originally was bunched. However, I did not expect him to do quite as well as he seems to be doing.
Buttigeig’s advantages over the other three first-tier candidates are obvious, though. He’s 37 years old. The other three are in their 70s.
Buttigieg is, I think, smarter than Warren and Sanders, and much smarter than Biden. At a minimum, he’s more intellectually nimble than all three. He’s smoother, as well.
Buttigieg has not tied himself to the far left, but neither is he clearly tied to the establishment the way Biden is. Unlike Biden, he is not burdened by past votes and utterances.
But despite his relative obscurity (until recently), Buttigieg has a ready and generous source of funding — gay America (and maybe the LBT America, though this seems less clear). Candidates like Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand never had that.
Even if Buttigieg wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, he still faces the daunting task of gaining delegates in states with sizable African-American populations. We’ve written about this problem before, as has almost everyone else who analyzes the Democratic field.
Unless Biden gets knocked for a loop in the two earliest states (and polls don’t suggest that he will), he should retain the bulk of African-American support. But if Biden falters, the task of competing with Warren and Sanders for those votes might not be so daunting.
In May of last year, President Trump said of Buttigieg, “Alfred E. Neuman cannot become president of the United States.” Back then, it seemed obvious that Buttigieg could not even become the Democratic nominee for president, not 2020 anyway. It’s less obvious today.


powerlineblog--2020-01-09--State of the Dem Race Today

State of the Dem Race Today

As of this moment , if I had to place a wager I believe Bernie Sanders is going to be the Democratic nominee .
But I wouldn ’ t necessarily bet much—the race is just too volatile .
There are a batch of polls out showing the Three Bs—Bernie , Biden , and Buttigieg—virtually tied in Iowa and New Hampshire .
Keep in mind two implications of this : first , a large portion of the Democratic primary electorate—maybe half or more—is undecided , and second , between undecided Democrats and the share of votes going to the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weak front-runner .
A few more senior moments in his campaign and the race might cascade rapidly to Bernie , who has the most money to go the distance , or Buttigieg , who has the kind of fresh face Democrats often fall for—maybe too fresh a face : Meanwhile , leave it to the Babylon Bee—America ’ s newspaper of record—to get to the effectual truth of things : This kind of spending from billionaire vanity candidates is sure to go down just dandy with a party base for whom billionaire-hating is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the other hand , if the Democratic field is in disarray by Super Tuesday , Bloomberg in particular might turn in a good showing , scrambling things further .
You can just imagine what Bernie will say .
The Democratic Party establishment is starting to freak about Berniemania .
AP reports today : Increasingly alarmed that Bernie Sanders could become their party ’ s presidential nominee , establishment-minded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party ’ s chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ races .
.
.
The ranks of the concerned include many Democrats tasked with preserving the party ’ s majority in the House and expanding its minority in the Senate and governors ’ mansions across the country .
.
.
Marshall Matz , who was a policy adviser for Sen. George McGovern ’ s failed 1972 bid for president , was more direct in his warning for Democrats .
If they nominate Sanders , he said , the party should expect the same landslide loss that McGovern suffered decades ago to President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not just lose but would lose badly — and I don ’ t think the country can afford that , ” Matz said , noting that McGovern generated large crowds and enthusiasm just as Sanders has .
Indeed , on the ground in Iowa , there are signs that Sanders is in a strong position as caucus day approaches .
Finally , the increasingly interesting Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has one of those old-fashioned long-form campaign chronicles up right now that has some delicious detail in it , such as : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa ( February 3rd ) and New Hampshire ( February 11th ) , the Democratic Party seems to be in chaos .
A year-long process traditionally used to hone consensus among donors and media has achieved the opposite .
.
.
Democrats have test-driven an incredible 29 candidates in a calendar year to get to a place where neither voters nor party officials seem close to agreeing on who might be the best choice to take on Donald Trump .
This has led to a spate of news stories about “ anxiety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategists , who complain the bitter primary fight is “ wasting valuable time ” the party could be using to make a case against Trump .
Whispers about a brokered conventionhave become more common in campaign analyses .
.
.
Anyone who can thread the needle between business-friendly Neera Tanden Democrats and Bernie ’ s “ Let ’ s chainsaw the arms off billionaires today ” platform probably deserves to be president .
For much of last year , Warren looked poised to pull it off .
However , her campaign began stumbling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hard to know if the media turnabout on Warren reflects real concerns below the surface from party sources and donors about her general election prospects , or whether it ’ s something even dumber , like reporters just being froggy because she won ’ t keep the click-producing food fight alive with Buttigieg .
.
.
Any veteran campaign reporter watching Buttigieg live for the first time will feel like an NBA scout seeing a 13 year-old in AAU ball draining 35-footers .
Either this politician spent his childhood practicing president-speak in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was born with the same mutant gene for projecting warmth and ideological vagueness carried by other iconic Democrats .
.
.
Excuse me while I nip off to the store to stock up on more popcorn .

As of this moment, if I had to place a wager I believe Bernie Sanders is going to be the Democratic nominee. But I wouldn’t necessarily bet much—the race is just too volatile.
There are a batch of polls out showing the Three Bs—Bernie, Biden, and Buttigieg—virtually tied in Iowa and New Hampshire. Keep in mind two implications of this: first, a large portion of the Democratic primary electorate—maybe half or more—is undecided, and second, between undecided Democrats and the share of votes going to the rest of the field, Biden is an extremely weak front-runner. A few more senior moments in his campaign and the race might cascade rapidly to Bernie, who has the most money to go the distance, or Buttigieg, who has the kind of fresh face Democrats often fall for—maybe too fresh a face:
Meanwhile, leave it to the Babylon Bee—America’s newspaper of record—to get to the effectual truth of things:
Then there’s this wild card:
This kind of spending from billionaire vanity candidates is sure to go down just dandy with a party base for whom billionaire-hating is a core principle at the moment. On the other hand, if the Democratic field is in disarray by Super Tuesday, Bloomberg in particular might turn in a good showing, scrambling things further. You can just imagine what Bernie will say.
The Democratic Party establishment is starting to freak about Berniemania. AP reports today:
Increasingly alarmed that Bernie Sanders could become their party’s presidential nominee, establishment-minded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier House, Senate and governors’ races. . . The ranks of the concerned include many Democrats tasked with preserving the party’s majority in the House and expanding its minority in the Senate and governors’ mansions across the country. . . Marshall Matz, who was a policy adviser for Sen. George McGovern’s failed 1972 bid for president, was more direct in his warning for Democrats. If they nominate Sanders, he said, the party should expect the same landslide loss that McGovern suffered decades ago to President Richard Nixon. “I think he would not just lose but would lose badly — and I don’t think the country can afford that,” Matz said, noting that McGovern generated large crowds and enthusiasm just as Sanders has. Indeed, on the ground in Iowa, there are signs that Sanders is in a strong position as caucus day approaches.
Finally, the increasingly interesting Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has one of those old-fashioned long-form campaign chronicles up right now that has some delicious detail in it, such as:
Just a few weeks out of votes in Iowa (February 3rd) and New Hampshire (February 11th), the Democratic Party seems to be in chaos. A year-long process traditionally used to hone consensus among donors and media has achieved the opposite. . . Democrats have test-driven an incredible 29 candidates in a calendar year to get to a place where neither voters nor party officials seem close to agreeing on who might be the best choice to take on Donald Trump. This has led to a spate of news stories about “anxiety” from donors, pundits, and strategists, who complain the bitter primary fight is “wasting valuable time” the party could be using to make a case against Trump. Whispers about a brokered conventionhave become more common in campaign analyses. . . Anyone who can thread the needle between business-friendly Neera Tanden Democrats and Bernie’s “Let’s chainsaw the arms off billionaires today” platform probably deserves to be president. For much of last year, Warren looked poised to pull it off. However, her campaign began stumbling in November. . . It’s hard to know if the media turnabout on Warren reflects real concerns below the surface from party sources and donors about her general election prospects, or whether it’s something even dumber, like reporters just being froggy because she won’t keep the click-producing food fight alive with Buttigieg. . . Any veteran campaign reporter watching Buttigieg live for the first time will feel like an NBA scout seeing a 13 year-old in AAU ball draining 35-footers. Either this politician spent his childhood practicing president-speak in front of a mirror, or he was born with the same mutant gene for projecting warmth and ideological vagueness carried by other iconic Democrats. . .
Excuse me while I nip off to the store to stock up on more popcorn.


The Patriarchy Smashed?

Yesterday ’ s jobs report—145,000 new jobs—is only so-so , but there are two more interesting features of the labor market right now .
The first is that wages are rising fastest at the bottom end of the income scale , suggesting that sustained economic growth is better than redistribution or minimum wage mandates for lifting the prospects of low-skilled workers .
Of course , the left is not interested in growth any more , as I ’ ve often argued here , and as Joel Kotkin points out again in a great article yesterday at Quillette : For much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth has lifted the quality of life in Europe , North America , and East Asia , providing social stability after the violent disruptions of World War II .
Today , however , many of the world ’ s most influential leaders , even in the United States , reject the very notion that societies should improve material wealth and boost incomes given what they believe are more important environmental or social equity concerns .
.
.
Even in the United States , where growth has long been an unquestioned priority , virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President even mentions the word .
Vice-President Joe Biden , the leading “ moderate ” in the Democratic party primaries , has explicitly stated that he would wipe out fossil fuel employment in the country to pursue a green agenda .
The second notable thing about the current job market is that women now constitute a majority of job holders : Women overtook men to hold the majority of U.S. jobs for the first time in a decade , while employers added positions for a record 10th straight year , pointing to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The number of women on nonfarm payrolls exceeded men in December for the first time since mid-2010 , the Labor Department said Friday .
Women held 50.04 % of jobs last month , surpassing men on payrolls by 109,000 .
But , but .
.
.
don ’ t we live in a patriarchy ?
I ’ m sure feminists will nevertheless persist in throwing down the bogus “ pay gap ” claim .
Which reminds me , second , to post up here Mark Perry ’ s extremely useful chart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America : Chaser : The Wall Street Journal also reports today on the revived interest in the idea of a guaranteed income , a centerpiece of Andrew Yang ’ s campaign , for example : As Democrats embrace a more activist government , some are flirting with an idea that hasn ’ t received serious attention since the 1970s : a minimum guaranteed income for all Americans .
.
.
The belief that Washington should create an income floor last stirred widespread debate half a century ago .
In 1962 , conservative economist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income tax , ” a kind of government salary for the poor .
A few years later , President Nixon , a Republican , proposed a guaranteed annual income for families with children that would be worth about $ 1,600 , or $ 10,000 in today ’ s dollars .
His legislation passed the House twice , before dying in the Senate under attack from both conservatives , who said it went too far , and liberals , who said it didn ’ t go far enough .
I think the reason the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back on the table is simple : it is a plot of the patriarchy to enable men to sit on the couch at home and watch TV and play video games and eat chips and drink beer while the women go out and dominate the workplace .
We should start promoting this line , along with the explanation that the reason women now outnumber men in the workplace is that employers have finally figured out that you can hire women to do the same job as men for a lot less money !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ market are soaring !
You can ’ t beat the Deep Patriarchy ( an adjunct of the Deep State ) .

Yesterday’s jobs report—145,000 new jobs—is only so-so, but there are two more interesting features of the labor market right now.
The first is that wages are rising fastest at the bottom end of the income scale, suggesting that sustained economic growth is better than redistribution or minimum wage mandates for lifting the prospects of low-skilled workers. Of course, the left is not interested in growth any more, as I’ve often argued here, and as Joel Kotkin points out again in a great article yesterday at Quillette:
For much of the last seventy years, economic growth has lifted the quality of life in Europe, North America, and East Asia, providing social stability after the violent disruptions of World War II. Today, however, many of the world’s most influential leaders, even in the United States, reject the very notion that societies should improve material wealth and boost incomes given what they believe are more important environmental or social equity concerns. . . Even in the United States, where growth has long been an unquestioned priority, virtually none of the leading Democratic candidates for President even mentions the word. Vice-President Joe Biden, the leading “moderate” in the Democratic party primaries, has explicitly stated that he would wipe out fossil fuel employment in the country to pursue a green agenda.
The second notable thing about the current job market is that women now constitute a majority of job holders:
Women overtook men to hold the majority of U.S. jobs for the first time in a decade, while employers added positions for a record 10th straight year, pointing to a growing and dynamic economy heading into 2020. The number of women on nonfarm payrolls exceeded men in December for the first time since mid-2010, the Labor Department said Friday. Women held 50.04% of jobs last month, surpassing men on payrolls by 109,000.
But, but. . . don’t we live in a patriarchy? I’m sure feminists will nevertheless persist in throwing down the bogus “pay gap” claim.
Which reminds me, second, to post up here Mark Perry’s extremely useful chart of the whole range of male-female disparities in America:
Patriarchy indeed!
Chaser: The Wall Street Journal also reports today on the revived interest in the idea of a guaranteed income, a centerpiece of Andrew Yang’s campaign, for example:
As Democrats embrace a more activist government, some are flirting with an idea that hasn’t received serious attention since the 1970s: a minimum guaranteed income for all Americans. . . The belief that Washington should create an income floor last stirred widespread debate half a century ago. In 1962, conservative economist Milton Friedman called for a “negative income tax,” a kind of government salary for the poor. A few years later, President Nixon, a Republican, proposed a guaranteed annual income for families with children that would be worth about $1,600, or $10,000 in today’s dollars. His legislation passed the House twice, before dying in the Senate under attack from both conservatives, who said it went too far, and liberals, who said it didn’t go far enough.
I think the reason the idea of a guaranteed income is suddenly back on the table is simple: it is a plot of the patriarchy to enable men to sit on the couch at home and watch TV and play video games and eat chips and drink beer while the women go out and dominate the workplace. We should start promoting this line, along with the explanation that the reason women now outnumber men in the workplace is that employers have finally figured out that you can hire women to do the same job as men for a lot less money! No wonder corporate profits and the stock market are soaring! You can’t beat the Deep Patriarchy (an adjunct of the Deep State).


powerlineblog--2020-01-11--We now know: The Kris cross

We now know: The Kris cross

David Kris served as Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under President Obama and Attorney General Holder .
@ @ @ @ @ as a former senior official in the Department of Justice to disparage Rep. Devin Nunes @ @ @ @ @ FBI ’ s misconduct in the Russia haox and assure anyone who would listen to @ @ @ @ @ order .
He is an apologist for FBI misconduct who gives the Department of Justice @ @ @ @ @ FBI ’ s FISA misconduct the stupidly credulous reading that absolves the FBI of political @ @ @ @ @ Who better than Kris to serve as amicus curiae to the FISA court to help @ @ @ @ @ s response to Judge Collyer ’ s December 17 order .
That is what new @ @ @ @ @ Baosberg did late yesterday afteroon in this order .
As Jack Paar used to say @ @ @ @ @ .
Well , I ’ m no friend of the court .
My reaction is @ @ @ @ @ to go .

David Kris served as Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under President Obama and Attorney General Holder. He drew on his prestige as a former senior official in the Department of Justice to disparage Rep. Devin Nunes in his exposure of the FBI’s misconduct in the Russia haox and assure anyone who would listen to him that all was in order. He is an apologist for FBI misconduct who gives the Department of Justice Inspector General report on the FBI’s FISA misconduct the stupidly credulous reading that absolves the FBI of political bias in the matter.
Who better than Kris to serve as amicus curiae to the FISA court to help it assess the government’s response to Judge Collyer’s December 17 order. That is what new FISA court presiding judge James Baosberg did late yesterday afteroon in this order. As Jack Paar used to say, I kid you not.
Well, I’m no friend of the court. My reaction is that the FISA court has to go.
FISA court appoints David Kris, former Obama-era national security leader at Main Justice, as amicus counsel: https://t.co/cX8PTEgPs5 — Mike Scarcella (@MikeScarcella) January 10, 2020


powerlineblog--2020-01-11--We now know: Mr. Wray regrets

We now know: Mr. Wray regrets

This past December 17 FISA Court Chief Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a four-page order taking notice of the egregious government misconduct committed in connection with the FISA warrants it approved on Carter Page .
Like so many involved in the Russia hoax , Judge Collyer claimed only lately to have tumbled to the misconduct committed before her court , courtesy of the Department of Justice Inspector General report issued the previous week .
I disparaged the four-page order and embedded a copy of it here .
I further disparaged the order here .
The whole thing reeks of Captain Renault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gambling at Rick ’ s cafe in Casablanca as he pockets his winnings .
Judge Collyer ordered the government to inform the court “ no later than January 10 , 2020…in a sworn written submission of what it has done , and plans to do , to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application.
” It ’ s like Renault ordering Rick to present a plan to assure that there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Department of Justice responded yesterday with a 12-page statement signed by the acting assistant deputy attorney general of the department ’ s National Security Division .
Where is the Rolling Stones ’ under assistant west coast promotion man when you need him ?
The acting assistant deputy attorney general ’ s statement is submitted together with a 15-page declaration by FBI Director Christopher Wray .
I have embedded these two documents below .
The Daily Caller ’ s Chuck Ross reports on the submissions here .
Training is to be improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Protocols have been enhanced .
FBI personnel will be instructed on the “ errors and omissions ” that were made in the Page FISA applications and associated processes .
Like Miss Otis in the Cole Porter song , Mr. Wray regrets .
He states : “ The FBI has the utmost respect for this Court , and deeply regrets the errors and omissions identified by the OIG.
” I declared the FISA Court order a farce last month , but I was mistaken .
Farce lacks the foul stench of this particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Response to the Court 's Order Dated December 17 2019 200110 by Scott Johnson on Scribd

This past December 17 FISA Court Chief Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a four-page order taking notice of the egregious government misconduct committed in connection with the FISA warrants it approved on Carter Page. Like so many involved in the Russia hoax, Judge Collyer claimed only lately to have tumbled to the misconduct committed before her court, courtesy of the Department of Justice Inspector General report issued the previous week. I disparaged the four-page order and embedded a copy of it here. I further disparaged the order here. The whole thing reeks of Captain Renault’s profession of shock to discover gambling at Rick’s cafe in Casablanca as he pockets his winnings.
Judge Collyer ordered the government to inform the court “no later than January 10, 2020…in a sworn written submission of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application.” It’s like Renault ordering Rick to present a plan to assure that there will be no further gambling at the cafe.
The Department of Justice responded yesterday with a 12-page statement signed by the acting assistant deputy attorney general of the department’s National Security Division. Where is the Rolling Stones’ under assistant west coast promotion man when you need him? The acting assistant deputy attorney general’s statement is submitted together with a 15-page declaration by FBI Director Christopher Wray. I have embedded these two documents below. The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross reports on the submissions here.
Training is to be improved. New procedures are to be implemented. Protocols have been enhanced. FBI personnel will be instructed on the “errors and omissions” that were made in the Page FISA applications and associated processes.
Like Miss Otis in the Cole Porter song, Mr. Wray regrets. He states: “The FBI has the utmost respect for this Court, and deeply regrets the errors and omissions identified by the OIG.”
I declared the FISA Court order a farce last month, but I was mistaken. Farce lacks the foul stench of this particular bit of theater.
Misc 19 02 Response to the Court's Order Dated December 17 2019 200110 by Scott Johnson on Scribd


powerlineblog--2020-01-11--The Week in Pictures: Smiting Our Enemies Edition

The most formidable enemy of the American people suffered a grievous and shocking blow a week ago , and the @ @ @ @ @ to the attack .
There was wailing and gnashing of teeth , rending of garments @ @ @ @ @ “ death to middle America !
” There is great fear and panic about potential @ @ @ @ @ , dangerous and unstable man who launched this reckless and unprovoked attack—Ricky Gervais—returned safely to @ @ @ @ @ threatening to retaliate by sending us one of their ne ’ er-do-well princes .
Oh @ @ @ @ @ killed a top Iranian general .

The most formidable enemy of the American people suffered a grievous and shocking blow a week ago, and the enemy did not react well to the attack. There was wailing and gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and fanatical chants of “death to middle America!” There is great fear and panic about potential retaliation. But the outrageous, dangerous and unstable man who launched this reckless and unprovoked attack—Ricky Gervais—returned safely to England nonetheless. Britain is threatening to retaliate by sending us one of their ne’er-do-well princes.
Oh, and President Trump also killed a top Iranian general.
Headlines of the week:
And finally. . . a two-fer of sorts:
Bonus video this week!


powerlineblog--2020-01-12--Trump’s Foreign Policy, Through British Eyes

The London Times has an interview with Ben Wallace , Great Britain ’ s Defense Secretary , that offers a good perspective on American foreign policy under the Trump administration .
It is interesting , in particular , to contrast the reporter ’ s editorializing with what Wallace actually says : Isolationist ?
I ’ m so old I can remember last week , when Trump supposedly was starting World War III .
Of course , when it comes to Trump , consistency is strictly optional .
In an interview with The Sunday Times , Ben Wallace admitted that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ keeps me awake at night ” .
He said the government needed to rethink military assumptions , in place since 2010 , that the UK would always be fighting alongside the Americans — and should use the upcoming defence review to buy new kit to ensure that the armed forces do not have to rely on US air cover and spy planes in future conflicts .
But what is meant , within the British defense establishment , by America ’ s “ withdrawing from the world ” ?
The answer , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most pointed comments by a minister about the Trump administration , Wallace said : “ Over the last year we ’ ve had the US pullout from Syria , the statement by Donald Trump on Iraq where he said Nato should take over and do more in the Middle East .
The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be .
“ We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence , surveillance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our assets.
” Here , as we have seen so often , President Trump ’ s policies align closely with candidate Trump ’ s promises .
He wanted our allies to assume more of the responsibility for , and cost of , their own defense .
When you cut through the hand-wringing , that is what Britain is now planning to do : Wallace says the defence review must give British forces the ability to defend themselves and detect threats that are currently more often the preserve of US spy planes .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he says , Britain , like France and Germany , will remain a target for Islamist terrorists from Isis and al-Qaeda .
“ It means we are going to have to make decisions that allow us to stand with a range of allies , the Five Eyes [ intelligence partnership with America , Canada , Australia and New Zealand ] and our European allies where our interests converge.
” *** He hopes the review will mean post-Brexit Britain is more proactive in advancing its interests using aid and diplomacy as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Russia ] , with an economy half the size of ours , is proactive .
The French are proactive in a way we want to be again .
I know Boris does.
” The Times interview contains two more interesting nuggets .
Secretary Wallace says that the U.S. is serious about not putting the Chinese telecom giant Huawei in a position to intercept U.S. intelligence : The defence secretary is surprisingly outspoken about how aggressive the Trump administration has been about Huawei , the controversial Chinese telecoms company angling for a role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wallace says Trump , his national security adviser and his defence secretary have all threatened to cut off some intelligence to the UK if the National Security Council gives Huawei a green light .
“ They have repeatedly said that .
They have been clear about that : President Trump , the national security adviser .
The defence secretary said it personally to me directly when we met at Nato .
It ’ s not a secret .
They have been consistent .
Those things will be taken into account when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it.
” He adds : “ Friends and enemies that are independent make you choose.
” Finally , the British have no problem with Trump ’ s decision to terminate Soleimani : What we see here is a British perspective on the basic tenets of U.S. foreign policy under President Trump .
Trump wants to put America ’ s interests first , and he wants our allies to bear a reasonable proportion of their own defense costs .
In the short term , those priorities cause discomfort with allies like Great Britain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are perfectly compatible with our historic alliances .
And the suggestion that Donald Trump is an isolationist , like the claim that he is itching to start World War III , is ridiculous .
UPDATE : Not long after Ben Wallace gave that interview to the London Times , Britain ’ s Ambassador to Iran was arrested by the regime and charged with inciting protests at an Iranian university .
Demonstrations have broken out across Iran following the government ’ s admission that Iranian troops shot down a Ukrainian commercial airplane .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has its own foreign policy interests , which it should be prepared to vindicate .

The London Times has an interview with Ben Wallace, Great Britain’s Defense Secretary, that offers a good perspective on American foreign policy under the Trump administration. It is interesting, in particular, to contrast the reporter’s editorializing with what Wallace actually says:
Britain must prepare to fight wars without America, the defence secretary has warned, amid concerns that President Donald Trump will pursue an ever more isolationist foreign policy.
Isolationist? I’m so old I can remember last week, when Trump supposedly was starting World War III. Of course, when it comes to Trump, consistency is strictly optional.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, Ben Wallace admitted that the prospect of America withdrawing from the world “keeps me awake at night”. He said the government needed to rethink military assumptions, in place since 2010, that the UK would always be fighting alongside the Americans — and should use the upcoming defence review to buy new kit to ensure that the armed forces do not have to rely on US air cover and spy planes in future conflicts.
But what is meant, within the British defense establishment, by America’s “withdrawing from the world”? The answer, I think, is telling:
In the most pointed comments by a minister about the Trump administration, Wallace said: “Over the last year we’ve had the US pullout from Syria, the statement by Donald Trump on Iraq where he said Nato should take over and do more in the Middle East. The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be. “We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. We need to diversify our assets.”
Here, as we have seen so often, President Trump’s policies align closely with candidate Trump’s promises. He wanted our allies to assume more of the responsibility for, and cost of, their own defense. When you cut through the hand-wringing, that is what Britain is now planning to do:
Wallace says the defence review must give British forces the ability to defend themselves and detect threats that are currently more often the preserve of US spy planes. “Regardless of what the US does,” he says, Britain, like France and Germany, will remain a target for Islamist terrorists from Isis and al-Qaeda. “It means we are going to have to make decisions that allow us to stand with a range of allies, the Five Eyes [intelligence partnership with America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand] and our European allies where our interests converge.”
***
He hopes the review will mean post-Brexit Britain is more proactive in advancing its interests using aid and diplomacy as well as the military: “President Putin [of Russia], with an economy half the size of ours, is proactive. The French are proactive in a way we want to be again. I know Boris does.”
The Times interview contains two more interesting nuggets. Secretary Wallace says that the U.S. is serious about not putting the Chinese telecom giant Huawei in a position to intercept U.S. intelligence:
The defence secretary is surprisingly outspoken about how aggressive the Trump administration has been about Huawei, the controversial Chinese telecoms company angling for a role in Britain’s 5G phone network. Wallace says Trump, his national security adviser and his defence secretary have all threatened to cut off some intelligence to the UK if the National Security Council gives Huawei a green light. “They have repeatedly said that. They have been clear about that: President Trump, the national security adviser. The defence secretary said it personally to me directly when we met at Nato. It’s not a secret. They have been consistent. Those things will be taken into account when the government collectively decides to make a decision on it.” He adds: “Friends and enemies that are independent make you choose.”
Finally, the British have no problem with Trump’s decision to terminate Soleimani:
[Wallace] backs America on the assassination of the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and says he “did not jump up and down” because the UK was not told about it in advance. “The intelligence information I have seen, under the right to defend yourself against an imminent threat, that would have been met.”
What we see here is a British perspective on the basic tenets of U.S. foreign policy under President Trump. Trump wants to put America’s interests first, and he wants our allies to bear a reasonable proportion of their own defense costs. In the short term, those priorities cause discomfort with allies like Great Britain. But in the long run, they are perfectly compatible with our historic alliances. And the suggestion that Donald Trump is an isolationist, like the claim that he is itching to start World War III, is ridiculous.
UPDATE: Not long after Ben Wallace gave that interview to the London Times, Britain’s Ambassador to Iran was arrested by the regime and charged with inciting protests at an Iranian university. Demonstrations have broken out across Iran following the government’s admission that Iranian troops shot down a Ukrainian commercial airplane. Which is simply a reminder that Britain has its own foreign policy interests, which it should be prepared to vindicate.


powerlineblog--2020-01-13--The Way We Live Now, Monarchy Edition

The Way We Live Now, Monarchy Edition

The number one story in the news in Great Britain ( and a major story around the world ) is the apparent abandonment of the Royal Family by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex , better known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle .
The story obviously has a strong personal element , but it also strikes me as emblematic of our time .
The British monarchy is not just ancient , but profoundly old-fashioned .
It is founded on a concept of duty , exemplified by Queen Elizabeth II , that is utterly at odds with the 21st century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job , most would say , but it inherently involves sacrifice .
The major Royals devote a great deal of time to public service , and the Royal Family is supposed to be above politics .
Meghan Markle , on the other hand , is a perfect exemplar of the 21st century .
An American actress , she is , to begin with , a woman , this century ’ s favored sex .
And not only is she very good-looking , she is–the golden ticket of the 21st century–multi-racial .
And , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing is above politics , she is a highly political animal .
Thus , Meghan is a long time admirer of Hillary Clinton : That relationship has been resumed now that Meghan is famous : After Markle opened up about the struggles of being a new mom in the public eye , Clinton expressed her sympathy and respect for the royal .
“ Oh my God , I want to hug her .
I feel as a mother I just want to put my arms around her , ” Clinton recently told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to tell her to hang in there , don ’ t let those bad guys get you down .
Keep going , do what you think is right.
” Who are the “ bad guys ” ?
Queen Elizabeth ?
Prince William ?
Hillary isn ’ t just making up the relationship ; Meghan reportedly invited Clinton to Frogmore to see baby Archie : It has also been reported that Barack and Michelle Obama have been “ advising ” Meghan .
Oprah Winfrey , too .
Once the current controversy broke , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now deny playing a role .
Who knows .
What we do know for sure is that Meghan is a “ woke ” liberal .
She is especially concerned about the environment , of course .
So people like Hillary Clinton , the Obamas and Oprah Winfrey may have seen her as a way of importing left-wing politics into the Royal Family .
Which isn ’ t supposed to be political–an impossibility , some would say , in our century .
Prince Harry ’ s role in this story is unclear .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I ’ ve put my arm around my brother all our lives .
I can ’ t do it any more.
” Prince William , who with his wife Catherine carries the royal tradition into the next generation , says that he is “ sad ” that his family is no longer a “ team , ” but hopes that someday , the current rift can be healed .
Until recently , Harry seemed like anything but a leftist .
His scrapes as a young man led to many comparisons with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a soldier and fought with distinction in Afghanistan .
In conventional ways he is a formidable guy , but most reports suggest that the Duchess is calling the shots these days .
Which makes sense , given the modern alignment of forces .
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex say they are exploring ways to make money and thereby liberate themselves from the monarchy .
This , too , is a classic modern phenomenon .
It is also where the Obamas and Oprah Winfrey reportedly came in–advising Harry and Meghan about how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But they now deny these reports .
Be that as it may , I have no doubt that if Harry and Meghan want to get rich , they can do it .
As liberals , they have access to the unlimited financial resources of the Left .
They can sell their “ story.
” They can dish the once in a millennium “ truth ” about the British monarchy , while at the same time cashing in on their status as Duke and Duchess of Sussex .
For a left-wing , multi-racial Duchess/actress/activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the limit .
I recently re-read the seven volumes of Proust ’ s In Search of Lost Time .
Proust chronicles the decline of the French aristocracy from the late 19th century through the years following the Great War .
In Proust ’ s vast narrative , the thrusting , middle-class Madame Verdurin winds up , shockingly , as the Princess de Guermantes .
In today ’ s world , that rise is not so surprising .
Similarly , the middle-class actress Meghan Markle became the Duchess of Sussex .
The 21st @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is by no means the end point of social climbing .
Rather , renouncing ( more or less ) that status in favor of one ’ s freedom to be a leftist spokesman on behalf of causes like “ climate change ” is the modern twist on Proust .
A twist of which today ’ s establishment entirely approves .
I don ’ t know how badly Meghan Markle and her consort Harry have damaged the British monarchy .
Not too badly , I hope–the monarchy has been around for something like 1,300 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this meme is a nice commentary on the damage that Meghan and Harry have done : Twenty-first liberalism is no respecter of history , or of institutions , a fact to which the ascendancy of the Duchess of Sussex bears witness .

The number one story in the news in Great Britain (and a major story around the world) is the apparent abandonment of the Royal Family by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, better known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The story obviously has a strong personal element, but it also strikes me as emblematic of our time.
The British monarchy is not just ancient, but profoundly old-fashioned. It is founded on a concept of duty, exemplified by Queen Elizabeth II, that is utterly at odds with the 21st century. Being a Royal is a great job, most would say, but it inherently involves sacrifice. The major Royals devote a great deal of time to public service, and the Royal Family is supposed to be above politics.
Meghan Markle, on the other hand, is a perfect exemplar of the 21st century. An American actress, she is, to begin with, a woman, this century’s favored sex. And not only is she very good-looking, she is–the golden ticket of the 21st century–multi-racial. And, a child of a time in which nothing is above politics, she is a highly political animal.
Thus, Meghan is a long time admirer of Hillary Clinton:
Markle has admired Clinton from a young age and even wrote to her when she was just 11 years old to demand her help with getting a “sexist” ad for dishwasher soap taken off TV. At the time, Clinton was the first lady.
That relationship has been resumed now that Meghan is famous:
After Markle opened up about the struggles of being a new mom in the public eye, Clinton expressed her sympathy and respect for the royal. “Oh my God, I want to hug her. I feel as a mother I just want to put my arms around her,” Clinton recently told the BBC. She continued, “I want to tell her to hang in there, don’t let those bad guys get you down. Keep going, do what you think is right.”
Who are the “bad guys”? Queen Elizabeth? Prince William? Hillary isn’t just making up the relationship; Meghan reportedly invited Clinton to Frogmore to see baby Archie:
Now this week, the Sussexes’ son reportedly spent time with former first lady and secretary of state Hillary Clinton. According to the Daily Mail’s Rebecca English, Clinton came to visit Meghan and Archie at Frogmore Cottage on Tuesday. “Both women have a lot of admiration for each other and it was a very sweet, warm meeting,” a source told English. “They are mutual fan girls!”
It has also been reported that Barack and Michelle Obama have been “advising” Meghan. Oprah Winfrey, too. Once the current controversy broke, however, they all backed off and now deny playing a role. Who knows.
What we do know for sure is that Meghan is a “woke” liberal. She is especially concerned about the environment, of course. So people like Hillary Clinton, the Obamas and Oprah Winfrey may have seen her as a way of importing left-wing politics into the Royal Family. Which isn’t supposed to be political–an impossibility, some would say, in our century.
Prince Harry’s role in this story is unclear. His brother William was quoted today as saying, “I’ve put my arm around my brother all our lives. I can’t do it any more.” Prince William, who with his wife Catherine carries the royal tradition into the next generation, says that he is “sad” that his family is no longer a “team,” but hopes that someday, the current rift can be healed.
Until recently, Harry seemed like anything but a leftist. His scrapes as a young man led to many comparisons with Prince Hal. Later, he became a soldier and fought with distinction in Afghanistan. In conventional ways he is a formidable guy, but most reports suggest that the Duchess is calling the shots these days. Which makes sense, given the modern alignment of forces.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex say they are exploring ways to make money and thereby liberate themselves from the monarchy. This, too, is a classic modern phenomenon. It is also where the Obamas and Oprah Winfrey reportedly came in–advising Harry and Meghan about how to cash in on their “brand.” But they now deny these reports. Be that as it may, I have no doubt that if Harry and Meghan want to get rich, they can do it. As liberals, they have access to the unlimited financial resources of the Left. They can sell their “story.” They can dish the once in a millennium “truth” about the British monarchy, while at the same time cashing in on their status as Duke and Duchess of Sussex. For a left-wing, multi-racial Duchess/actress/activist in the 21st Century, the sky is the limit.
I recently re-read the seven volumes of Proust’s In Search of Lost Time. Proust chronicles the decline of the French aristocracy from the late 19th century through the years following the Great War. In Proust’s vast narrative, the thrusting, middle-class Madame Verdurin winds up, shockingly, as the Princess de Guermantes. In today’s world, that rise is not so surprising. Similarly, the middle-class actress Meghan Markle became the Duchess of Sussex. The 21st century wrinkle is that being a Duchess is by no means the end point of social climbing. Rather, renouncing (more or less) that status in favor of one’s freedom to be a leftist spokesman on behalf of causes like “climate change” is the modern twist on Proust. A twist of which today’s establishment entirely approves.
I don’t know how badly Meghan Markle and her consort Harry have damaged the British monarchy. Not too badly, I hope–the monarchy has been around for something like 1,300 years, give or take. But this meme is a nice commentary on the damage that Meghan and Harry have done:
Twenty-first liberalism is no respecter of history, or of institutions, a fact to which the ascendancy of the Duchess of Sussex bears witness.


powerlineblog--2020-01-15--New Social Science of Note

New Social Science of Note

I try to keep up with some social science , partly for the amusement value , and partly because social science is sometimes useful for proving the obvious ( which is also amusing ) .
But I ’ ve been falling behind in posting highlights , so it is time to catch up .
First up , do you think it is really necessary to prove that good looking people enjoy a lot of advantages in life ?
Apparently this proposition requires empirical proof , and here it is , courtesy of Research in Social Stratification and Mobility ( yeah—I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either ) : Exploring the Impact of Male and Female Attractiveness on Occupational Prestige Traditionally , social scientists have studied socio-economic inequalities mainly by looking at the impact of individuals ’ economic , cultural and social capital .
Some scholars have recently argued that other types of resources , such as genetic and erotic capital , may also play a role in the processes that lead to the formation of social inequalities .
Using a unique longitudinal dataset , the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study , this paper explores the impact of facial attractiveness on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life course .
Methodologically , we employ a set of multilevel Growth Curve Models .
Two findings clearly stand out from our analysis .
Firstly , facial attractiveness does matter , both for men and women , and secondly , its impact is constant over the employment history .
Golly , I never would have guessed this without social science .
On a more serious level , I ’ ve been saying for a while now that I ’ ll be curious to see in the coming years what the social science data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of same-sex marriage—if social scientists dare or are allowed to look into the subject , because you can count on the subject being nearly as taboo and underground as group IQ research .
( Some early attempts to study same-sex unions in the U.S. have been met with the usual ideological denunciation . )
Anyway , Demography has just published a study of same-sex unions in Sweden , where same sex marriage has been legal for almost 25 years .
Here ’ s the study and abstract , with the interesting parts highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sweden : A Demographic Account of Developments in Marriage , Childbearing , and Divorce In this study , we provide demographic insight into the still relatively new family form of same-sex marriage .
We focus on period trends in same-sex marriage formation and divorce during 1995–2012 in Sweden and the role of childbearing in same-sex unions .
The period begins with the introduction of registered partnership for same-sex couples and also covers the introduction of formal same-sex marriage in 2009 .
We use register data for the complete population of Sweden to contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formation and divorce .
We show that female same-sex union formation increased rapidly over the period , while trends for male same-sex unions increased less .
The introduction of same-sex marriage legislation in 2009 appears to have had little effect on the pace of formation of same-sex unions .
In contrast , legal changes supporting parental rights in same-sex unions may have fueled the formation of female same-sex marriages as well as parenthood in such unions .
Further , we show that divorce risks in the marital unions of two women are much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We find some convergence of divorce risks across union types at the end of our study period : male same-sex unions have the same divorce risk levels as opposite-sex marriages , and the elevated risks of divorce in female same-sex unions appear to have stabilized at somewhat lower levels than those observed in the late 1990s .
Readers can supply their own interpretations and extrapolations from these findings .
I found this chart especially interesting , and wonder if this will be the experience here :

I try to keep up with some social science, partly for the amusement value, and partly because social science is sometimes useful for proving the obvious (which is also amusing). But I’ve been falling behind in posting highlights, so it is time to catch up.
First up, do you think it is really necessary to prove that good looking people enjoy a lot of advantages in life? Apparently this proposition requires empirical proof, and here it is, courtesy of Research in Social Stratification and Mobility (yeah—I didn’t know this journal existed either):
Exploring the Impact of Male and Female Attractiveness on Occupational Prestige Emanuela Sala, Marco Terraneo, Mario Lucchini, Gundi Knies Abstract Traditionally, social scientists have studied socio-economic inequalities mainly by looking at the impact of individuals’ economic, cultural and social capital. Some scholars have recently argued that other types of resources, such as genetic and erotic capital, may also play a role in the processes that lead to the formation of social inequalities. Using a unique longitudinal dataset, the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, this paper explores the impact of facial attractiveness on people’s socio-economic standing over the life course. Methodologically, we employ a set of multilevel Growth Curve Models. Two findings clearly stand out from our analysis. Firstly, facial attractiveness does matter, both for men and women, and secondly, its impact is constant over the employment history.
Golly, I never would have guessed this without social science.
On a more serious level, I’ve been saying for a while now that I’ll be curious to see in the coming years what the social science data may tell us about the new world of same-sex marriage—if social scientists dare or are allowed to look into the subject, because you can count on the subject being nearly as taboo and underground as group IQ research. (Some early attempts to study same-sex unions in the U.S. have been met with the usual ideological denunciation.) Anyway, Demography has just published a study of same-sex unions in Sweden, where same sex marriage has been legal for almost 25 years. Here’s the study and abstract, with the interesting parts highlighted:
Two Decades of Same-Sex Marriage in Sweden: A Demographic Account of Developments in Marriage, Childbearing, and Divorce Martin Kolk & Gunnar Andersson In this study, we provide demographic insight into the still relatively new family form of same-sex marriage. We focus on period trends in same-sex marriage formation and divorce during 1995–2012 in Sweden and the role of childbearing in same-sex unions. The period begins with the introduction of registered partnership for same-sex couples and also covers the introduction of formal same-sex marriage in 2009. We use register data for the complete population of Sweden to contrast patterns in male and female same-sex marriage formation and divorce. We show that female same-sex union formation increased rapidly over the period, while trends for male same-sex unions increased less. The introduction of same-sex marriage legislation in 2009 appears to have had little effect on the pace of formation of same-sex unions. In contrast, legal changes supporting parental rights in same-sex unions may have fueled the formation of female same-sex marriages as well as parenthood in such unions. Further, we show that divorce risks in the marital unions of two women are much higher than in other types of marriages. We find some convergence of divorce risks across union types at the end of our study period: male same-sex unions have the same divorce risk levels as opposite-sex marriages, and the elevated risks of divorce in female same-sex unions appear to have stabilized at somewhat lower levels than those observed in the late 1990s.
Readers can supply their own interpretations and extrapolations from these findings.
I found this chart especially interesting, and wonder if this will be the experience here:


powerlineblog--2020-01-15--Greatest college QB ever?

Greatest college QB ever?

“ 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

Before the start of the college championship football game on Monday night, a collection of all-time college great players was onstage at the New Orleans Superdome. Nearly all of them were running backs, including Archie Griffin, Barry Sanders, Herschel Walker, Earl Campbell, and Jim Brown. There were also descendants of Gale Sayers, Red Grange, and Jim Thorpe.
Missing, of course, was O.J. Simpson who may be the best college running back I’ve ever seen.
Roger Staubach was also onstage, so the question popped into my mind: Who is the best college quarterback I’ve ever seen?
Almost immediately I came up with an answer: The guy who was about to take the field for LSU, Joe Burrow.
Cross era comparisons for college quarterbacks may be a fool’s errand because the college passing game has changed so drastically over the years. Staubach’s passing stats don’t come close to matching Burrow’s (or that of any quality QB of today), but what numbers would Roger have posted in LSU’s high-powered offense? Or Joe Namath in last year’s Oklahoma spread offense behind that great offensive line?
Here are Burrow’s numbers from this year. 5,671 yards, 76.3 percent completion rate, 60 touchdown passes, 6 interceptions, 368 yards rushing.
Here are his numbers from the SEC championship game, the national semifinals, and the national championship game:
vs. Georgia: 28 for 38, 349 yards, 4 touchdown passes, 0 interceptions, 41 yards rushing
vs. Oklahoma: 29 for 39, 493 yards, 7 touchdown passes, 0 interceptions, 21 yards rushing
vs. Clemson: 31 for 49, 463 yards, 5 touchdown passes, 0 interceptions, 58 yards rushing
Burrow set the single season record for touchdown passes that had stood for 13 years. He received a record percentage of first place Heisman Trophy votes and broke O.J.’s record for Heisman margin of victory.
In addition, Burrow’s quarterback grade from Pro Football Focus was its highest ever. PFF has only been doing these ratings since 2014, but this covers much of the era during which the modern college passing exploded into major conferences.
Even with all of this, it’s impossible to say with confidence that Burrow is the best college quarterback ever. Other candidates among those I’ve seen play during the past 60 years include, but aren’t limited to, Staubach, Namath, Jim Plunkett, Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Cam Newton, Vince Young, Tim Tebow, Peyton Manning, Sam Bradford, Marcus Mariota, Jameis Winston, and Baker Mayfield.
But Burrow is my pick.
STEVE adds: I have no opinion about whether Burrow is the GOAT, but this pic of Burrow after the game Monday is definitely the GOAT:


powerlineblog--2020-01-15--Brian Mast speaks — silence ensues

Brian Mast speaks — silence ensues

Rep. Brian Mast is a double amputee courtesy of the munitions disseminated by Qassem Soleimani in Afghanistan , Iraq and @ @ @ @ @ himself sustained his injuries in Afghanistan . )
We posted Rep. Mast ’ s remarks @ @ @ @ @ the floor of the House last week in “ Brian Mast speaks.
” Rep. Mast @ @ @ @ @ the House floor in the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing yesterday ( video below , @ @ @ @ @ This time around , Brian Mast speaks and silence ensues .

Rep. Brian Mast is a double amputee courtesy of the munitions disseminated by Qassem Soleimani in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. (Rep. Mast himself sustained his injuries in Afghanistan.) We posted Rep. Mast’s remarks condemning his Democratic colleagues on the floor of the House last week in “Brian Mast speaks.”
Rep. Mast followed up his remarks on the House floor in the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing yesterday (video below, C-SPAN video here). This time around, Brian Mast speaks and silence ensues.
Via Virginia Kruta/Daily Caller and Streiff/RedState (h/t reader Lee Stokes).


powerlineblog--2020-01-15--Flynn seeks to strike guilty plea

Flynn seeks to strike guilty plea

With sentencing scheduled on January 28 and the government asking for imposition of a sentence from 0 to six months , Michael Flynn has filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea ( motion embedded below ) .
Politico ’ s Josh Gerstein has an excellent story on the motion and pulls this quote from it : “ The government ’ s stunning and vindictive reversal of its earlier representations to this Court are incredible , vindictive , in bad faith , and breach the plea agreement.
” This withdrawal motion follows General Flynn ’ s unsuccessful motion to dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As I have noted on Power Line in this context , Judge Sullivan had previously all but invited Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea when he took over the case from Judge Contreras following Contreras ’ s mysterious recusal .
Gerstein himself recalls Judge Sullivan ’ s invitation at the conclusion of his article : “ At an initial sentencing hearing for Flynn in December 2018 , the judge said he wasn ’ t inclined to go forward if Flynn was protesting his innocence.
” Gerstein quotes Judge Sullivan speaking at that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any incident in which the court has ever accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained that he was not guilty , and I don ’ t intend to start today.
” I nevertheless think that the motion represents a high-stakes gamble ( as Gerstein points out ) and that the odds against General Flynn obtaining relief from anyone but President Trump at this point remain long .

With sentencing scheduled on January 28 and the government asking for imposition of a sentence from 0 to six months, Michael Flynn has filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea (motion embedded below). Politico’s Josh Gerstein has an excellent story on the motion and pulls this quote from it: “The government’s stunning and vindictive reversal of its earlier representations to this Court are incredible, vindictive, in bad faith, and breach the plea agreement.”
This withdrawal motion follows General Flynn’s unsuccessful motion to dismiss the case on account of government misconduct. As I have noted on Power Line in this context, Judge Sullivan had previously all but invited Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea when he took over the case from Judge Contreras following Contreras’s mysterious recusal.
Gerstein himself recalls Judge Sullivan’s invitation at the conclusion of his article: “At an initial sentencing hearing for Flynn in December 2018, the judge said he wasn’t inclined to go forward if Flynn was protesting his innocence.” Gerstein quotes Judge Sullivan speaking at that hearing: “I cannot recall any incident in which the court has ever accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained that he was not guilty, and I don’t intend to start today.” I nevertheless think that the motion represents a high-stakes gamble (as Gerstein points out) and that the odds against General Flynn obtaining relief from anyone but President Trump at this point remain long.
Download by Scott Johnson on Scribd


powerlineblog--2020-01-17--David Steinberg reports: The Omar investigations

Minnesota state representative Steve Drazkowski is the gentleman who filed the complaint against Ilhan Omar with the state campaign finance board .
The board found Omar responsible for numerous infractions and released its investigative file early this past June .
Thanks to the board investigation , we learned that Omar filed joint tax returns with Ahmed Hirsi ( to whom she was not married ) while she was “ legally ” married to her brother , Ahmed Nur Said Elmi .
Trying to embarrass the Star Tribune into covering the revelations of the board investigation , we explored the board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Star Tribune finally got around to it in the June 23 story “ New documents revisit questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar ’ s marriage history.
” .
It was the Star Tribune ’ s most-read news story of 2019 .
Rep. Drazkowski is a persistent gentleman .
Drawing on David Steinberg ’ s work at PJ Media and on Power Line , he has contacted the United States Attorney for Minnesota and presented it for investigation of possible criminal misconduct by the FBI .
David is of course the genius researcher who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter on Omar ’ s tangled life .
Rep. Drazkowski met with the FBI to present his file and request an investigation this past October 10 .
( Like David , I declined an invitation to attend , in my case because of the need to protect the confidentiality of my sources . )
David reports on Drazkowski ’ s October 10 meeting and subsequent events in the Blaze column “ Finally .
The Feds — including ICE — appear to be investigating Rep. Ilhan Omar.
” Several of the events in issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on them may well be barred by applicable statutes of limitations .
Omar ’ s more recent false representations in state court filings seem to make an unlikely candidate for federal law enforcement .
Omar ’ s fraudulent tax filings — about which she has refused to say anything other than that she is square with the IRS — raise other complications .
I am afraid that if no charges are brought , Omar will claim some kind of vindication , although it would be nothing of the kind .
Anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the evidence David has produced at PJ Media and on Power Line , will conclude that Omar is an unprecedented fraud .
The Star Tribune labored mightily to find a shred of evidence supporting Omar ’ s story , such as it is , in its June 23 article .
Read the article closely ; the Star Tribune was unable to find a shred of evidence supporting Omar .
We have never seen Omar ’ s likes before , at least not in the upper reaches of American politics .
In his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care to credit my own work on Power Line along with Preya Samsundar ’ s 2016 work at Alpha News , as in his tweet yesterday ( below ) .
Make no mistake , however , Steinberg himself is the man and he remains on the case .
Please check his Twitter feed and consider supporting his work .
The story is out there for the asking , but the Star Tribune simply does not want to close the loop on Omar frauds .
David tweeted out a nine-part thread on his Blaze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) links to his monumental Power Line post of this past July 19 .

Minnesota state representative Steve Drazkowski is the gentleman who filed the complaint against Ilhan Omar with the state campaign finance board. The board found Omar responsible for numerous infractions and released its investigative file early this past June. Thanks to the board investigation, we learned that Omar filed joint tax returns with Ahmed Hirsi (to whom she was not married) while she was “legally” married to her brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.
Trying to embarrass the Star Tribune into covering the revelations of the board investigation, we explored the board file in depth on Power Line. The Star Tribune finally got around to it in the June 23 story “New documents revisit questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar’s marriage history.” It was the Star Tribune’s most-read news story of 2019.
Rep. Drazkowski is a persistent gentleman. Drawing on David Steinberg’s work at PJ Media and on Power Line, he has contacted the United States Attorney for Minnesota and presented it for investigation of possible criminal misconduct by the FBI. David is of course the genius researcher who has established himself as the foremost investigative reporter on the web of Omar’s tangled life.
Rep. Drazkowski met with the FBI to present his file and request an investigation this past October 10. (Like David, I declined an invitation to attend, in my case because of the need to protect the confidentiality of my sources.) David reports on Drazkowski’s October 10 meeting and subsequent events in the Blaze column “Finally. The Feds — including ICE — appear to be investigating Rep. Ilhan Omar.”
Several of the events in issue occurred so long ago that legal action based on them may well be barred by applicable statutes of limitations. Omar’s more recent false representations in state court filings seem to make an unlikely candidate for federal law enforcement. Omar’s fraudulent tax filings — about which she has refused to say anything other than that she is square with the IRS — raise other complications. I am afraid that if no charges are brought, Omar will claim some kind of vindication, although it would be nothing of the kind.
Anyone who looks seriously at the available evidence, including the evidence David has produced at PJ Media and on Power Line, will conclude that Omar is an unprecedented fraud. The Star Tribune labored mightily to find a shred of evidence supporting Omar’s story, such as it is, in its June 23 article. Read the article closely; the Star Tribune was unable to find a shred of evidence supporting Omar. We have never seen Omar’s likes before, at least not in the upper reaches of American politics.
In his reporting on Omar, David always takes care to credit my own work on Power Line along with Preya Samsundar’s 2016 work at Alpha News, as in his tweet yesterday (below). Make no mistake, however, Steinberg himself is the man and he remains on the case. Please check his Twitter feed and consider supporting his work. The story is out there for the asking, but the Star Tribune simply does not want to close the loop on Omar frauds.
Please support independent media. Cancel an MSM subscription today, and instead support folks like @ScottWJohnson, @PSamsundar, and @JudicialWatch. And I’d be extremely thankful if you think I’ve earned your support as well 🙂 –> https://t.co/RZOl3O9Dha (10/10) — David Steinberg (@realDSteinberg) January 16, 2020
David tweeted out a nine-part thread on his Blaze column yesterday. The sixth (below) links to his monumental Power Line post of this past July 19.