powerlineblog--2020-11-16--There’s no “i” in “team,” but there are plenty in Rice

Susan Rice has produced a “ Trump is harming national security/democracy by stalling the transition ” article for the New York Times .
This is now the party line , and Rice has been dutifully spouting Democratic talking points for years — most notoriously with her lies about Benghazi .
A few things make Rice ’ s latest set piece stand out in relation to others of the same genre .
One is the use of “ I.
” My friend who alerted me to Rice ’ s article wasn ’ t exaggerating when he said , “ Not since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cohen retired has there been an author who so abused the pronoun ‘ I.
’ ” Another thing that stands out is that Rice ’ s article is self-refuting .
In extolling the presidential transitions of 2000-01 she states : We ’ re still almost a month away from December 12 .
Maybe our national security isn ’ t in jeopardy , after all .
As noted , Rice ’ s article is long on self references .
She turns modest , however , when it comes to her role in trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she omits any discussion of that shameful effort .
Rice participated in the infamous January 5 , 2017 meeting with President Obama and Vice President Biden at which Obama discussed taking down incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn , Rice ’ s successor , even though the FBI had cleared Flynn of wrongdoing .
This key event goes unmentioned in Rice ’ s article , as does the larger effort to tar the incoming administration with unfounded and untrue charges of ties to Russia .
( Rice reportedly has lied under oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Instead , Rice offers a saccharine account of a meeting she had with Flynn — one that allegedly culminated in a hug , at Flynn ’ s initiation .
The knife Flynn received in the back was figurative only .
Trump is raising legitimate questions about a voting process fraught with opportunities to commit fraud .
And he is doing so openly .
Team Obama surreptitiously planted and promoted false claims that Trump ’ s election victory was due to collaboration with a foreign adversary .
And , as noted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiasco .
We can do without her lectures on democracy and national security .

Susan Rice has produced a “Trump is harming national security/democracy by stalling the transition” article for the New York Times. This is now the party line, and Rice has been dutifully spouting Democratic talking points for years — most notoriously with her lies about Benghazi.
A few things make Rice’s latest set piece stand out in relation to others of the same genre. One is the use of “I.” My friend who alerted me to Rice’s article wasn’t exaggerating when he said, “Not since [former Washington Post columnist] Richard Cohen retired has there been an author who so abused the pronoun ‘I.’”
Another thing that stands out is that Rice’s article is self-refuting. In extolling the presidential transitions of 2000-01 she states:
[T]he normal process that follows after a president-elect has been chosen — the incoming administration sends teams to each department to receive detailed information on policy, budget, personnel and other matters — had awaited the Supreme Court’s Dec. 12 Bush v. Gore decision.
We’re still almost a month away from December 12. Maybe our national security isn’t in jeopardy, after all.
As noted, Rice’s article is long on self references. She turns modest, however, when it comes to her role in trying to undermine president-elect Donald Trump. In fact, she omits any discussion of that shameful effort.
Rice participated in the infamous January 5, 2017 meeting with President Obama and Vice President Biden at which Obama discussed taking down incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Rice’s successor, even though the FBI had cleared Flynn of wrongdoing. This key event goes unmentioned in Rice’s article, as does the larger effort to tar the incoming administration with unfounded and untrue charges of ties to Russia. (Rice reportedly has lied under oath about her knowledge of Operation Crossfire Hurricane.)
Instead, Rice offers a saccharine account of a meeting she had with Flynn — one that allegedly culminated in a hug, at Flynn’s initiation. The knife Flynn received in the back was figurative only.
Rice’s penultimate paragraph includes this gem:
Mr. Trump and many Republicans are spending time sowing false doubts about the legitimacy of Mr. Biden’s election.
Trump is raising legitimate questions about a voting process fraught with opportunities to commit fraud. And he is doing so openly.
Team Obama surreptitiously planted and promoted false claims that Trump’s election victory was due to collaboration with a foreign adversary. And, as noted, Rice promoted false claims about the Benghazi fiasco.
We can do without her lectures on democracy and national security.


Warnock’s Wright stuff

The Reverend Raphael Warnock is working his Ossoff to revive memories of Reverend Jeremiah Wright .
Wright is a toxic figure who served as an omen of the future of the Democratic Party .
Back in 2008 , Wright proved so toxic that Obama implausibly sought to distance himself from Wright with Obama ’ s ridiculous speech on race , another sign of things to come .
As a Senate candidate , Warnock needs to distance himself from himself .
That should be a task with a higher degree of difficulty than the one Obama pulled off in 2008 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Goodman is on the Warnock beat .
She places Warnock in the Wright context in “ ‘ God Damn America ’ : Warnock ’ s Praise for Jeremiah Wright Gets Fresh Scrutiny.
” She follows up in “ Warnock : Americans Must ‘ Repent ’ for Backing Trump and ‘ Worship of Whiteness.
’ ” The subhead quotes Warnock : “ If it is true that a man who has dominated the news and poisoned the discussion for months needs to repent , then it is doubly true that a nation that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vitriol go viral needs to repent.
” This is the spirit of the Democratic Party today .
Warnock should take pathetic Pajama Boy Jon Ossoff down with him .
We support the reelection of Senators Perdue and Loeffler .
We support the continued rule of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
Readers can contribute to both Perdue and Loeffler here , or donate to Loeffler ’ s campaign here and Perdue ’ s campaign here .

The Reverend Raphael Warnock is working his Ossoff to revive memories of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright is a toxic figure who served as an omen of the future of the Democratic Party. Back in 2008, Wright proved so toxic that Obama implausibly sought to distance himself from Wright with Obama’s ridiculous speech on race, another sign of things to come.
As a Senate candidate, Warnock needs to distance himself from himself. That should be a task with a higher degree of difficulty than the one Obama pulled off in 2008.
The Washington Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman is on the Warnock beat. She places Warnock in the Wright context in “‘God Damn America’: Warnock’s Praise for Jeremiah Wright Gets Fresh Scrutiny.” She follows up in “Warnock: Americans Must ‘Repent’ for Backing Trump and ‘Worship of Whiteness.’” The subhead quotes Warnock: “If it is true that a man who has dominated the news and poisoned the discussion for months needs to repent, then it is doubly true that a nation that can produce such a man and make his vitriol go viral needs to repent.”
This is the spirit of the Democratic Party today. Warnock should take pathetic Pajama Boy Jon Ossoff down with him.
We support the reelection of Senators Perdue and Loeffler. We support the continued rule of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Readers can contribute to both Perdue and Loeffler here, or donate to Loeffler’s campaign here and Perdue’s campaign here.


Obama  projects

Barack Obama must be sleeping better at night secure in the belief that Joe Biden will soon be in position @ @ @ @ @ their wrongdoing in connection with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and — what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ .
Obama has a new doorstop of a memoir out this week and took advantage @ @ @ @ @ 60 Minutes to defame and disparage President Trump in connection with Obama ’ s promotion @ @ @ @ @ reminds us of just about everything we detested about him in the clip below ( @ @ @ @ @ always , projection reigns supreme .
Quotable quote : “ But that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ to be .
”

Barack Obama must be sleeping better at night secure in the belief that Joe Biden will soon be in position to kill further disclosure of their wrongdoing in connection with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and — what’s the word? — transition. Obama has a new doorstop of a memoir out this week and took advantage of his old supporters at 60 Minutes to defame and disparage President Trump in connection with Obama’s promotion of the book. Obama reminds us of just about everything we detested about him in the clip below (transcript here). As always, projection reigns supreme.
Quotable quote: “But that’s not who we’re supposed to be.”


powerlineblog--2020-11-17--Remembering Ray Clemence and the heyday of English goalkeeping

Ray Clemence died yesterday at the age of 72 after battling prostate cancer for 15 years .
When I began following English soccer in the late 1970s , Clemence was the number one goalkeeper for the English national team and for Liverpool , then the best club side in the world .
At the time , English goalkeeping was the world ’ s gold standard .
Gordon Banks had been one of the two best keepers at the 1966 World Cup ( along with Lev Yashin of the Soviet Union ) and , if anything , was playing even better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until a case of food poisoning ended his Cup and thereby ruined England ’ s .
In the late-1970s , Clenence and Peter Shilton ( a year younger than Clemence ) were inarguably among the world ’ s top five keepers .
It ’ s no accident that their clubs , Liverpool and Nottingham Forest , dominated English and European football during that era .
With Shilton in goal , Forest won the European Cup in 1979 and 1980 .
Liverpool won it with Clemence in 1977 , 1978 , and 1981 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1972-83 .
Shilton played 125 times from 1970-90 .
Clemence was the natural ; Shilton the grinder .
Steve Coppell , who played with both for England , recalls : At the time we probably had possibly the best two goalkeepers in the world in Peter Shilton and Ray Clemence .
Ron Greenwood [ the England manager ] couldn ’ t split them for a while and alternated them in and out of the side , which neither was particularly happy with .
The contrast in training sessions always amazed me .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on end with Shilton and Kevin [ Keegan ] .
Peter was non-stop : as long as people would shoot at him , he would save them .
When we had shooting sessions as a squad , Clem and Shilts would alternate in goal .
Clem would make two or three great saves and then just say : ‘ That ’ s enough , I ’ m alright.
’ He ’ d finish and wander off , and Shilts would be there for another hour , stopping everything that was hit at him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s natural ability .
Many of Clemence ’ s most memorable saves were in the old European Cup .
The list of his victims reads like an honor roll of footballing legends — Dominique Rocheteau , Uli Stielike , and Jupp Heynckes , for example .
Heynckes , one of the greatest forwards I ’ ve ever seen and later one of Europe ’ s great managers , had a penalty kick saved by Clemence in 1973 .
He said this about the man who saved it : My penalty wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t low either .
It was nevertheless a great reaction from Ray Clemence .
That moment , he basically won the UEFA Cup for Liverpool .
I remember Clemence as a calm , unfussy , courageous and very agile keeper .
He was particularly good in one-vs-one situations .
Thanks to his strong reflexes , he was able to really aid Liverpool , as the crowd enthusiastically celebrated his saves just like goals .
His name will forever be a huge part of Liverpool ’ s success in those days , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great keeper .
Clemence remained a Liverpool crowd favorite even after his move to Tottenham Hotspur in 1981 .
In 1985 , Spurs hadn ’ t won at Liverpool since 1912 , a month before the Titanic went down .
Clemance remedied this , pitching a “ shutout ” that day in Tottenham ’ s 1-0 victory .
Sparkling saves from Liverpool greats Stevie Nicol , Ian Rush , and former roommate Phil Neal ensured the victory .
When it was over , Clemence left the field to ringing cheers from the Liverpool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It sends shivers down my spine when I think of that .
He had just cost Liverpool victory and their fans were singing , ‘ There ’ s only one Ray Clemence ’ and ‘ England ’ s No 1.
’ You might sometimes expect that for a former player when they ’ re on the losing side , but Ray had helped us win the game with a number of great saves , including that incredible double save , and Liverpool ’ s fans were showing their appreciation .
I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Ray .
It was certainly different to what I used to get when I played against my former clubs !
I ’ m sure he would have shed a tear thinking about the reception he got that day .
I think it tells you everything about Ray Clemence as a goalkeeper and , more importantly , as a human being .
English goalkeeping hasn ’ t been the same since Clemence and Shilton left the scene .
David Seaman ( Arsenal ) was a world class keeper , but not at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was followed by David ( “ Calamity ” ) James of Liverpool .
James wasn ’ t as bad as the nickname suggests , but he wasn ’ t world class .
Two goalkeeping prodigies — Paul Robinson ( Spurs ) and Joe Hart ( Manchester City ) — looked like they might revive the tradition of great English keepers .
But Robinson was never the same after a key miskick against Croatia in a European qualifying match .
I don ’ t know why Hart ’ s career capsized .
When one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team in this century , one thinks above all about errors .
Not just Robinson ’ s , but the fumbles by Scott Carson ( Aston Villa at the time ) in the rain ( also against Croatia ) and the muff by Rob Green ( West Ham ) against the U.S. at the 2010 World Cup .
England ’ s current keeper is Jordan Pickford of Everton .
Early on , he seemed like he might be the answer , and he performed well at the 2018 World Cup .
But lately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his own way .
Pickford is currently a below average Premier League keeper .
He is in danger of losing his place at Everton .
The decline of English goalkeeping must have bothered Clemence , especially since he coached the national team keepers from 1996-2007 and again in 2011-12 .
Of course , coaches on the national team only get to work with players intermittently , so Clemence can ’ t be blamed for the rot .
It must also have annoyed Clemence to see foreign keepers like Cech ( Chelsea and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , Courtois ( Chelsea ) , and Lloris ( Tottenham ) dominate the Premier League .
These days , two Brazilians , Alisson ( Liverpool ) and Ederson ( Manchester City ) , are at the top of the heap .
In the 1980s , goalkeeping was the Achilles Heel of the Brazilian national team .
On the other side of the ledger , Clemence surely was delighted to see his son become a capable midfielder for Tottenham Hotspur , among other quality teams .
These days , Stephen Clemence is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll give the final word to Gary Stevens , who played with Ray Clemence for Spurs : NOTE : Quotes from former players and references to specific saves come from an excellent article in The Athletic by Simon Hughes .

Ray Clemence died yesterday at the age of 72 after battling prostate cancer for 15 years. When I began following English soccer in the late 1970s, Clemence was the number one goalkeeper for the English national team and for Liverpool, then the best club side in the world.
At the time, English goalkeeping was the world’s gold standard. Gordon Banks had been one of the two best keepers at the 1966 World Cup (along with Lev Yashin of the Soviet Union) and, if anything, was playing even better at the 1970 World Cup in Mexico until a case of food poisoning ended his Cup and thereby ruined England’s.
In the late-1970s, Clenence and Peter Shilton (a year younger than Clemence) were inarguably among the world’s top five keepers. It’s no accident that their clubs, Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, dominated English and European football during that era. With Shilton in goal, Forest won the European Cup in 1979 and 1980. Liverpool won it with Clemence in 1977, 1978, and 1981.
Clemence played 61 times for England between 1972-83. Shilton played 125 times from 1970-90.
Clemence was the natural; Shilton the grinder. Steve Coppell, who played with both for England, recalls:
At the time we probably had possibly the best two goalkeepers in the world in Peter Shilton and Ray Clemence. Ron Greenwood [the England manager] couldn’t split them for a while and alternated them in and out of the side, which neither was particularly happy with. The contrast in training sessions always amazed me. We’d do shooting practices for hours on end with Shilton and Kevin [Keegan]. Peter was non-stop: as long as people would shoot at him, he would save them. When we had shooting sessions as a squad, Clem and Shilts would alternate in goal. Clem would make two or three great saves and then just say: ‘That’s enough, I’m alright.’ He’d finish and wander off, and Shilts would be there for another hour, stopping everything that was hit at him. That spoke volumes about Clem’s natural ability.
Many of Clemence’s most memorable saves were in the old European Cup. The list of his victims reads like an honor roll of footballing legends — Dominique Rocheteau, Uli Stielike, and Jupp Heynckes, for example. Heynckes, one of the greatest forwards I’ve ever seen and later one of Europe’s great managers, had a penalty kick saved by Clemence in 1973. He said this about the man who saved it:
My penalty wasn’t struck well enough, and it wasn’t low either. It was nevertheless a great reaction from Ray Clemence. That moment, he basically won the UEFA Cup for Liverpool. I remember Clemence as a calm, unfussy, courageous and very agile keeper. He was particularly good in one-vs-one situations. Thanks to his strong reflexes, he was able to really aid Liverpool, as the crowd enthusiastically celebrated his saves just like goals. His name will forever be a huge part of Liverpool’s success in those days, because you can only win trophies with a great keeper.
Clemence remained a Liverpool crowd favorite even after his move to Tottenham Hotspur in 1981. In 1985, Spurs hadn’t won at Liverpool since 1912, a month before the Titanic went down.
Clemance remedied this, pitching a “shutout” that day in Tottenham’s 1-0 victory. Sparkling saves from Liverpool greats Stevie Nicol, Ian Rush, and former roommate Phil Neal ensured the victory.
When it was over, Clemence left the field to ringing cheers from the Liverpool fans. Micky Hazard of Spurs says:
It sends shivers down my spine when I think of that. He had just cost Liverpool victory and their fans were singing, ‘There’s only one Ray Clemence’ and ‘England’s No 1.’ You might sometimes expect that for a former player when they’re on the losing side, but Ray had helped us win the game with a number of great saves, including that incredible double save, and Liverpool’s fans were showing their appreciation. I can hardly imagine how that must have felt for Ray. It was certainly different to what I used to get when I played against my former clubs! I’m sure he would have shed a tear thinking about the reception he got that day. I think it tells you everything about Ray Clemence as a goalkeeper and, more importantly, as a human being.
English goalkeeping hasn’t been the same since Clemence and Shilton left the scene. David Seaman (Arsenal) was a world class keeper, but not at the same level as that pair.
Seaman was followed by David (“Calamity”) James of Liverpool. James wasn’t as bad as the nickname suggests, but he wasn’t world class.
Two goalkeeping prodigies — Paul Robinson (Spurs) and Joe Hart (Manchester City) — looked like they might revive the tradition of great English keepers. But Robinson was never the same after a key miskick against Croatia in a European qualifying match. I don’t know why Hart’s career capsized.
When one thinks of goalkeeping for the English national team in this century, one thinks above all about errors. Not just Robinson’s, but the fumbles by Scott Carson (Aston Villa at the time) in the rain (also against Croatia) and the muff by Rob Green (West Ham) against the U.S. at the 2010 World Cup.
England’s current keeper is Jordan Pickford of Everton. Early on, he seemed like he might be the answer, and he performed well at the 2018 World Cup. But lately, he can’t get out of his own way. Pickford is currently a below average Premier League keeper. He is in danger of losing his place at Everton.
The decline of English goalkeeping must have bothered Clemence, especially since he coached the national team keepers from 1996-2007 and again in 2011-12. Of course, coaches on the national team only get to work with players intermittently, so Clemence can’t be blamed for the rot.
It must also have annoyed Clemence to see foreign keepers like Cech (Chelsea and Arsenal), DeGea (Manchester United), Courtois (Chelsea), and Lloris (Tottenham) dominate the Premier League. These days, two Brazilians, Alisson (Liverpool) and Ederson (Manchester City), are at the top of the heap. In the 1980s, goalkeeping was the Achilles Heel of the Brazilian national team.
On the other side of the ledger, Clemence surely was delighted to see his son become a capable midfielder for Tottenham Hotspur, among other quality teams. These days, Stephen Clemence is a coach for Newcastle United.
I’ll give the final word to Gary Stevens, who played with Ray Clemence for Spurs:
Whenever I think about Ray, I think about his presence on the pitch. He had that presence and he could read the game so well. He was so agile and so flexible. Sometimes he would rush to smother the ball at a player’s feet, or he would tip the ball around the post or over the crossbar, and you would think, ‘How has he managed to get to that?’ And then you’d think, ‘Oh, of course. Because he’s Ray Clemence’.
RIP
NOTE: Quotes from former players and references to specific saves come from an excellent article in The Athletic by Simon Hughes.


powerlineblog--2020-11-17--Foreign Interference? What’s That?

Foreign Interference? What’s That?

I ’ m so old , I can remember when foreign interference in our elections was a vitally important problem .
A naive observer might have thought that the issue would still be with us , what with Joe Biden , the Manchurian Candidate , being one of the nominees .
But the naive observer would be wrong .
What is the current take on foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election ?
I hardly hear anyone mentioning this .
Was there much ?
And if not , why not ?
Our sagest minds were warning of this for years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts warn me of this but a few weeks ago .
There have been hundreds of media articles about the topic .
So what is up ?
I see a few options : 1 .
There was lots of foreign interference ( again ) , but things turned out OK so it is not a major issue .
“ Never mind.
” 2 .
President Donald Trump ensured election integrity through vigilance , good policy , and cooperation with Vladimir Putin .
3 .
Local election authorities were alert this time around , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance of foreign election interference .
4 .
The major tech companies were alert this time around , and they choked off each and every instance of foreign election interference .
They didn ’ t even let the Russkies spend 60k on Facebook ads .
Those are such great companies .
5 .
Foreign election interference was never much of a significant issue to begin with .
“ Never mind.
” 6 .
Foreign powers are now all , in each and every country , committed to free and fair American elections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , I am not asking which is true .
I am asking which one I am supposed to believe .
Here is an idea : maybe we should make up , out of whole cloth , the claim that the Communist Chinese colluded with Joe Biden and his campaign to swing the election to Biden by organizing groups of activists to collect mis-addressed or otherwise available ballots and ballot applications and mail them in ; by harvesting ballots for Biden ; and by hacking into various states ’ electoral software ( much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s email system in 2016 ) and altering vote totals in Biden ’ s favor .
We could make up a bunch of fake memos supporting these claims and pull them together in a single document .
We could call that document a “ dossier ” to make it sound more official .
We could then leak the “ dossier ” to the New York Times , the Washington Post and CNN , and for the next four years , every news organ in America will devote itself to propagating the claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Representatives , which should be in Republican hands after 2022 , can then impeach the Manchurian Candidate for colluding with the ChiComs and stealing the election .
All right , some elements of that plan won ’ t work .
The press is resolutely on the side of Biden and the ChiComs .
But still : the idea that Joe Biden colluded with the Chinese Communists , who undoubtedly are eager to see him win the election , is far more plausible than the fantasy that Vladimir Putin wanted the “ America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Russia ’ s main interest in American elections is that the U.S. not develop its fossil fuel resources , which is why the Russians have long financed our environmental movement .
The Democrats are therefore Putin ’ s party as well as Xi Jinping ’ s .
I think there was plenty of chicanery in this year ’ s election–perhaps not including collusion with the CCP–but when , if ever , will it be exposed ?
Don ’ t hold your breath : we are still waiting for anything like a full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off in connection with the 2016 election .

I’m so old, I can remember when foreign interference in our elections was a vitally important problem. A naive observer might have thought that the issue would still be with us, what with Joe Biden, the Manchurian Candidate, being one of the nominees. But the naive observer would be wrong.
Tyler Cowen asks some good questions:
What is the current take on foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election? I hardly hear anyone mentioning this. Was there much? And if not, why not? Our sagest minds were warning of this for years, and I heard several nat sec experts warn me of this but a few weeks ago. There have been hundreds of media articles about the topic. So what is up? I see a few options: 1. There was lots of foreign interference (again), but things turned out OK so it is not a major issue. “Never mind.” 2. President Donald Trump ensured election integrity through vigilance, good policy, and cooperation with Vladimir Putin. 3. Local election authorities were alert this time around, and they choked off each and every instance of foreign election interference. 4. The major tech companies were alert this time around, and they choked off each and every instance of foreign election interference. They didn’t even let the Russkies spend 60k on Facebook ads. Those are such great companies. 5. Foreign election interference was never much of a significant issue to begin with. “Never mind.” 6. Foreign powers are now all, in each and every country, committed to free and fair American elections, and they acted accordingly. To be clear, I am not asking which is true. I am asking which one I am supposed to believe.
Here is an idea: maybe we should make up, out of whole cloth, the claim that the Communist Chinese colluded with Joe Biden and his campaign to swing the election to Biden by organizing groups of activists to collect mis-addressed or otherwise available ballots and ballot applications and mail them in; by harvesting ballots for Biden; and by hacking into various states’ electoral software (much as the Russians hacked into the DNC’s email system in 2016) and altering vote totals in Biden’s favor. We could make up a bunch of fake memos supporting these claims and pull them together in a single document. We could call that document a “dossier” to make it sound more official.
We could then leak the “dossier” to the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, and for the next four years, every news organ in America will devote itself to propagating the claims that we made up. The House of Representatives, which should be in Republican hands after 2022, can then impeach the Manchurian Candidate for colluding with the ChiComs and stealing the election.
All right, some elements of that plan won’t work. The press is resolutely on the side of Biden and the ChiComs. But still: the idea that Joe Biden colluded with the Chinese Communists, who undoubtedly are eager to see him win the election, is far more plausible than the fantasy that Vladimir Putin wanted the “America First” candidate to win in 2016. Russia’s main interest in American elections is that the U.S. not develop its fossil fuel resources, which is why the Russians have long financed our environmental movement. The Democrats are therefore Putin’s party as well as Xi Jinping’s.
I think there was plenty of chicanery in this year’s election–perhaps not including collusion with the CCP–but when, if ever, will it be exposed? Don’t hold your breath: we are still waiting for anything like a full accounting of the chicanery the Democrats pulled off in connection with the 2016 election.


powerlineblog--2020-11-17--Warnock Hates the Military

Warnock Hates the Military

The Democrats ’ hopes of regaining control of the Senate rest on the “ Reverend ” Raphael Warnock .
Warnock @ @ @ @ @ bigot in the Jeremiah Wright mold , as Paul has shown in several posts .
@ @ @ @ @ to light , this one perhaps the most devastating of all to his candidacy .
@ @ @ @ @ in a sermon that “ nobody can serve God and the military.
” Here is @ @ @ @ @ Beacon points out that Georgia has the fifth-largest active military community of any state .
@ @ @ @ @ even more massive scale than we have already seen , it is hard to imagine @ @ @ @ @ being elected to the Senate from a state like Georgia .

The Democrats’ hopes of regaining control of the Senate rest on the “Reverend” Raphael Warnock. Warnock is a hard-core leftist and bigot in the Jeremiah Wright mold, as Paul has shown in several posts. Today another Warnock video came to light, this one perhaps the most devastating of all to his candidacy. In 2011, Warnock said in a sermon that “nobody can serve God and the military.” Here is the tape:
The Free Beacon points out that Georgia has the fifth-largest active military community of any state. Barring voter fraud on an even more massive scale than we have already seen, it is hard to imagine a bigoted goofball like Warnock being elected to the Senate from a state like Georgia.
PAUL ADDS: I may be wrong, but I infer from the fact that Warnock became the leading Democratic candidate for Kelly Loeffler’s seat — endorsed by Barack Obama and other party bigshots — that the national Dems were confident Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, and/or Susan Collins would lose, so that control of the Senate wouldn’t depend on Warnock winning. Either that, or the national Dems didn’t do their homework.


powerlineblog--2020-11-17--America, Trump, and the health effects of the coronavirus

One of Joe Biden ’ s key campaign talking points was that the U.S. , under President Trump , has fared much worse than the rest of the world when it comes to the health effects of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic .
It was a point Biden and Kamala Harris were able to make early in each debate , thanks to the way the moderators decided to sequence the debate topics .
But the talking point is false .
The U.S. has fared about the same , healthwise , in the pandemic as the nations it makes the most sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with relatively large populations and big cities , whose reporting can be trusted and that have substantial contacts with China .
In the U.S. , deaths per capita from the virus now stand at 763 ( per one million people ) .
That number is considerably lower than Spain ’ s ( 891 ) .
It ’ s comparable to the UK ’ s ( 787 ) and Italy ’ s ( 760 ) .
France has fared somewhat better so far ( 690 ) .
However , with almost as many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in the U.S. ( with its vastly greater population ) , there ’ s a good chance that France will soon reach or surpass the level of U.S. deaths per capita .
Among nations that it ’ s reasonable to compare the U.S. to , only Germany ( 157 deaths per one million ) can boast about its performance .
( Deaths from the virus are now rising alarmingly in Germany , but it ’ s hard to imagine the German per capita death count ever approaching ours . )
Germany is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What I think distinguishes the U.S. from the rest of the world when it comes to the coronavirus is the development of vaccines here .
Pfizer and Moderna , the two pharma companies that have developed seemingly effective vaccines so far , are American firms .
They succeeded in their efforts thanks in part to large grants from the U.S. government pursuant to Trump ’ s Operation Warp Speed .
If historians are even remotely fair in judging Trump ’ s response to the pandemic , he will get some credit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines ( assuming they are , in fact , effective ) .
If historians are remotely fair to Trump , the shortcomings in his response — excluding those inherent in a situation as novel as this one is — will be viewed primarily as falling in the realm of public relations .

One of Joe Biden’s key campaign talking points was that the U.S., under President Trump, has fared much worse than the rest of the world when it comes to the health effects of the Wuhan coronavirus pandemic. It was a point Biden and Kamala Harris were able to make early in each debate, thanks to the way the moderators decided to sequence the debate topics.
But the talking point is false. The U.S. has fared about the same, healthwise, in the pandemic as the nations it makes the most sense to compare us to — European countries with relatively large populations and big cities, whose reporting can be trusted and that have substantial contacts with China.
In the U.S., deaths per capita from the virus now stand at 763 (per one million people). That number is considerably lower than Spain’s (891). It’s comparable to the UK’s (787) and Italy’s (760). France has fared somewhat better so far (690). However, with almost as many people dying from the virus per day lately as in the U.S. (with its vastly greater population), there’s a good chance that France will soon reach or surpass the level of U.S. deaths per capita.
Among nations that it’s reasonable to compare the U.S. to, only Germany (157 deaths per one million) can boast about its performance. (Deaths from the virus are now rising alarmingly in Germany, but it’s hard to imagine the German per capita death count ever approaching ours.) Germany is an outlier, to say the least.
What I think distinguishes the U.S. from the rest of the world when it comes to the coronavirus is the development of vaccines here. Pfizer and Moderna, the two pharma companies that have developed seemingly effective vaccines so far, are American firms. They succeeded in their efforts thanks in part to large grants from the U.S. government pursuant to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed.
If historians are even remotely fair in judging Trump’s response to the pandemic, he will get some credit for the rapid, unprecedented development of these vaccines (assuming they are, in fact, effective). If historians are remotely fair to Trump, the shortcomings in his response — excluding those inherent in a situation as novel as this one is — will be viewed primarily as falling in the realm of public relations.


powerlineblog--2020-11-17--Terrorists can’t hide from Israel and couldn’t hide from Trump

In August of this year , Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah , also known as Abu Muhammad al-Masri , was shot and killed by motorcycle-riding Israeli agents on the streets of an upscale Tehran suburb .
Al-Masri was one of the masterminds behind the deadly 1998 attacks on American embassies in Africa , and was on the FBI ’ s “ Most Wanted Terrorist ” list .
He was considered al Qaeda ’ s number two man .
Also killed in the attack was al-Masri ’ s daughter , who was previously married to Osama Bin Laden ’ s son Hamza , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration .
The killing of al-Masri came to light only a few days ago .
Originally , it was reported by Iran as the death of a Lebanese history professor called Habib Daoud and his daughter .
But it seems there was no such history professor in Iran .
Tehran simply wanted to conceal the true identity of the victim , probably because his presence in Iran demonstrates the regime ’ s collaboration with a leading Sunni terrorist and maybe because it also demonstrates Iran ’ s inability to protect terrorists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by now that Iran collaborates with al Qaeda .
There was a time when our betters in the deep state scoffed at the notion of such collaboration , viewing it almost as logically impossible .
They were learned about the Sunni-Shiite dichotomy and thought that this knowledge amounted to sophistication .
They were so “ sophisticated ” that they forgot the simple adage that “ the enemy of my enemy can be my friend.
” What strikes me about the assassination of al-Masri is the ability of Mossad agents to pull it off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t be surprised by this , but I ’ m very impressed .
Reportedly , Israel took out al-Masri at the request of the United States .
If so , I ’ m impressed by that , as well .
The assassination of al-Masri was of a piece with President Trump ’ s successful Middle East policy .
Fiamma Nirenstein , an author and former member of the Italian Parliament , says it demonstrated simultaneously to the mainstream Muslim world that Iran can be beaten on its own turf and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations in the region .
And , of course , it reinforced the lesson that the U.S. will come after those who commit terrorism against us , with no statute of limitations .
However , don ’ t expect the U.S. to target leading terrorists under Joe Biden , and certainly don ’ t expect him to authorize doing so in Iran — never mind working with the Israelis on such a mission .
Biden intends to appease Iran .
This likely entails overturning all of President Trump ’ s good work in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moreover , Biden was critical of the Trump administration ’ s decision to take down Qasem Soleimani .
Heck , gutless wonder that he is , Biden even recommended against killing bin Laden when the opportunity arose .
Fortunately , President Obama ignored Biden ’ s advice .
However , Islamic terrorists flourished under Obama in Syria and Iraq .
Joe Biden is likely to be even worse than Obama when it comes to fighting terrorists .

In August of this year, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Masri, was shot and killed by motorcycle-riding Israeli agents on the streets of an upscale Tehran suburb. Al-Masri was one of the masterminds behind the deadly 1998 attacks on American embassies in Africa, and was on the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorist” list. He was considered al Qaeda’s number two man. Also killed in the attack was al-Masri’s daughter, who was previously married to Osama Bin Laden’s son Hamza, killed during the early years of the Trump administration.
The killing of al-Masri came to light only a few days ago. Originally, it was reported by Iran as the death of a Lebanese history professor called Habib Daoud and his daughter. But it seems there was no such history professor in Iran. Tehran simply wanted to conceal the true identity of the victim, probably because his presence in Iran demonstrates the regime’s collaboration with a leading Sunni terrorist and maybe because it also demonstrates Iran’s inability to protect terrorists.
I think it’s old hat by now that Iran collaborates with al Qaeda. There was a time when our betters in the deep state scoffed at the notion of such collaboration, viewing it almost as logically impossible. They were learned about the Sunni-Shiite dichotomy and thought that this knowledge amounted to sophistication. They were so “sophisticated” that they forgot the simple adage that “the enemy of my enemy can be my friend.”
What strikes me about the assassination of al-Masri is the ability of Mossad agents to pull it off in a Tehran suburb. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised by this, but I’m very impressed.
Reportedly, Israel took out al-Masri at the request of the United States. If so, I’m impressed by that, as well.
The assassination of al-Masri was of a piece with President Trump’s successful Middle East policy. Fiamma Nirenstein, an author and former member of the Italian Parliament, says it demonstrated simultaneously to the mainstream Muslim world that Iran can be beaten on its own turf and that the U.S. is engaged in combatting terrorist organizations in the region. And, of course, it reinforced the lesson that the U.S. will come after those who commit terrorism against us, with no statute of limitations.
However, don’t expect the U.S. to target leading terrorists under Joe Biden, and certainly don’t expect him to authorize doing so in Iran — never mind working with the Israelis on such a mission. Biden intends to appease Iran. This likely entails overturning all of President Trump’s good work in building alliances with the mainstream Muslim world.
Moreover, Biden was critical of the Trump administration’s decision to take down Qasem Soleimani. Heck, gutless wonder that he is, Biden even recommended against killing bin Laden when the opportunity arose.
Fortunately, President Obama ignored Biden’s advice. However, Islamic terrorists flourished under Obama in Syria and Iraq.
Joe Biden is likely to be even worse than Obama when it comes to fighting terrorists.


powerlineblog--2020-11-17--Media access in one state: Finale

Media access in one state: Finale

I brought a section 1983 lawsuit against Minnesota Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm and MDH Communications Director Michael Schommer for excluding me from the MDH press briefings on and after April 27 .
I alleged that they excluded me on political grounds in violation of the First Amendment .
They moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that I failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted .
I moved for a preliminary injunction ordering them to reinstate me to the press briefing conference line .
My lawsuit stands at the intersection of politics , public policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We put in evidence that brought the case right into the office of Governor Walz .
I think it ’ s an important case , yet it has attracted no local media interest .
My reports on the case in this series have been a Power Line exclusive .
The Washington Free Beacon ’ s Collin Anderson covered my exclusion here and follows up today here .
The case was assigned to Judge Donovan Frank .
On June 18 Judge Frank held a two-hour hearing by Zoom .
I reported on the hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I posted Judge Frank ’ s ruling here .
Taking the allegations of my amended complaint as true , Judge Frank held that my First Amendment claims against Malcolm and Schommer are legally sufficient .
He applied the First Amendment limited public forum analysis on which my lawsuit was predicated .
If Malcolm and Schommer excluded me from the calls on political grounds , that exclusion was illegal .
See memorandum and order at 12-14 & note 4 .
Judge Frank also denied my motion for preliminary injunction .
Insofar as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be compelled to take my questions or respond , Judge Frank ruled , I had not made out the element of irreparable harm requiring the court ’ s exercise of equitable power .
At the conclusion of his ruling Judge Frank urged the parties to settle the case .
Magistrate Judge Becky Thorson subsequently convened a settlement conference via Zoom .
Although we didn ’ t settle the case that day , I believe she persuaded defendants to get serious about settlement .
We continued to negotiate and arrived at a settlement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered to me yesterday .
I have embedded a copy of the settlement agreement signed by defendants at the bottom of this post .
Under the settlement defendants have agreed to reinstate me to the Department of Health press briefing conference calls .
We served a draft copy of my complaint on defendants before the lawsuit was filed and told them that was all I wanted .
They told me to pound sand .
According to them , it was their show and they had no obligation to treat me like the reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their briefing conference calls .
They have now relented .
In addition , they have agreed to answer three written questions from me by email each week so long as the era of one-man rule persists .
In exchange , I have agreed to give up my claims for damages and attorney ’ s fees and to dismiss the lawsuit .
I owe the Dorsey firm ’ s agreement to undertake the case and the result achieved to the head of the firm ’ s Minneapolis Litigation Group , Theresa Bevilacqua ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dorsey associate Ian Blodger to help me on the case .
Theresa and Ian did a fantastic job on my behalf .
Theresa is an incredibly skilled advocate .
Seeing Theresa argue the case to Judge Frank against the very capable Deputy Attorney General the Minnesota Attorney General ’ s office assigned to it , I developed a deep respect and admiration for Theresa ’ s professionalism .
In a case that I thought might affect my own professional standing , I was proud to have Theresa and Ian represent me .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Life note on the case .
I came to Theresa with the legal analysis on which to bring my claims because I briefed and argued the controlling case with John Hinderaker before the Eighth Circuit en banc in 1997 when we were partners in private practice .
The case is Burnham v. Ianni .
The Burnham case remains the law of the circuit .
Judge Frank was therefore bound to follow it , if it applied , as any Eighth Circuit panel to which the case might have been appealed would have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we had to do was prove that defendants expelled me from the briefings for political reasons , and I had gathered strong circumstantial evidence that they had done so before we filed the lawsuit .
It was only going to get better .
On the other side of the settlement ledger , defendants have no obligation to call on me in the briefings .
However , they may call on me , and the agreement limits my conduct in the event that they do .
They are afraid I might embarrass them gratuitously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points .
In my opinion , these provisions reflect poorly on defendants .
Moreover , defendants successfully excluded me from the briefings and remained out of email contact with me from April 27 to today .
That must have been worth something to them even if they caved at the end .
I am leaving the lawsuit behind , but I have Judge Frank ’ s ruling applying the relevant First Amendment principles in hand .
I got out of the lawsuit everything I wanted .
I should be able to add value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epidemic in Minnesota under the terms of the settlement .
My take on the settlement is therefore : I won , they lost .

I brought a section 1983 lawsuit against Minnesota Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm and MDH Communications Director Michael Schommer for excluding me from the MDH press briefings on and after April 27. I alleged that they excluded me on political grounds in violation of the First Amendment. They moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that I failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. I moved for a preliminary injunction ordering them to reinstate me to the press briefing conference line.
My lawsuit stands at the intersection of politics, public policy, COVID-19 and the First Amendment. We put in evidence that brought the case right into the office of Governor Walz. I think it’s an important case, yet it has attracted no local media interest. My reports on the case in this series have been a Power Line exclusive. The Washington Free Beacon’s Collin Anderson covered my exclusion here and follows up today here.
The case was assigned to Judge Donovan Frank. On June 18 Judge Frank held a two-hour hearing by Zoom. I reported on the hearing here. Judge Frank denied both motions. I posted Judge Frank’s ruling here.
Taking the allegations of my amended complaint as true, Judge Frank held that my First Amendment claims against Malcolm and Schommer are legally sufficient. He applied the First Amendment limited public forum analysis on which my lawsuit was predicated. If Malcolm and Schommer excluded me from the calls on political grounds, that exclusion was illegal. See memorandum and order at 12-14 & note 4.
Judge Frank also denied my motion for preliminary injunction. Insofar as I agreed that Malcolm and Schommer can’t be compelled to take my questions or respond, Judge Frank ruled, I had not made out the element of irreparable harm requiring the court’s exercise of equitable power.
At the conclusion of his ruling Judge Frank urged the parties to settle the case. Magistrate Judge Becky Thorson subsequently convened a settlement conference via Zoom. Although we didn’t settle the case that day, I believe she persuaded defendants to get serious about settlement. We continued to negotiate and arrived at a settlement, the signed copy of which was delivered to me yesterday. I have embedded a copy of the settlement agreement signed by defendants at the bottom of this post.
Under the settlement defendants have agreed to reinstate me to the Department of Health press briefing conference calls. We served a draft copy of my complaint on defendants before the lawsuit was filed and told them that was all I wanted. They told me to pound sand. According to them, it was their show and they had no obligation to treat me like the reporters otherwise admitted to the circle of love on their briefing conference calls.
They have now relented. In addition, they have agreed to answer three written questions from me by email each week so long as the era of one-man rule persists. In exchange, I have agreed to give up my claims for damages and attorney’s fees and to dismiss the lawsuit.
I owe the Dorsey and Whitney firm’s agreement to undertake the case and the result achieved to the head of the firm’s Minneapolis Litigation Group, Theresa Bevilacqua (photo at right). Theresa enlisted Dorsey associate Ian Blodger to help me on the case. Theresa and Ian did a fantastic job on my behalf. Theresa is an incredibly skilled advocate. Watching Theresa argue the case to Judge Frank against the very capable Assistant Attorney General the Minnesota Attorney General’s office assigned to it, I developed a deep respect and admiration for Theresa’s professionalism. In a case that I thought might affect my own professional standing, I was proud to have Theresa and Ian represent me.
I want to add a This Is Your Life note on the case. I came to Theresa with the legal analysis on which to bring my claims because I briefed and argued the controlling case with John Hinderaker before the Eighth Circuit en banc in 1997 when we were partners in private practice. The case is Burnham v. Ianni.
The Burnham case remains the law of the circuit. Judge Frank was therefore bound to follow it, if it applied, as any Eighth Circuit panel to which the case might have been appealed would have been bound. If it applied, all we had to do was prove that defendants expelled me from the briefings for political reasons, and I had gathered strong circumstantial evidence that they had done so before we filed the lawsuit. It was only going to get better.
On the other side of the settlement ledger, defendants have no obligation to call on me in the briefings. However, they may call on me, and the agreement limits my conduct in the event that they do. They are afraid I might embarrass them gratuitously. I never contested either of these points. In my opinion, these provisions reflect poorly on defendants.
Moreover, defendants successfully excluded me from the briefings and remained out of email contact with me from April 27 to today. That must have been worth something to them even if they caved at the end.
I am leaving the lawsuit behind, but I have Judge Frank’s ruling applying the relevant First Amendment principles in hand. I got out of the lawsuit everything I wanted. I should be able to add value to my Power Line coverage of the epidemic in Minnesota under the terms of the settlement. My take on the settlement is therefore: I won, they lost.
MDH Signed Johnson Settlement by Scott Johnson on Scribd


powerlineblog--2020-11-17--Coronavirus in one state (126)

Coronavirus in one state (126)

“ Cases , ” hospitalizations , and deaths continue to surge in Minnesota as they do across the Upper Midwest .
Elderly residents of long-term care facilities and others with significant underlying conditions are at particular risk , although the authorities do not flag the data for reasons that cynics probably understand best .
Ninety-four percent of all those whose deaths are attributed to the epidemic had significant underlying conditions ; two percent lacked them .
I hope all those with such conditions know they need to take look out for themselves .
If they do , however , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health officials .
Over the past three days the authorities have attributed 35 new deaths ( 11/14 , 27 among long-term care residents ) , 31 new deaths ( 11/15 , 18 LTC ) , and 12 new deaths ( 11/16 , four LTC ) to COVID-19 .
According to the Department of Health ’ s most recent weekly COVID-19 report , the median age of all decedents remains 83 , as it has over the many months we have been tracking the data .
Governor Walz joined the MDH press briefing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public health issues .
In a preview of coming attractions , MDH Commissioner Jan Malcolm urged Minnesotans not to gather for Thanksgiving outside our immediate households .
Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann urged college students to reconsider going home for the holiday .
The winter high school sports season may also be in jeopardy .
University of Minnesota pediatrician Dr. Cuong Pham made an appearance to articulate the usual themes of blame and inequity in a slightly different key .
Abbott Northwestern nurse Kelly Anaas followed up with an emotional performance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ You need to believe nurses when we tell you these things are happening.
” St. Catherine University Assistant Professor of Nursing Michelle Palmborg was the final presenter .
She too seemed to be struggling to hold it together : “ Nurses and health care workers are overwhelmed and exhausted…due to the lack of staff and inpatient bed availability.
” All in all , the underlying theme is that it is our fault and we had best shut ourselves up at home alone .
In short , this was another installment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walz put on a classic performance — a performance of the kind that might justify the motto tear down this Walz .
Walz exhorted us : “ Think about that light at the end of the tunnel.
” Thanks , we needed that .
Minnesota Public Radio ’ s report on the one-hour briefing is here .
Yesterday morning MDH officials talked with MPR .
The MPR report on that interview is here .
Kevin Roche takes up the theme of increased hospitalizations here .
He takes up the theme of the mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths here .
Kevin provides a useful contrast to the drumbeat of indoctrination and the fight against “ the result of the mental illness known as coronamonomania.
” At about 55:30 of the video KSTP TV ’ s Tom Hauser asked for an updated evaluation of the department ’ s “ 5-point battle plan ” to combat the disease among long-term care residents .
Commissioner Malcolm responded that until recently the program had been a great success .
On Tom ’ s follow-up regarding the high ratio of LTC deaths among all deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I don ’ t know what the right number would be as a function of the higher risk , greater health conditions…I struggle with what is the right number .
”

“Cases,” hospitalizations, and deaths continue to surge in Minnesota as they do across the Upper Midwest. Elderly residents of long-term care facilities and others with significant underlying conditions are at particular risk, although the authorities do not flag the data for reasons that cynics probably understand best. Ninety-four percent of all those whose deaths are attributed to the epidemic had significant underlying conditions; two percent lacked them. I hope all those with such conditions know they need to take look out for themselves. If they do, however, I would give roughly no credit to our public health officials.
Over the past three days the authorities have attributed 35 new deaths (11/14, 27 among long-term care residents), 31 new deaths (11/15, 18 LTC), and 12 new deaths (11/16, four LTC) to COVID-19. According to the Department of Health’s most recent weekly COVID-19 report, the median age of all decedents remains 83, as it has over the many months we have been tracking the data.
Governor Walz joined the MDH press briefing yesterday (video below) to highlight the public health issues. In a preview of coming attractions, MDH Commissioner Jan Malcolm urged Minnesotans not to gather for Thanksgiving outside our immediate households. Infectious Disease Director Kris Ehresmann urged college students to reconsider going home for the holiday. The winter high school sports season may also be in jeopardy.
University of Minnesota pediatrician Dr. Cuong Pham made an appearance to articulate the usual themes of blame and inequity in a slightly different key. Abbott Northwestern nurse Kelly Anaas followed up with an emotional performance of the shut up, she explained variety: “You need to believe nurses when we tell you these things are happening.” St. Catherine University Assistant Professor of Nursing Michelle Palmborg was the final presenter. She too seemed to be struggling to hold it together: “Nurses and health care workers are overwhelmed and exhausted…due to the lack of staff and inpatient bed availability.” All in all, the underlying theme is that it is our fault and we had best shut ourselves up at home alone.
In short, this was another installment of the full dog and pony show. Walz put on a classic performance — a performance of the kind that might justify the motto tear down this Walz. Walz exhorted us: “Think about that light at the end of the tunnel.” Thanks, we needed that.
Minnesota Public Radio’s report on the one-hour briefing is here. Yesterday morning MDH officials talked with MPR. The MPR report on that interview is here.
Kevin Roche takes up the theme of increased hospitalizations here. He takes up the theme of the mask mandate here and looks into Minnesota excess deaths here. Kevin provides a useful contrast to the drumbeat of indoctrination and the fight against “the result of the mental illness known as coronamonomania.”
At about 55:30 of the video KSTP TV’s Tom Hauser asked for an updated evaluation of the department’s “5-point battle plan” to combat the disease among long-term care residents. Commissioner Malcolm responded that until recently the program had been a great success. On Tom’s follow-up regarding the high ratio of LTC deaths among all deaths attributed to the disease, Malcolm stated: “I don’t know what the right number would be as a function of the higher risk, greater health conditions…I struggle with what is the right number.”
Quotable quote (Walz): “I’m a cultural geographer by trade.”


powerlineblog--2020-11-18--Biden selects former Alito clerk as White House counsel

Team Biden has announced that Dana Remus will be Joe Biden ’ s White House counsel .
Remus was general counsel to the Biden campaign .
Before that , she was deputy assistant to the president and deputy counsel for ethics in the Obama administration , then general counsel for the Obama Foundation , and then general counsel for Michelle Obama .
She was also a law professor at the University of North Carolina .
This is the kind of background I would expect of a White House counsel under Joe Biden , although some experience practicing law outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of predecessors like Boyden Gray , Bernie Nussbaum , Bob Bauer , and Don McGahn ) .
But Remus also clerked for Justice Samuel Alito .
I did not expect Biden ’ s White House counsel to have that credential .
More surprising , given her subsequent affiliations , is that she has gone to bat for conservatives on occasion .
Ed Whelan notes that in a 2013 letter to the Washington Post , Remus strongly defended Alito against what she called a “ snide piece ” by Dana Milbank that insinuated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s summary ) “ some deep and abiding disrespect for women.
” Remus responded : “ This suggestion is offensive and couldn ’ t be further from the truth , as his many female clerks can attest.
” Alito , she added , “ is a good man who serves every day with humility , dedication and incredible intelligence and insight.
” Remus hasn ’ t just defended her former boss .
Whelan also points out that Remus submitted letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of President Trump ’ s nominations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fifth Circuit ) and Michael Park ( Second Circuit ) : Remus endorsed both Oldham and Park “ enthusiastically and without reservation ” and attested to their outstanding characteristics : “ There is not a lawyer in the country that a Republican President could nominate with greater ability , character , and potential to uphold the quality , integrity , and legitimacy of the federal judiciary than Mr. Park.
” And : “ Mr .
Oldham has the ability , character , and temperament to be an excellent federal circuit court judge.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oldham and Park .
Both were confirmed without the vote of a single Democratic Senator .
Politico suggests that “ Remus ’ experience clerking for Alito in 2008. .
.could prove especially valuable to the Biden administration as it gears up for repeated clashes with the Court ’ s 6 to 3 conservative majority in the years ahead.
” But the Supreme Court isn ’ t the Senate .
It ’ s not so “ transactional.
” Thus , while I imagine that Alito is happy to see Remus advance to such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will moderate any view of the law on account of it .
The White House counsel position is among the most difficult and contentious jobs in government .
He or she typically takes a lead role in the nastiest legal disputes an administration finds itself fighting .
Biden must be confident that , notwithstanding her past friendly relations with conservatives , Remus is a capable street fighter when the chips are down .
Presumably , the job she did as counsel to his campaign supports that confidence .
If the confidence is misplaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as White House counsel .

Team Biden has announced that Dana Remus will be Joe Biden’s White House counsel. Remus was general counsel to the Biden campaign. Before that, she was deputy assistant to the president and deputy counsel for ethics in the Obama administration, then general counsel for the Obama Foundation, and then general counsel for Michelle Obama. She was also a law professor at the University of North Carolina.
This is the kind of background I would expect of a White House counsel under Joe Biden, although some experience practicing law outside of government/politics might also have been expected (think of predecessors like Boyden Gray, Bernie Nussbaum, Bob Bauer, and Don McGahn). But Remus also clerked for Justice Samuel Alito. I did not expect Biden’s White House counsel to have that credential.
More surprising, given her subsequent affiliations, is that she has gone to bat for conservatives on occasion. Ed Whelan notes that in a 2013 letter to the Washington Post, Remus strongly defended Alito against what she called a “snide piece” by Dana Milbank that insinuated that Alito has (in Remus’s summary) “some deep and abiding disrespect for women.” Remus responded: “This suggestion is offensive and couldn’t be further from the truth, as his many female clerks can attest.” Alito, she added, “is a good man who serves every day with humility, dedication and incredible intelligence and insight.”
Remus hasn’t just defended her former boss. Whelan also points out that Remus submitted letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of President Trump’s nominations of her co-clerks, Andrew Oldham (Fifth Circuit) and Michael Park (Second Circuit):
Remus endorsed both Oldham and Park “enthusiastically and without reservation” and attested to their outstanding characteristics: “There is not a lawyer in the country that a Republican President could nominate with greater ability, character, and potential to uphold the quality, integrity, and legitimacy of the federal judiciary than Mr. Park.” And: “Mr. Oldham has the ability, character, and temperament to be an excellent federal circuit court judge.”
The Left vehemently opposed the nominations of Oldham and Park. Both were confirmed without the vote of a single Democratic Senator.
Politico suggests that “Remus’ experience clerking for Alito in 2008. . .could prove especially valuable to the Biden administration as it gears up for repeated clashes with the Court’s 6 to 3 conservative majority in the years ahead.” But the Supreme Court isn’t the Senate. It’s not so “transactional.” Thus, while I imagine that Alito is happy to see Remus advance to such a lofty position, I doubt that he will moderate any view of the law on account of it.
The White House counsel position is among the most difficult and contentious jobs in government. He or she typically takes a lead role in the nastiest legal disputes an administration finds itself fighting. Biden must be confident that, notwithstanding her past friendly relations with conservatives, Remus is a capable street fighter when the chips are down. Presumably, the job she did as counsel to his campaign supports that confidence.
If the confidence is misplaced, Remus won’t last long as White House counsel.


powerlineblog--2020-11-18--Voter Fraud: The Crime That Must Not Be Mentioned

Following the election , the social media monopolies did their best to ban discussion of voter fraud , lest confidence in Joe Biden ’ s “ victory ” be shaken .
Today , Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on their platforms ’ political biases and influence .
I don ’ t know what to make of Dorsey .
He looks like a homeless person and , based on videos I have seen of his testimonies before Congressional committees , he appears to be of below-average intelligence .
But that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just playing dumb , trying to wait out the next few months in hopes that his Democrats capture the presidency and the Senate and no one will ask him difficult questions ever again .
Today it was Senator Ted Cruz who made things hot for CEO Dorsey .
The most important part of the exchange starts around the 6:10 mark when Cruz asks Dorsey whether voter fraud exists .
Dorsey says he doesn ’ t know : He isn ’ t interested in finding out , either .
On both Twitter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruthlessly suppressed .
The subject evidently strikes too close to home for their Democratic Party .
Facebook has extended its ban on “ political ” ads past the election , and it continues to this day and beyond .
Why ?
The election is over .
It is because Facebook , like Twitter , is trying to squash information about voter fraud .
My organization routinely runs ads and boosts posts on Facebook , either to drive policy activism or to direct traffic to our web site .
Facebook has always been happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November 3 , Facebook has deemed ads that relate to public policy “ political ” and refused to run them .
We are a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) and do not engage in political activity ; nevertheless , Facebook has prevented dissemination of our ads relating to wasteful state government spending .
The social media giants ’ horror at the thought of voter fraud is so great that they are willing to forgo large amounts of revenue and ban conversation about topics like wasteful government spending , lest references to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells you all you need to know about the integrity of the 2020 election .

Following the election, the social media monopolies did their best to ban discussion of voter fraud, lest confidence in Joe Biden’s “victory” be shaken. Today, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on their platforms’ political biases and influence.
I don’t know what to make of Dorsey. He looks like a homeless person and, based on videos I have seen of his testimonies before Congressional committees, he appears to be of below-average intelligence. But that can hardly be true. So maybe he is just playing dumb, trying to wait out the next few months in hopes that his Democrats capture the presidency and the Senate and no one will ask him difficult questions ever again.
Today it was Senator Ted Cruz who made things hot for CEO Dorsey. The most important part of the exchange starts around the 6:10 mark when Cruz asks Dorsey whether voter fraud exists. Dorsey says he doesn’t know:
He isn’t interested in finding out, either. On both Twitter and Facebook, references to voter fraud are ruthlessly suppressed. The subject evidently strikes too close to home for their Democratic Party. Facebook has extended its ban on “political” ads past the election, and it continues to this day and beyond. Why? The election is over. It is because Facebook, like Twitter, is trying to squash information about voter fraud.
My organization routinely runs ads and boosts posts on Facebook, either to drive policy activism or to direct traffic to our web site. Facebook has always been happy to take our money. But since November 3, Facebook has deemed ads that relate to public policy “political” and refused to run them. We are a 501(c)(3) and do not engage in political activity; nevertheless, Facebook has prevented dissemination of our ads relating to wasteful state government spending. The social media giants’ horror at the thought of voter fraud is so great that they are willing to forgo large amounts of revenue and ban conversation about topics like wasteful government spending, lest references to voter fraud somehow leak through.
That tells you all you need to know about the integrity of the 2020 election.


powerlineblog--2020-11-17--Warnock Hates the Military [with comment by Paul]

The Democrats ’ hopes of regaining control of the Senate rest on the “ Reverend ” Raphael Warnock .
Warnock is a hard-core leftist and bigot in the Jeremiah Wright mold , as Paul has shown in several posts .
Today another Warnock video came to light , this one perhaps the most devastating of all to his candidacy .
In 2011 , Warnock said in a sermon that “ nobody can serve God and the military.
” Here is the tape : The Free Beacon points out that Georgia has the fifth-largest active military community of any state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive scale than we have already seen , it is hard to imagine a bigoted goofball like Warnock being elected to the Senate from a state like Georgia .
PAUL ADDS : I may be wrong , but I infer from the fact that Warnock became the leading Democratic candidate for Kelly Loeffler ’ s seat — endorsed by Barack Obama and other party bigshots — that the national Dems were confident Thom Tillis , Joni Ernst , and/or Susan Collins would lose , so that control of the Senate wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the national Dems didn ’ t do their homework .


“Klan Rallies”

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

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


Loose Ends (118)

• It is passing nearly unnoticed that the Democratic National Committee , and some in the media , are referring to the “ Biden-Harris Administration.
” I don ’ t believe referring to an administration jointly in this fashion has ever been done before .
Whatever could they mean by this ?
• Before you start making book on how long it will be before Biden is removed from office ( assuming he takes office on January 20 ) , keep in mind the first section of the 22nd Amendment , which reads “ No person shall be elected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice , and no person who has held the office of President , or acted as President , for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once .
” What this means is that Biden will have to remain intact past January 20 , 2023 for Kamala Harris to be eligible to be elected twice in her own right as president .
And in the progressive dream world , they ’ d want her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Remember—I said “ in the progressive dream world.
” • Speaking of progressive derangements , I overlooked passing along this Tweet from a few weeks back ; it may represent peak TDS ( Trump Derangement Syndrome ) : So Hitler is actually an improvement on Trump !
Good to know .
• The left is out for retribution , and wants Trump prosecuted for something , anything .
Partly they want this because their waking nightmare is that Trump might run again in 2024 .
Like this in the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long , lugubrious tour through the fewer swamps of leftist dreams of seeing the Bad Orange Man in an orange jumpsuit .
I think this is even less likely than “ President Harris.
” Supposedly Biden is telling people he prefers that Trump not be prosecuted for any federal crime , but I wonder if this isn ’ t set up for a Quid Pro Joe to keep an investigation of Hunter Biden from derailing his prospective presidency .
• Finally , this old Times headline from last year aptly summarizes a key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ :

• It is passing nearly unnoticed that the Democratic National Committee, and some in the media, are referring to the “Biden-Harris Administration.”
I don’t believe referring to an administration jointly in this fashion has ever been done before. Whatever could they mean by this?
• Before you start making book on how long it will be before Biden is removed from office (assuming he takes office on January 20), keep in mind the first section of the 22nd Amendment, which reads “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. ”
What this means is that Biden will have to remain intact past January 20, 2023 for Kamala Harris to be eligible to be elected twice in her own right as president. And in the progressive dream world, they’d want her to be able to rule for ten years. Remember—I said “in the progressive dream world.”
• Speaking of progressive derangements, I overlooked passing along this Tweet from a few weeks back; it may represent peak TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome):
So Hitler is actually an improvement on Trump! Good to know.
• The left is out for retribution, and wants Trump prosecuted for something, anything. Partly they want this because their waking nightmare is that Trump might run again in 2024. Like this in the New York Times today:
Can America Restore the Rule of Law Without Prosecuting Trump? . . . there is nothing to protect a former president from prosecution. No ex-president has ever been indicted before, but no president has ever left office with so much potential criminal liability.
The complete article is a long, lugubrious tour through the fewer swamps of leftist dreams of seeing the Bad Orange Man in an orange jumpsuit. I think this is even less likely than “President Harris.”
Supposedly Biden is telling people he prefers that Trump not be prosecuted for any federal crime, but I wonder if this isn’t set up for a Quid Pro Joe to keep an investigation of Hunter Biden from derailing his prospective presidency.
• Finally, this old Times headline from last year aptly summarizes a key aspect of where we are right now:


powerlineblog--2020-11-18--Biden turns to corporate America for top staffers.  Where else would he look?

In the summer of 1973 , I was a “ summer associate ” at a big Wall Street firm .
The firm represented Farah , the pants manufacturer in El Paso , Texas .
Farah was embroiled in a nasty , high profile labor dispute .
Most of its employees were Chicanas ( as Mexican-American women were called back then ) .
Some demanded to be unionized and went on strike .
In sympathy with the Chicana strikers , a nationwide boycott attempt of Farah ensued .
The law firm sent me to Washington to attend a press conference held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to then attend a strategy meeting of Farah ’ s public relations/lobbying team , and to report back .
This was a perk .
The firm was trying to give each summer associate an interesting out of the office assignment .
At the strategy meeting , Farah ’ s lead lobbyist turned out to be Fred Dutton .
Dutton had been a prominent JFK “ new frontiersman ” and , in 1968 , served as Robert Kennedy ’ s campaign manager .
He was there when RFK was shot and killed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could this liberal crusader be representing Willie Farah , the bête noire of organized labor and civil rights advocates ?
When Dutton cynically said of the Chicana spokeswomen , “ I ’ ve seen more convincing victim witnesses , ” I half wondered , naively , whether this man was a different Fred Dutton .
He wasn ’ t .
It was the same guy .
Dutton ( who would later be known as “ Dutton of Arabia ” for his work on behalf of the Saudis ) was playing for the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long before I realized that there was nothing surprising about this .
Liberal operatives like to make big money as much as conservative operatives do .
Dutton , a World War II hero , had right to partake .
Whether to do so was between him and his conscience , and not for me to judge .
( Dutton later said that “ after Bobby [ Kennedy ] was shot , the lights went out for me.
” ) I thought of Dutton when I read that Joe Biden has appointed “ corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For example , Ron Klain , who will be chief of staff , was a lobbyist for a major law firm .
Apparently , he represented big tech companies , along with Fannie Mae and drug manufacturer ImClone when it was being investigated by Congress .
Similarly , Steve Ricchetti , who will be counselor to the new president , co-owned a lobbying firm that worked for Eli Lily , Novartis and Pfizer .
In addition , according to Tucker Carlson , Joe Biden ’ s transition advisers include executives from Uber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Amazon , the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation , and the nonprofit run by Google CEO Eric Schmidt .
To be sure , corporate America has changed dramatically since 1973 and the Farah strike .
It is now woke , and major portions of it ( including many of the companies listed above ) are aligned with left-wing Democrats .
Nor is the alignment a sham or a cover .
As far as I can tell , corporate executives actually believe major elements of the woke line .
But corporate American is still capitalistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard left is dismayed that Biden is turning to corporate executives and their top lobbyists to help him organize and run his administration .
Conservatives are probably divided on this .
Populists like Tucker Carlson seem to be as appalled as far leftists are , especially insofar as big tech types are involved .
Other conservatives may take small comfort from the fact that Biden ’ s top advisers don ’ t appear to be hard core anti-capitalists .
However , they should remember that just because a lobbyist takes money from capitalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in capitalism .
They should also remember that much of administration policy will be driven by lower ranking officials with fewer , if any , past affiliations with corporate America .
And all of us should keep two realities in mind .
First , presidents typically want to be served by the brightest people who are on their side .
Second , the brightest people among candidates for very senior positions will probably have worked for/with powerful corporations at one time or another , because that ’ s where the money is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of “ revolving door ” conspiracy when a president populates senior positions with refugees from corporate America .

In the summer of 1973, I was a “summer associate” at a big Wall Street firm. The firm represented Farah, the pants manufacturer in El Paso, Texas.
Farah was embroiled in a nasty, high profile labor dispute. Most of its employees were Chicanas (as Mexican-American women were called back then). Some demanded to be unionized and went on strike. In sympathy with the Chicana strikers, a nationwide boycott attempt of Farah ensued.
The law firm sent me to Washington to attend a press conference held by a few of the Chicana representatives, to then attend a strategy meeting of Farah’s public relations/lobbying team, and to report back. This was a perk. The firm was trying to give each summer associate an interesting out of the office assignment.
At the strategy meeting, Farah’s lead lobbyist turned out to be Fred Dutton. Dutton had been a prominent JFK “new frontiersman” and, in 1968, served as Robert Kennedy’s campaign manager. He was there when RFK was shot and killed at that hotel in Los Angeles.
How could this liberal crusader be representing Willie Farah, the bête noire of organized labor and civil rights advocates? When Dutton cynically said of the Chicana spokeswomen, “I’ve seen more convincing victim witnesses,” I half wondered, naively, whether this man was a different Fred Dutton.
He wasn’t. It was the same guy. Dutton (who would later be known as “Dutton of Arabia” for his work on behalf of the Saudis) was playing for the “other team.”
It wasn’t long before I realized that there was nothing surprising about this. Liberal operatives like to make big money as much as conservative operatives do. Dutton, a World War II hero, had right to partake. Whether to do so was between him and his conscience, and not for me to judge. (Dutton later said that “after Bobby [Kennedy] was shot, the lights went out for me.”)
I thought of Dutton when I read that Joe Biden has appointed “corporate friendly” people to key staff positions. For example, Ron Klain, who will be chief of staff, was a lobbyist for a major law firm. Apparently, he represented big tech companies, along with Fannie Mae and drug manufacturer ImClone when it was being investigated by Congress.
Similarly, Steve Ricchetti, who will be counselor to the new president, co-owned a lobbying firm that worked for Eli Lily, Novartis and Pfizer.
In addition, according to Tucker Carlson, Joe Biden’s transition advisers include executives from Uber, Visa, Capital One, Airbnb, Amazon, the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation, and the nonprofit run by Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
To be sure, corporate America has changed dramatically since 1973 and the Farah strike. It is now woke, and major portions of it (including many of the companies listed above) are aligned with left-wing Democrats. Nor is the alignment a sham or a cover. As far as I can tell, corporate executives actually believe major elements of the woke line.
But corporate American is still capitalistic, by definition. Thus, the hard left is dismayed that Biden is turning to corporate executives and their top lobbyists to help him organize and run his administration.
Conservatives are probably divided on this. Populists like Tucker Carlson seem to be as appalled as far leftists are, especially insofar as big tech types are involved. Other conservatives may take small comfort from the fact that Biden’s top advisers don’t appear to be hard core anti-capitalists.
However, they should remember that just because a lobbyist takes money from capitalists doesn’t mean the lobbyist believes in capitalism. They should also remember that much of administration policy will be driven by lower ranking officials with fewer, if any, past affiliations with corporate America.
And all of us should keep two realities in mind. First, presidents typically want to be served by the brightest people who are on their side. Second, the brightest people among candidates for very senior positions will probably have worked for/with powerful corporations at one time or another, because that’s where the money is. Thus, one need not infer some sort of “revolving door” conspiracy when a president populates senior positions with refugees from corporate America.


Talking media access

My friends at Justice and Drew on Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130 invited me to discuss the resolution of my First Amendment press access lawsuit against Minnesota Department of Health officials this morning .
Drew Lee kindly clipped the audio at my request ( below ) .
I would like to note the comments of unqualified support by Fluence Media ’ s Blois Olson and the Minnesota Reformer ‘ s Patrick Coolican on the resolution of the lawsuit .
Blois commented in his daily email newsletter : The Minnesota Department of Health tried to ban certain media from briefings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and now they have settled , allowing them back in to MDH briefings .
This is not something that ANY previous administration would have let get this far .
The Capitol Press corps should cover this story they way the cover a COVID outbreak at the Senate .
From Power Line , here ’ s the story .
Patrick Coolican commented in his daily email promoting the Reformer ’ s coverage : Scott Johnson of the conservative blog Power Line was locked out of Minnesota Department of Health COVID-19 press briefings , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winner in a settlement .
He ’ s back on the calls and they ’ ve agreed to answer three emailed questions per week .
Here ’ s his post on the settlement .
Scott and I don ’ t agree on many political issues , but we agree on press freedom , especially for smaller , alternative press .
I ’ m glad he came away the victor .
I appreciate these extremely fair-minded comments from observers who don ’ t share my political views .
I am especially grateful for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee along the way on their excellent morning show .
They were on fire today .

My friends at Justice and Drew on Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130 invited me to discuss the resolution of my First Amendment press access lawsuit against Minnesota Department of Health officials this morning. Drew Lee kindly clipped the audio at my request (below).
I would like to note the comments of unqualified support by Fluence Media’s Blois Olson and the Minnesota Reformer‘s Patrick Coolican on the resolution of the lawsuit. Blois commented in his daily email newsletter:
The Minnesota Department of Health tried to ban certain media from briefings last Spring. Power Line sued, and now they have settled, allowing them back in to MDH briefings. This is not something that ANY previous administration would have let get this far. The Capitol Press corps should cover this story the way the cover a COVID outbreak at the Senate. From Power Line, here’s the story.
Patrick Coolican commented in his daily email promoting the Reformer’s coverage:
Scott Johnson of the conservative blog Power Line was locked out of Minnesota Department of Health COVID-19 press briefings, so he sued and came away the clear winner in a settlement. He’s back on the calls and they’ve agreed to answer three emailed questions per week. Here’s his post on the settlement. Scott and I don’t agree on many political issues, but we agree on press freedom, especially for smaller, alternative press. I’m glad he came away the victor.
I appreciate these extremely fair-minded comments from observers who don’t share my political views. I am especially grateful for the coverage afforded by Jon Justice and Drew Lee along the way on their excellent morning show. They were on fire today.


Mask this

Based on “ the science , ” Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is announcing another set of shutdown measures in yet another of his Joe Isuzu come-ons tonight .
Coincidentally comes word of the long-awaited Danish mask study .
It was finally published this morning .
As expected , it found masks were generally not effective in protecting the wearer of the mask from infection by the Covid virus .
This was the largest-ever randomized controlled trial to test protective efficacy .
The study was completed in September but the authors were unable to find a journal willing to publish the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an excerpt ( citation at bottom ) : Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce , at conventional levels of statistical significance , the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect , mask recommendations were not among those measures , and community use of masks was uncommon .
The related New York Times story by Gina Kolata is “ Danish Study Questions Use of Masks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The study , published in the Annals of Internal Medicine , did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others .
But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
” This is also from Kolata ’ s story : About 4,860 participants completed the study .
The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or 1.8 percent , got infected , compared with 53 in the unmasked group , or 2.1 percent .
The difference was not statistically significant .
“ Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask , ” said Dr. Henning Bundgaard , lead author of the study and a cardiologist at the University of Copenhagen .
“ Not a lot.
” Citation : “ Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first paragraph in the interest of clarifying the scope of the study consistent with the quotes above .
I regret the inaccuracy of my original phrasing .
I will do a fuller post soon , but the headline result–wearing a mask makes no difference in cases or in level of transmission in the community .
It is obvious to all of us now that this is the case , as we can see the case growth in areas of the country with extremely high mask-wearing rates .
Coupled with the withdrawal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a benefit based on limited time period study , this should put an end to any Governor claiming that mandates are backed by science and data , but it won ’ t .
Expect to see all kinds of nonsense about how this isn ’ t a very valid study .
Kevin ’ s promised elaboration will appear at his Healthy Skeptic site .
KEVIN ’ S FULL POST on “ The Danish mask study ” is now up .

Based on “the science,” Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is announcing another set of shutdown measures in yet another of his Joe Isuzu come-ons tonight. Coincidentally comes word of the long-awaited Danish mask study. It was finally published this morning. As expected, it found masks were generally not effective in protecting the wearer of the mask from infection by the Covid virus.
This was the largest-ever randomized controlled trial to test protective efficacy. The study was completed in September but the authors were unable to find a journal willing to publish the results until today. Here’s an excerpt (citation at bottom):
Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon.
The related New York Times story by Gina Kolata is “Danish Study Questions Use of Masks to Protect Wearers.” Kolata notes: “The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers — a position endorsed just last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
This is also from Kolata’s story:
About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant. “Our study gives an indication of how much you gain from wearing a mask,” said Dr. Henning Bundgaard, lead author of the study and a cardiologist at the University of Copenhagen. “Not a lot.”
Citation: “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.”
UPDATE/CORRECTION: I revised the first paragraph in the interest of clarifying the scope of the study consistent with the quotes above. I regret the inaccuracy of my original phrasing.
KEVIN ROCHE adds (link omitted):
I will do a fuller post soon, but the headline result–wearing a mask makes no difference in cases or in level of transmission in the community. It is obvious to all of us now that this is the case, as we can see the case growth in areas of the country with extremely high mask-wearing rates. Coupled with the withdrawal of the county study which purported to show a benefit based on limited time period study, this should put an end to any Governor claiming that mandates are backed by science and data, but it won’t. Expect to see all kinds of nonsense about how this isn’t a very valid study.
Kevin’s promised elaboration will appear at his Healthy Skeptic site.
KEVIN’S FULL POST on “The Danish mask study” is now up.