freebeacon--2020-04-24--Federal Judge Rules California Ammo Law Unconstitutional

A federal judge blocked a California law requiring background checks for every ammunition purchase on Thursday .
District Court judge Roger Benitez blocked the state from enforcing the law , which was passed in a 2016 ballot initiative and went into effect in July 2019 .
Benitez called the restrictions `` onerous and convoluted '' with a high rate of false-positives that violated the Second Amendment rights of Californians , as well as running afoul of the commerce clause .
`` The experiment has been tried .
The casualties have been counted , '' Benitez wrote .
`` California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured . ''
The ruling dealt a blow to one of the strictest gun-control measures in the country and could provide new clarity on the extent to which voters and state governments can curtail gun rights .
The case was filed by NRA affiliate the California Rifle and Pistol Association ( CRPA ) and three-time Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode .
They claimed the state 's ban on carrying ammunition across state lines , coupled with the requirement that all sales be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states which only require checks for gun sales—made it far more difficult to legally purchase ammunition in the state .
The system had a 16.4 percent false-positive rate with an appeals process that forced residents to wait months to correct those problems .
The National Rifle Association , which helped fund the suit , celebrated the ruling .
`` California was n't just obstructing the people 's fundamental right to defend their families and lives—it was encouraging unlawful hostility toward an individual , Constitutional right , '' Jason Ouimet , executive director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said in a statement .
`` The NRA funded this case for the same reason the court struck down the laws : enough was enough . ''
The ammunition law was passed via ballot initiative Proposition 63 in 2016 .
Judge Benitez said he was `` mindful '' of the will of the majority of voters , but said `` the Constitution remains a shield from the tyranny of the majority . ''
`` Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep and bear firearms along with the ammunition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
`` That a majority today may wish it were otherwise , does not change the Constitutional right .
It never has . ''
Chuck Michel , CRPA president and general counsel , said the ruling dealt a `` devastating blow to the anti-gun-owner advocates who falsely pushed Prop 63 in the name of safety .
`` * '' Red tape and the state ’ s disastrous database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense .
The Court found that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify these Constitutional infringements were woefully inadequate . ''
he said in an email .
`` While we expect the state to appeal this ruling , Californians can sleep a little easier tonight knowing their Constitutional rights were restored and strengthened by this decision . ''
Benitez drew on the current coronavirus emergency in his ruling .
`` Presently , California and many other states sit in isolation under pandemic-inspired stay-at-home orders , '' he wrote .
`` Schools , parks , beaches , and countless non-essential businesses are closed .
Courts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the more serious crimes .
Maintaining Second Amendment rights are especially important in times like these .
Keeping vigilant is necessary in both bad times and good , for if we let these rights lapse in the good times , they might never be recovered in time to resist the next appearance of criminals , terrorists , or tyrants . ''
The office of California attorney general Xavier Becerra said it is `` reviewing the decision , '' as it weighs a potential appeal .
*This piece has been updated with comment @ @ @

A federal judge blocked a California law requiring background checks for every ammunition purchase on Thursday.
District Court judge Roger Benitez blocked the state from enforcing the law, which was passed in a 2016 ballot initiative and went into effect in July 2019. Benitez called the restrictions "onerous and convoluted" with a high rate of false-positives that violated the Second Amendment rights of Californians, as well as running afoul of the commerce clause.
"The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted," Benitez wrote. "California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured."
The ruling dealt a blow to one of the strictest gun-control measures in the country and could provide new clarity on the extent to which voters and state governments can curtail gun rights.
The case was filed by NRA affiliate the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and three-time Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode. They claimed the state's ban on carrying ammunition across state lines, coupled with the requirement that all sales be subject to a background check—unlike most other states which only require checks for gun sales—made it far more difficult to legally purchase ammunition in the state. The system had a 16.4 percent false-positive rate with an appeals process that forced residents to wait months to correct those problems. The National Rifle Association, which helped fund the suit, celebrated the ruling.
"California wasn't just obstructing the people's fundamental right to defend their families and lives—it was encouraging unlawful hostility toward an individual, Constitutional right," Jason Ouimet, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "The NRA funded this case for the same reason the court struck down the laws: enough was enough."
The ammunition law was passed via ballot initiative Proposition 63 in 2016. Judge Benitez said he was "mindful" of the will of the majority of voters, but said "the Constitution remains a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
"Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep and bear firearms along with the ammunition to make their firearms work," he wrote. "That a majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right. It never has."
Chuck Michel, CRPA president and general counsel, said the ruling dealt a "devastating blow to the anti-gun-owner advocates who falsely pushed Prop 63 in the name of safety."*
"Red tape and the state’s disastrous database errors made it impossible for hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians to purchase ammunition for sport or self-defense. The Court found that the flimsy reasons offered by the government to justify these Constitutional infringements were woefully inadequate." he said in an email. "While we expect the state to appeal this ruling, Californians can sleep a little easier tonight knowing their Constitutional rights were restored and strengthened by this decision."
Benitez drew on the current coronavirus emergency in his ruling.
"Presently, California and many other states sit in isolation under pandemic-inspired stay-at-home orders," he wrote. "Schools, parks, beaches, and countless non-essential businesses are closed. Courts are limping by while police make arrests for only the more serious crimes. Maintaining Second Amendment rights are especially important in times like these. Keeping vigilant is necessary in both bad times and good, for if we let these rights lapse in the good times, they might never be recovered in time to resist the next appearance of criminals, terrorists, or tyrants."
The office of California attorney general Xavier Becerra said it is "reviewing the decision," as it weighs a potential appeal.
*This piece has been updated with comment from the CRPA


freebeacon--2020-04-26--Missouri AG Schmitt ‘Confident’ He Can Make China Pay

Missouri attorney general Eric Schmitt is `` confident '' he will secure damages from the Chinese government for its responsibility in unleashing the coronavirus pandemic .
While congressional Republicans have floated legislation to allow American citizens to sue China for mishandling the coronavirus , Schmitt on Tuesday made Missouri the first state to file a lawsuit against the communist nation .
The suit says the Chinese government must be held liable for the `` enormous loss of life , human suffering , and economic turmoil '' brought on by the deadly disease .
Schmitt estimates that the virus has caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage in the Show-Me State alone .
`` The fact is , by the cover-up , by the deception , by the lies , by the silencing of whistleblowers , by the hoarding of protective equipment , by not informing the world about how deadly the virus would be , a pandemic was unleashed on the world , '' Schmitt said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon .
`` All of that certainly points to the Chinese government for its malfeasance , and we want to hold them accountable for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendants , including the Chinese Communist Party , the nation 's health and emergency ministries , provincial and city governments in Hubei and Wuhan , and the Wuhan Institute of Virology , a superlab which some U.S. officials suspect played a role in the outbreak .
The suit outlines an array of facts highlighting China 's abuses in the early stages of the outbreak that resulted in an `` unnecessary and preventable '' pandemic .
`` During the critical weeks of the initial outbreak , Chinese authorities deceived the public , suppressed crucial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission in the face of mounting evidence , destroyed critical medical research , permitted millions of people to be exposed to the virus , and even hoarded personal protective equipment , '' the suit says .
The Republican AG expressed confidence in the suit 's legal merit , saying he expects other states to launch similar efforts in the near future .
`` We feel confident in our legal case and think that other states are probably going to follow suit , '' he told the Free Beacon .
While Missouri has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as some of the urban epicenters of the pandemic in the United States , the state ranks among the top half in coronavirus cases , according to the CDC .
More than 6,000 Missouri residents have been diagnosed with the disease , which emerged in China in December .
Schmitt said that those responsible for the outbreak must compensate victims of the virus and the `` tremendous '' economic devastation brought on by public shutdowns .
`` I represent 6 million Missourians .
We 've got over 6,000 cases now , over 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Schmitt said .
`` The human toll of people losing loved ones , not being able to visit family suffering from the virus , [ and ] not attending funerals .
That 's not even mentioning the economic impact .
People living paycheck to paycheck ca n't feed their families now .
All because the Chinese government lied about this . ''
China could typically claim immunity from the lawsuit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act , which inhibits the ability to sue sovereign nations in U.S. courts .
Schmitt said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing to the exemptions made for commercial activities .
The law states in part that a foreign actor may lose its immunity by partaking in commercial activity outside of America that has a `` direct effect '' in the United States .
The regime 's behavior in suppressing the existence of the disease , as well as hoarding medical equipment made by American companies in China , forfeited those legal protections .
`` We 're essentially claiming a public nuisance , '' Schmitt said .
`` In our complaint , we allege that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protective equipment , by being engaged in running hospitals , by being engaged in running the virology lab , China is pulled out of the normal protection that they may be able to claim . ''
Schmitt has taken further steps to advance the suit past immunity claims .
The lawsuit names non-state actors as defendants , which could limit China 's ability to claim sovereignty .
`` One thing that 's unique about our lawsuit is that we also name non-state actors , in addition to the Communist Party , '' Schmitt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Chinese government is running everything anyway , so they do n't get to claim immunity because they have a non-state actor in charge of the actions or inactions that led to these damages that we 're asserting . ''
Sen. Tom Cotton ( R. , Ark . )
and Rep. Dan Crenshaw ( R. , Texas ) introduced legislation in April to create a new exception specifically related to damages caused by China 's pandemic response .
Schmitt said the merits of his suit should suffice even if the bill is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint is strong , '' he said .
The case was filed in U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Tuesday .

Missouri attorney general Eric Schmitt is "confident" he will secure damages from the Chinese government for its responsibility in unleashing the coronavirus pandemic.
While congressional Republicans have floated legislation to allow American citizens to sue China for mishandling the coronavirus, Schmitt on Tuesday made Missouri the first state to file a lawsuit against the communist nation. The suit says the Chinese government must be held liable for the "enormous loss of life, human suffering, and economic turmoil" brought on by the deadly disease. Schmitt estimates that the virus has caused tens of billions of dollars in economic damage in the Show-Me State alone.
"The fact is, by the cover-up, by the deception, by the lies, by the silencing of whistleblowers, by the hoarding of protective equipment, by not informing the world about how deadly the virus would be, a pandemic was unleashed on the world," Schmitt said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon. "All of that certainly points to the Chinese government for its malfeasance, and we want to hold them accountable for that."
Schmitt's lawsuit identifies multiple defendants, including the Chinese Communist Party, the nation's health and emergency ministries, provincial and city governments in Hubei and Wuhan, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a superlab which some U.S. officials suspect played a role in the outbreak. The suit outlines an array of facts highlighting China's abuses in the early stages of the outbreak that resulted in an "unnecessary and preventable" pandemic.
"During the critical weeks of the initial outbreak, Chinese authorities deceived the public, suppressed crucial information, arrested whistleblowers, denied human-to-human transmission in the face of mounting evidence, destroyed critical medical research, permitted millions of people to be exposed to the virus, and even hoarded personal protective equipment," the suit says.
The Republican AG expressed confidence in the suit's legal merit, saying he expects other states to launch similar efforts in the near future.
"We feel confident in our legal case and think that other states are probably going to follow suit," he told the Free Beacon.
While Missouri has not been hit as hard by the virus as some of the urban epicenters of the pandemic in the United States, the state ranks among the top half in coronavirus cases, according to the CDC. More than 6,000 Missouri residents have been diagnosed with the disease, which emerged in China in December. Schmitt said that those responsible for the outbreak must compensate victims of the virus and the "tremendous" economic devastation brought on by public shutdowns.
"I represent 6 million Missourians. We've got over 6,000 cases now, over 200 deaths. It's a tremendous impact," Schmitt said. "The human toll of people losing loved ones, not being able to visit family suffering from the virus, [and] not attending funerals. That's not even mentioning the economic impact. People living paycheck to paycheck can't feed their families now. All because the Chinese government lied about this."
China could typically claim immunity from the lawsuit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which inhibits the ability to sue sovereign nations in U.S. courts. Schmitt said that blanket immunity should not apply, pointing to the exemptions made for commercial activities. The law states in part that a foreign actor may lose its immunity by partaking in commercial activity outside of America that has a "direct effect" in the United States. The regime's behavior in suppressing the existence of the disease, as well as hoarding medical equipment made by American companies in China, forfeited those legal protections.
"We're essentially claiming a public nuisance," Schmitt said. "In our complaint, we allege that by being engaged in the hoarding of protective equipment, by being engaged in running hospitals, by being engaged in running the virology lab, China is pulled out of the normal protection that they may be able to claim."
Schmitt has taken further steps to advance the suit past immunity claims. The lawsuit names non-state actors as defendants, which could limit China's ability to claim sovereignty.
"One thing that's unique about our lawsuit is that we also name non-state actors, in addition to the Communist Party," Schmitt said. "The assertion there is that the Chinese government is running everything anyway, so they don't get to claim immunity because they have a non-state actor in charge of the actions or inactions that led to these damages that we're asserting."
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R., Texas) introduced legislation in April to create a new exception specifically related to damages caused by China's pandemic response. Schmitt said the merits of his suit should suffice even if the bill is not passed.
"I think our complaint is strong," he said.
The case was filed in U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Tuesday.


freebeacon--2020-04-26--Pelosi Claims China Travel Ban Didn’t Go Far Enough

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D. , Calif. ) on Sunday claimed that President Donald Trump 's travel restrictions on China did not do enough to prevent people from traveling to the United States .
CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Pelosi if she believed travel restrictions on China were appropriate , noting Joe Biden 's recent endorsement of the ban .
Pelosi did not say whether she supported the restrictions but claimed the ban was n't a `` great moment '' because it still allowed some people to travel from China to the United States .
`` If you 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an evaluation of an epidemic , then shut the door , '' Pelosi said during an interview on CNN 's State of the Union .
`` Actually , tens of thousands of people were still allowed in from China , '' she said .
`` So it wasn ’ t , as it is described , as this great moment .
There were Americans coming back or green card holders coming back .
But there were tens of thousands . ''
Weeks following the travel ban , Pelosi encouraged San Francisco residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's Chinatown .
`` We think it 's very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come , '' Pelosi said at the time .
Approximately two weeks later , San Francisco recommended social distancing guidelines .
California would become the first state to implement a statewide stay-at-home order on March 19 .
The day the China travel ban was announced , Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden criticized the president 's `` record of hysteria and xenophobia . ''
Biden 's campaign has since stated that the former vice president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
The Trump administration implemented the China travel ban on Jan. 31 to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus from China , the virus 's place of origin .
The policy restricted foreign nationals from traveling from China to the United States .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) on Sunday claimed that President Donald Trump's travel restrictions on China did not do enough to prevent people from traveling to the United States.
CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Pelosi if she believed travel restrictions on China were appropriate, noting Joe Biden's recent endorsement of the ban.
Pelosi did not say whether she supported the restrictions but claimed the ban wasn't a "great moment" because it still allowed some people to travel from China to the United States.
"If you're going to shut the door because you have an evaluation of an epidemic, then shut the door," Pelosi said during an interview on CNN's State of the Union.
"Actually, tens of thousands of people were still allowed in from China," she said. "So it wasn’t, as it is described, as this great moment. There were Americans coming back or green card holders coming back. But there were tens of thousands."
Weeks following the travel ban, Pelosi encouraged San Francisco residents to join her and visit the city's Chinatown.
"We think it's very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come," Pelosi said at the time.
Approximately two weeks later, San Francisco recommended social distancing guidelines. California would become the first state to implement a statewide stay-at-home order on March 19.
The day the China travel ban was announced, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden criticized the president's "record of hysteria and xenophobia." Biden's campaign has since stated that the former vice president was not referencing the travel restrictions on China.
The Trump administration implemented the China travel ban on Jan. 31 to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus from China, the virus's place of origin. The policy restricted foreign nationals from traveling from China to the United States.


freebeacon--2020-04-27--The Strange Story of a Las Vegas Radio Station Co-Opted by China

At first glance , Las Vegas Public Radio ( LVPR ) looks like any other local FM radio station .
It has local community sponsors , vaguely right-wing talk show hosts , and a website begging for a makeover .
But there 's a disclaimer on the bottom of that website noting that , contrary to the name , the station is not an NPR affiliate .
That disclaimer makes no mention of the fact that LVPR , the self-proclaimed `` People 's Voice of Las Vegas , '' is registered to lobby for Huawei Technologies , a Chinese company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
Funded in part by Nevada taxpayers , according to its founder , LVPR has also developed close ties with Chinese officials and , under the guise of a local American radio station , it has become a voice for a Chinese technology giant that the Trump administration and other national security experts have identified as a threat to the global communications network .
Federal disclosures show that the station is registered to lobby for Huawei and , in that capacity , has scheduled programming to push back against mounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a conduit for Chinese espionage if it builds the 5G network in the United States .
`` We 'll tell the American people that Huawei is being f—ed in America by politicians , '' LVPR founder and president Gregory LaPorta told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` They are no different from Qualcomm and Google … [ Huawei ] wants a place in the world like anyone else . ''
As the United States and China engage in a global messaging battle over the origins and spread of the coronavirus , the strange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leveraged the small radio station underscores the heterodox techniques Beijing is using to broadcast their message to Americans .
The station ’ s existence has already sown confusion .
LVPR lists several major wire services such as the Associated Press as its `` affiliates '' on its website .
One of the wire services listed , the federally funded international broadcaster Voice of America , told the Free Beacon that the radio station is not an affiliate .
The AP did not respond to a request for comment about its relationship with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the local Las Vegas community , has also hammered out a plan to open an office in China to promote ties between Las Vegas and the communist regime , according to lobbying disclosure forms , which state that LaPorta is developing a plan for `` a specialized pilot project located in a select Chinese city to make the American Public Broadcasting System readily available in China . ''
In his 2013 application for a broadcasting license , LaPorta highlighted his past experience promoting `` Las Vegas community business and tourism in China '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its 2016 launch , the station has employed two Chinese nationals as `` international liaisons . ''
One of the two , Hung Mui Amy Chim , has since been promoted to director of programming .
The other is a pathologist based in a Shenzhen hospital , who Laporta said offers overseas `` contacts '' for the station .
LVPR has also hired DaHung Law Office , a law firm that traces its origins to the Chinese government , as part of its legal team .
LVPR ’ s relationship with China does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boon for the fledgling station , which has been dogged by financial difficulties since its founding .
Lobbying disclosure forms report that the station has received less than $ 5,000 each quarter for its work and in the 2019 fiscal year , the station reported $ 81,000 in revenue and $ 240,000 in expenditures , according to state filings .
LaPorta blamed the station 's rocky finances on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ( CPB ) , a government-backed entity that offers grants to public broadcasters .
LaPorta said the CPB 's refusal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has forced him to seek revenue elsewhere , including China .
`` This is why we 're going out of the country .
Our own f—ing country has let us down , '' LaPorta said .
`` They do n't want to support us ?
F— them . ''
As part of its corporate citizenship , LVPR says on its website the company is committed to `` respecting human rights and avoiding complicity in any human rights abuse . ''
But the station has been a reliable source of pro-China messaging , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , LaPorta conducted an interview with the China ’ s San Francisco-based consul general , Dongua Wang , who used the opportunity to slam the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong , accusing them of `` violent criminal acts . ''
LaPorta did not push back .
`` They were causing damage , '' he said .
`` They were causing damages by businesses and throwing stuff in business windows .
I think though that 's criminal , is n't it ? ''
Over the past decade , China has aggressively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misinformation .
Chinese officials have used social media and text messages to spread alarming but fake coronavirus rumors that the Trump administration will deploy troops to lockdown the entire country .
And leading American media outlets continue to receive millions from Chinese propaganda outlets to publish hundreds of advertisements designed to look like news stories , some of which promoted half-truths about China 's pandemic response .
But China 's decision to cultivate ties with a local community radio station , located more than 6,200 miles away from Beijing , is an example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be .
LaPorta told the Free Beacon that he started courting Huawei , the controversial tech giant that helped China build the surveillance state in Xinjiang , to `` help pay the bills . ''
On Dec. 31 , 2018 , the LVPR Twitter account wrote that the radio station was `` bringing Huawei to America . ''
LaPorta refused to discuss details about the New Year ’ s Eve broadcast—which was not archived—saying that what the station publicly broadcast to nearly 500,000 Nevadans that day was `` privileged information . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ create programming to `` address concerns … about Huawei products/services being developed or manufactured in the US for US consumption . ''
LaPorta maintained that he himself registered as a lobbyist as a precautionary measure and that he has done no lobbying for the company since 2018 .
LVPR 's plan to expand into China got official backing from the Chinese government in October 2019 , when LaPorta visited Beijing to meet with Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials to discuss plans to establish an `` independent public broadcasting facility . ''
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Las Vegas tourism in China , according to a press release from the station , and LaPorta said that his overseas office will `` give them the truth '' about corruption in China .
`` We 're not going to be a fake news agency , '' he said .
He dismissed concerns about China 's routine suppression of the freedom of the press , and expressed no qualms working with the Chinese government , given what he saw as the corrupt nature of the American government .
`` The United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' he said .
`` America , we 're the most corrupt nation on Earth , probably , at this point . ''
Editor 's Note : This report was updated at 7:37 a.m .

At first glance, Las Vegas Public Radio (LVPR) looks like any other local FM radio station. It has local community sponsors, vaguely right-wing talk show hosts, and a website begging for a makeover. But there's a disclaimer on the bottom of that website noting that, contrary to the name, the station is not an NPR affiliate.
That disclaimer makes no mention of the fact that LVPR, the self-proclaimed "People's Voice of Las Vegas," is registered to lobby for Huawei Technologies, a Chinese company widely considered a national security threat to the United States.
Funded in part by Nevada taxpayers, according to its founder, LVPR has also developed close ties with Chinese officials and, under the guise of a local American radio station, it has become a voice for a Chinese technology giant that the Trump administration and other national security experts have identified as a threat to the global communications network. Federal disclosures show that the station is registered to lobby for Huawei and, in that capacity, has scheduled programming to push back against mounting concerns that the company could serve as a conduit for Chinese espionage if it builds the 5G network in the United States.
"We'll tell the American people that Huawei is being f---ed in America by politicians," LVPR founder and president Gregory LaPorta told the Washington Free Beacon. "They are no different from Qualcomm and Google … [Huawei] wants a place in the world like anyone else."
As the United States and China engage in a global messaging battle over the origins and spread of the coronavirus, the strange story of how the Chinese government has leveraged the small radio station underscores the heterodox techniques Beijing is using to broadcast their message to Americans.
The station’s existence has already sown confusion. LVPR lists several major wire services such as the Associated Press as its "affiliates" on its website. One of the wire services listed, the federally funded international broadcaster Voice of America, told the Free Beacon that the radio station is not an affiliate. The AP did not respond to a request for comment about its relationship with the station.
LVPR, which ostensibly serves the local Las Vegas community, has also hammered out a plan to open an office in China to promote ties between Las Vegas and the communist regime, according to lobbying disclosure forms, which state that LaPorta is developing a plan for "a specialized pilot project located in a select Chinese city to make the American Public Broadcasting System readily available in China."
In his 2013 application for a broadcasting license, LaPorta highlighted his past experience promoting "Las Vegas community business and tourism in China" to the Federal Communications Commission.
Since its 2016 launch, the station has employed two Chinese nationals as "international liaisons." One of the two, Hung Mui Amy Chim, has since been promoted to director of programming. The other is a pathologist based in a Shenzhen hospital, who Laporta said offers overseas "contacts" for the station. LVPR has also hired DaHung Law Office, a law firm that traces its origins to the Chinese government, as part of its legal team.
LVPR’s relationship with China does not appear to have been a financial boon for the fledgling station, which has been dogged by financial difficulties since its founding. Lobbying disclosure forms report that the station has received less than $5,000 each quarter for its work and in the 2019 fiscal year, the station reported $81,000 in revenue and $240,000 in expenditures, according to state filings.
LaPorta blamed the station's rocky finances on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a government-backed entity that offers grants to public broadcasters. LaPorta said the CPB's refusal to offer financial support for his station has forced him to seek revenue elsewhere, including China.
"This is why we're going out of the country. Our own f---ing country has let us down," LaPorta said. "They don't want to support us? F--- them."
As part of its corporate citizenship, LVPR says on its website the company is committed to "respecting human rights and avoiding complicity in any human rights abuse."
But the station has been a reliable source of pro-China messaging, including on human rights issues. In January, for example, LaPorta conducted an interview with the China’s San Francisco-based consul general, Dongua Wang, who used the opportunity to slam the pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong, accusing them of "violent criminal acts."
LaPorta did not push back. "They were causing damage," he said. "They were causing damages by businesses and throwing stuff in business windows. I think though that's criminal, isn't it?"
Over the past decade, China has aggressively targeted the United States with propaganda and misinformation. Chinese officials have used social media and text messages to spread alarming but fake coronavirus rumors that the Trump administration will deploy troops to lockdown the entire country. And leading American media outlets continue to receive millions from Chinese propaganda outlets to publish hundreds of advertisements designed to look like news stories, some of which promoted half-truths about China's pandemic response. But China's decision to cultivate ties with a local community radio station, located more than 6,200 miles away from Beijing, is an example of how far-reaching the influence of China can be.
LaPorta told the Free Beacon that he started courting Huawei, the controversial tech giant that helped China build the surveillance state in Xinjiang, to "help pay the bills." On Dec. 31, 2018, the LVPR Twitter account wrote that the radio station was "bringing Huawei to America." LaPorta refused to discuss details about the New Year’s Eve broadcast—which was not archived—saying that what the station publicly broadcast to nearly 500,000 Nevadans that day was "privileged information."
The lobbying disclosure notes that LVPR will create programming to "address concerns … about Huawei products/services being developed or manufactured in the US for US consumption." LaPorta maintained that he himself registered as a lobbyist as a precautionary measure and that he has done no lobbying for the company since 2018.
LVPR's plan to expand into China got official backing from the Chinese government in October 2019, when LaPorta visited Beijing to meet with Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials to discuss plans to establish an "independent public broadcasting facility." The Chinese office will will help promote interest in Las Vegas tourism in China, according to a press release from the station, and LaPorta said that his overseas office will "give them the truth" about corruption in China.
"We're not going to be a fake news agency," he said.
He dismissed concerns about China's routine suppression of the freedom of the press, and expressed no qualms working with the Chinese government, given what he saw as the corrupt nature of the American government.
"The United States has probably more sins than the Chinese," he said. "America, we're the most corrupt nation on Earth, probably, at this point."
Editor's Note: This report was updated at 7:37 a.m.


freebeacon--2020-04-28--Supreme Court Puts Government On the Hook for $12 Billion in Obamacare Payments

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the federal government is on the hook for billions in payments to health insurers who sold coverage on the Affordable Care Act exchanges .
The eight to one decision clears the way for insurers to collect upwards of $ 12 billion via an Obamacare program designed to help insurers manage risks they took by participating in ACA exchanges .
Congress has refused to appropriate federal money for the program since 2014 , leaving insurers in the lurch .
The decision is a blow to congressional Republicans and the Trump administration , who say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bailout for insurance companies who made hazardous business decisions .
Unable to repeal the law in full , Republicans have attacked the ACA in piecemeal fashion , withholding the risk payments in Monday ’ s case and canceling payments to health insurers that subsidize care for low-income clients .
Monday ’ s decision marks another failed Republican attempt to undermine the health care law .
At issue in the case is the so-called risk corridor program .
The insurers who joined the ACA exchanges faced uncertainty immediately after the health care law passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uninsured and people with preexisting conditions .
The risk corridors set up a system for sharing profits and losses : Companies who finished ahead would pay a portion of their profits to the government while insurers who finished behind could collect payments from the government to offset losses .
The trouble for the program was that costs greatly exceeded payments .
In its first year , for example , the government collected $ 362 million from insurers who finished ahead , but owed those who finished behind $ 2.87 billion .
That gap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the program .
Congress refused to make up the difference .
In turn , the insurance companies sued the government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims , accusing the government of `` a massive bait and switch . ''
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the High Court ’ s opinion , saying the Obamacare law required the government to make risk corridor payments .
`` These holdings reflect a principle as old as the nation itself : the government should honor its obligations , '' Sotomayor wrote .
She warned that governments that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trusted or respected .
The Trump administration argued against the insurance companies in court .
In legal briefs , the government said it was `` unreasonable '' of the insurers to expect that Congress would fully fund the risk corridor program .
Any payments were subject to year-by-year appropriations , the administration said , and Congress could allot as much or as little as it pleased .
`` HHS was required and empowered to make payments only to the extent Congress appropriated funds to do so—and Congress was free to decide whether and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' the government ’ s brief read .
Sotomayor said that was incorrect : The Obamacare law created a duty to fund risk corridor payments that the government can ’ t shirk .
`` The plain terms of the risk corridors provision created an obligation neither contingent on nor limited by the availability of appropriations or other funds , '' Sotomayor wrote .
Even if the statute created an obligation , the administration countered that the obligation was effectively repealed when Congress refused to allocate money for the risk corridors .
Sotomayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be clear and manifest .
Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter from Monday ’ s decision .
Alito argued the insurers had no legal basis for bringing their lawsuit .
`` The Court infers a private right of action that has the effect of providing a massive bailout for insurance companies that took a calculated risk and lost , '' Alito wrote .
Other ACA cases loom large over the Supreme Court ’ s docket .
In May , the justices will review the Trump administration ’ s conscience exemption from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the fall , the Court will consider the ACA ’ s individual mandate for a second time .
That dispute arose after congressional Republicans zeroed out the financial penalty for failing to purchase health insurance .
Red states and the Trump administration argue the mandate can not be justified as a tax if it is no longer raising revenue .
The Supreme Court sustained the mandate on tax grounds in 2012 .

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the federal government is on the hook for billions in payments to health insurers who sold coverage on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.
The eight to one decision clears the way for insurers to collect upwards of $12 billion via an Obamacare program designed to help insurers manage risks they took by participating in ACA exchanges. Congress has refused to appropriate federal money for the program since 2014, leaving insurers in the lurch.
The decision is a blow to congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, who say the program is little more than a bailout for insurance companies who made hazardous business decisions. Unable to repeal the law in full, Republicans have attacked the ACA in piecemeal fashion, withholding the risk payments in Monday’s case and canceling payments to health insurers that subsidize care for low-income clients. Monday’s decision marks another failed Republican attempt to undermine the health care law.
At issue in the case is the so-called risk corridor program. The insurers who joined the ACA exchanges faced uncertainty immediately after the health care law passed and extended coverage to millions of previously uninsured and people with preexisting conditions. The risk corridors set up a system for sharing profits and losses: Companies who finished ahead would pay a portion of their profits to the government while insurers who finished behind could collect payments from the government to offset losses.
The trouble for the program was that costs greatly exceeded payments. In its first year, for example, the government collected $362 million from insurers who finished ahead, but owed those who finished behind $2.87 billion. That gap grew in the remaining two years of the program.
Congress refused to make up the difference. In turn, the insurance companies sued the government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, accusing the government of "a massive bait and switch."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the High Court’s opinion, saying the Obamacare law required the government to make risk corridor payments.
"These holdings reflect a principle as old as the nation itself: the government should honor its obligations," Sotomayor wrote. She warned that governments that dodge their financial engagements will not be trusted or respected.
The Trump administration argued against the insurance companies in court. In legal briefs, the government said it was "unreasonable" of the insurers to expect that Congress would fully fund the risk corridor program. Any payments were subject to year-by-year appropriations, the administration said, and Congress could allot as much or as little as it pleased.
"HHS was required and empowered to make payments only to the extent Congress appropriated funds to do so—and Congress was free to decide whether and to what extent to fund those subsidies," the government’s brief read.
Sotomayor said that was incorrect: The Obamacare law created a duty to fund risk corridor payments that the government can’t shirk.
"The plain terms of the risk corridors provision created an obligation neither contingent on nor limited by the availability of appropriations or other funds," Sotomayor wrote.
Even if the statute created an obligation, the administration countered that the obligation was effectively repealed when Congress refused to allocate money for the risk corridors. Sotomayor likewise rejected that view, saying repeals should be clear and manifest.
Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter from Monday’s decision. Alito argued the insurers had no legal basis for bringing their lawsuit.
"The Court infers a private right of action that has the effect of providing a massive bailout for insurance companies that took a calculated risk and lost," Alito wrote.
Other ACA cases loom large over the Supreme Court’s docket. In May, the justices will review the Trump administration’s conscience exemption from Obamacare’s contraception mandate. And in the fall, the Court will consider the ACA’s individual mandate for a second time. That dispute arose after congressional Republicans zeroed out the financial penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. Red states and the Trump administration argue the mandate cannot be justified as a tax if it is no longer raising revenue. The Supreme Court sustained the mandate on tax grounds in 2012.
Monday’s case is No. 18-1023 Maine Community Health Options v. United States.
Maine Community Health Opti... by Washington Free Beacon on Scribd


freebeacon--2020-04-27--Judge Says Northam’s Gun-Range Shutdown Violates State Law

A Virginia judge ruled on Monday that Democratic governor Ralph Northam 's shutdown of indoor gun ranges violates state gun-rights protections .
Judge F. Patrick Yeatts of the 24th Judicial Circuit of Virginia ruled in favor of a Lynchburg firing range that challenged Northam 's statewide shutdown order .
He said the governor 's emergency powers are limited under Virginia law and can not restrict the `` otherwise lawful possession , carrying , transportation , sale , or transfer of firearms . ''
`` The governor appears to argue that , when he declares a state of emergency , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power , even laws designed to limit his power during a state of emergency , '' Yeatts wrote .
`` The Court can not agree with such an expansive interpretation of the Governor 's authority . ''
Yeatts limited the scope of his ruling even as he granted a temporary injunction barring the state from closing Lynchburg Range & Training LLC .
The decision does not apply to all ranges in the state , but guns-rights groups that helped file the suit said it lays the groundwork for eventually overturning the statewide ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Virginia Citizens Defense League , said it could have a domino effect as other gun ranges file suit .
`` We 're weighing our options because our ultimate goal is that we want all indoor ranges free of this , '' Van Cleave said .
`` What the judge laid out was great reasoning why , really , none of the ranges should be falling under this . ''
Northam 's office did not respond to a request for comment .
The Northam administration defended the ban as necessary to prevent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's lawyers also pointed to the fact that residents still had access to outdoor ranges .
Yeatts rejected the argument , saying that `` the right to keep and bear arms is not relegated to the outskirts of the city and of fundamental rights jurisprudence . ''
`` The Court understands the Governor 's desire to protect the citizens of our great Commonwealth .
But in taking steps to stop the spread of COVID-19 , he took a step beyond what is allowed by [ Virginia law ] , '' he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are hearing legal challenges related to the shutdown of gun businesses or permitting processes .
Two different federal judges said California localities have the ability to order store closures to deal with the pandemic .
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Gov .
Tom Wolf ( D. ) had the power to shutter stores , though the governor subsequently allowed them to reopen .
A state court ordered a North Carolina sheriff to restore the pistol permitting process he had closed .
Van Cleave said Lynchburg Range & Training is expected to be @ @ @ @ @ @

A Virginia judge ruled on Monday that Democratic governor Ralph Northam's shutdown of indoor gun ranges violates state gun-rights protections.
Judge F. Patrick Yeatts of the 24th Judicial Circuit of Virginia ruled in favor of a Lynchburg firing range that challenged Northam's statewide shutdown order. He said the governor's emergency powers are limited under Virginia law and cannot restrict the "otherwise lawful possession, carrying, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms."
"The governor appears to argue that, when he declares a state of emergency, he can ignore any law that limits his power, even laws designed to limit his power during a state of emergency," Yeatts wrote. "The Court cannot agree with such an expansive interpretation of the Governor's authority."
Yeatts limited the scope of his ruling even as he granted a temporary injunction barring the state from closing Lynchburg Range & Training LLC. The decision does not apply to all ranges in the state, but guns-rights groups that helped file the suit said it lays the groundwork for eventually overturning the statewide ban. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said it could have a domino effect as other gun ranges file suit.
"We're weighing our options because our ultimate goal is that we want all indoor ranges free of this," Van Cleave said. "What the judge laid out was great reasoning why, really, none of the ranges should be falling under this."
Northam's office did not respond to a request for comment.
The Northam administration defended the ban as necessary to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. The governor's lawyers also pointed to the fact that residents still had access to outdoor ranges. Yeatts rejected the argument, saying that "the right to keep and bear arms is not relegated to the outskirts of the city and of fundamental rights jurisprudence."
"The Court understands the Governor's desire to protect the citizens of our great Commonwealth. But in taking steps to stop the spread of COVID-19, he took a step beyond what is allowed by [Virginia law]," he said.
State and federal courts across the country are hearing legal challenges related to the shutdown of gun businesses or permitting processes. Two different federal judges said California localities have the ability to order store closures to deal with the pandemic. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Gov. Tom Wolf (D.) had the power to shutter stores, though the governor subsequently allowed them to reopen. A state court ordered a North Carolina sheriff to restore the pistol permitting process he had closed.
Van Cleave said Lynchburg Range & Training is expected to be up and running by Wednesday.


freebeacon--2020-04-27--Sanders, Still Seeking Delegates, Slams N.Y. for Canceling Primary

Despite endorsing presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) criticized New York 's decision to cancel its June presidential primary .
The twice-failed presidential contender called the decision `` a blow to American democracy . ''
The cancellation , which state officials say is necessary to stem the spread of the coronavirus , would also be a blow to Sanders 's influence on the future of the Democratic Party .
`` What the Board of Elections is ignoring is that the primary process not only leads to a nominee but also the selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rules of the Democratic Party , '' Sanders senior adviser Jeff Weaver said in a statement Monday .
Prior to the decision , Sanders had remained on the state 's ballot with the goal of packing the Democratic National Convention with as many allies as possible .
Convention delegates not only shape the party platform heading into November but also choose the nominee in the event of a brokered convention .
The Sanders campaign called for New York to lose all of its 274 pledged delegates if it moves forward .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York should lose all its delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention and there should be a broader review by the Democratic Party of New York 's checkered pattern of voter disenfranchisement , '' Weaver said .
The state 's decision to cancel its presidential primary comes nearly a month after Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo announced he was delaying the election from April 28 to June 2 as New York City emerged as the epicenter of the pandemic in America .
New York leads all U.S. states in both coronavirus cases and deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , respectively , according to state health officials .
State election board commissioner Andrew Spano , a Democrat , said the primary is `` essentially a beauty contest '' and the decision to cancel was made `` for the protection of everybody , '' noting that he would not move forward with the primary `` just for purposes of issues at a convention . ''
The state 's Board of Elections did not respond to a request for comment .
Sanders-aligned groups mirrored the campaign 's rebuke of New York .
Our Revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off from Sanders 's 2016 campaign , indicated that it would `` challenge any delegates that New York sends to the convention '' in a Monday statement .
Sanders endorsed Biden on April 13 , five days after suspending his own campaign .
Weaver acknowledged that the campaign did not have a path to victory but said that voters who did not cast a presidential primary ballot before the coronavirus pandemic `` have the right to express their preference . ''
`` While we understood that we did not have the votes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was suspended , not ended , because people in every state should have the right to express their preference , '' Weaver said .
`` No one asked New York to cancel the election .
The DNC did n't request it .
The Biden campaign did n't request it .
And our campaign communicated that we wanted to remain on the ballot . ''
Though the Sanders campaign did not mention Cuomo by name in its criticism of the decision , Our Revolution chairman Larry Cohen told HuffPost that Cuomo was `` trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the party convention with 284 delegates in his pocket . ''
He added that any support the New York governor gained from his handling of the pandemic was `` definitely eroding '' due to the primary cancellation .
Cuomo 's office did not respond to a request for comment .
The Democratic National Committee also delayed the party 's nominating convention from July 13 to August 17 due to coronavirus in April .
Both Sanders and presumptive nominee Joe Biden were involved in the decision .
While New York 's presidential primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and local elections will still be held in New York on June 23 .

Despite endorsing presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) criticized New York's decision to cancel its June presidential primary.
The twice-failed presidential contender called the decision "a blow to American democracy." The cancellation, which state officials say is necessary to stem the spread of the coronavirus, would also be a blow to Sanders's influence on the future of the Democratic Party.
"What the Board of Elections is ignoring is that the primary process not only leads to a nominee but also the selection of delegates which helps determine the platform and rules of the Democratic Party," Sanders senior adviser Jeff Weaver said in a statement Monday.
Prior to the decision, Sanders had remained on the state's ballot with the goal of packing the Democratic National Convention with as many allies as possible. Convention delegates not only shape the party platform heading into November but also choose the nominee in the event of a brokered convention. The Sanders campaign called for New York to lose all of its 274 pledged delegates if it moves forward.
"If this is not remedied, New York should lose all its delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention and there should be a broader review by the Democratic Party of New York's checkered pattern of voter disenfranchisement," Weaver said.
The state's decision to cancel its presidential primary comes nearly a month after Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo announced he was delaying the election from April 28 to June 2 as New York City emerged as the epicenter of the pandemic in America. New York leads all U.S. states in both coronavirus cases and deaths, holding more than 280,000 and 16,000, respectively, according to state health officials. State election board commissioner Andrew Spano, a Democrat, said the primary is "essentially a beauty contest" and the decision to cancel was made "for the protection of everybody," noting that he would not move forward with the primary "just for purposes of issues at a convention." The state's Board of Elections did not respond to a request for comment.
Sanders-aligned groups mirrored the campaign's rebuke of New York. Our Revolution, the progressive advocacy group that spun off from Sanders's 2016 campaign, indicated that it would "challenge any delegates that New York sends to the convention" in a Monday statement.
Sanders endorsed Biden on April 13, five days after suspending his own campaign. Weaver acknowledged that the campaign did not have a path to victory but said that voters who did not cast a presidential primary ballot before the coronavirus pandemic "have the right to express their preference."
"While we understood that we did not have the votes to win the Democratic nomination, our campaign was suspended, not ended, because people in every state should have the right to express their preference," Weaver said. "No one asked New York to cancel the election. The DNC didn't request it. The Biden campaign didn't request it. And our campaign communicated that we wanted to remain on the ballot."
Though the Sanders campaign did not mention Cuomo by name in its criticism of the decision, Our Revolution chairman Larry Cohen told HuffPost that Cuomo was "trying to be the party boss who goes to the party convention with 284 delegates in his pocket." He added that any support the New York governor gained from his handling of the pandemic was "definitely eroding" due to the primary cancellation.
Cuomo's office did not respond to a request for comment.
The Democratic National Committee also delayed the party's nominating convention from July 13 to August 17 due to coronavirus in April. Both Sanders and presumptive nominee Joe Biden were involved in the decision.
While New York's presidential primary is now canceled, congressional, state, and local elections will still be held in New York on June 23.


freebeacon--2020-04-27--ANALYSIS: CNN More Interested in ‘Sharknado’ Actress Than Joe Biden Sexual Assault Accuser

More than a month after Tara Reade publicly accused her former boss , then-senator Joe Biden , of sexually assaulting her in 1993 , CNN has published just two news reports on the allegations .
By comparison , the network has published more than 10 times as many news items on Tara Reid , the C-list actress best known for her role in the Sharknado franchise .
In addition to publishing several articles musing on whether the `` novelty '' of the original Sharknado has worn off after five sequels , CNN has featured Reid in a number of slideshows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrities , '' `` A brief ( s ) history of wardrobe malfunctions , '' and another that 's just a montage of celebrities wearing Ed Hardy apparel .
Tara Reade does not appear in any slideshows on the CNN website .
In the two weeks after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with her accusation against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh , CNN published more than 400 items on its website related to the allegations .
By contrast , it did n't publish a single item on the sexual assault accusation against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three weeks after Reade recounted her story in a podcast interview .
Since Reade 's allegation was made public , Biden has been interviewed multiple times on major media networks , including twice by CNN 's Anderson Cooper .
For some reason , the former vice president has yet to be asked about the accusation .
Thus far , his only public response has been to deny the allegations via a statement from a campaign official .
CNN 's second article on Reade 's allegation , published April 25 , concerns the existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim—a CNN broadcast of Larry King Live from August 1993 in which Reade 's mother called into the program to ask for advice on how to handle the `` problems '' her daughter experienced while `` working for a prominent senator . ''
CNN was n't even the first media outlet to uncover the clip from its own archives .
New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet recently said the existence of such `` contemporaneous '' conversations should be a key factor in determining the credibility of decades-old sexual assault allegations .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no evidence of such conversations existed .
Business Insider on Monday published an interview with a former neighbor of Reade 's , Lynda LaCasse , who recalled discussing the details of the alleged assault with Reade at the time .
`` This happened , and I know it did because I remember talking about it , '' said LaCasse , who supports Biden for president .
The outlet also spoke to a former staffer in another senator 's office who remembered Reade complaining about being sexually harassed by her boss and ultimately fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden `` needs to address the Tara Reade allegations , '' wrote CNN editor Chris Cillizza on Monday .
If only Cillizza worked for a major news network with the capacity to make that happen .
Anderson Cooper , who is not named in Cillizza 's piece , did n't think Biden needed to address them in either of his interviews .
Despite the obvious media angle to the story—namely , the glaring lack of coverage—CNN media reporter Brian Stelter has been too emotional to look into it .
At least their colleague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stories that matter .

More than a month after Tara Reade publicly accused her former boss, then-senator Joe Biden, of sexually assaulting her in 1993, CNN has published just two news reports on the allegations. By comparison, the network has published more than 10 times as many news items on Tara Reid, the C-list actress best known for her role in the Sharknado franchise.
In addition to publishing several articles musing on whether the "novelty" of the original Sharknado has worn off after five sequels, CNN has featured Reid in a number of slideshows, including "Comic-Con: Selfies with celebrities," "A brief(s) history of wardrobe malfunctions," and another that's just a montage of celebrities wearing Ed Hardy apparel. Tara Reade does not appear in any slideshows on the CNN website.
In the two weeks after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with her accusation against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, CNN published more than 400 items on its website related to the allegations. By contrast, it didn't publish a single item on the sexual assault accusation against Biden until April 17, more than three weeks after Reade recounted her story in a podcast interview.
Since Reade's allegation was made public, Biden has been interviewed multiple times on major media networks, including twice by CNN's Anderson Cooper. For some reason, the former vice president has yet to be asked about the accusation. Thus far, his only public response has been to deny the allegations via a statement from a campaign official.
CNN's second article on Reade's allegation, published April 25, concerns the existence of potentially corroborating evidence for Reade's claim—a CNN broadcast of Larry King Live from August 1993 in which Reade's mother called into the program to ask for advice on how to handle the "problems" her daughter experienced while "working for a prominent senator." CNN wasn't even the first media outlet to uncover the clip from its own archives.
New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet recently said the existence of such "contemporaneous" conversations should be a key factor in determining the credibility of decades-old sexual assault allegations. In the case of Christine Blasey Ford, no evidence of such conversations existed.
Business Insider on Monday published an interview with a former neighbor of Reade's, Lynda LaCasse, who recalled discussing the details of the alleged assault with Reade at the time."This happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it," said LaCasse, who supports Biden for president. The outlet also spoke to a former staffer in another senator's office who remembered Reade complaining about being sexually harassed by her boss and ultimately fired after raising concerns with her superiors.
Biden "needs to address the Tara Reade allegations," wrote CNN editor Chris Cillizza on Monday. If only Cillizza worked for a major news network with the capacity to make that happen. Anderson Cooper, who is not named in Cillizza's piece, didn't think Biden needed to address them in either of his interviews. Despite the obvious media angle to the story—namely, the glaring lack of coverage—CNN media reporter Brian Stelter has been too emotional to look into it. At least their colleague Oliver Darcy has been keeping tabs on the stories that matter.


freebeacon--2020-04-27--Supreme Court Dismisses New York Gun-Rights Case

The Supreme Court sidestepped its first significant Second Amendment case in a decade , dismissing on technical grounds a challenge to New York City ’ s now-defunct ban on residents transporting their licensed guns outside the city .
New York City abandoned its contested restrictions , which made it unlawful to transport a gun even to a second home or shooting range outside the city , after the Supreme Court took up the case in January 2019 .
The decision said New York 's decision to abandon the regulation gave the plaintiffs everything they were seeking in court , leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The ruling is a disappointment for legal conservatives , who saw the case as a promising vehicle for expanding Second Amendment rights .
But their dismay may prove short-lived .
In a brief concurring opinion , Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that there are several cases now pending before the Court involving so-called assault weapons bans and rights to carry firearms outside the home , among other gun-rights issues .
As such , the Court could take up a significant gun-rights dispute in the coming months .
The Court 's two-page decision was unsigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch .
New York 's regulations were some of the most restrictive in the nation .
A city ordinance authorized gun owners to carry their firearms to one of seven small-arms ranges within the city .
Gun owners needed the written permission of city officials to transport their weapons to locations other than an approved range and were forbidden from carrying their firearms beyond city limits .
Members of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association ( NYSRPA ) , a state affiliate of the NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The plaintiffs wanted to carry weapons to vacation homes and shooting competitions outside the five boroughs .
The city successfully defended its restrictions before a trial judge and the Second U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals .
After the justices took up Monday 's case , New York relaxed its rules and allowed gun owners to transport firearms to second homes and shooting clubs outside the city .
Simultaneously , with gun-control groups quietly lobbying for the change out of fear over how the Court might rule , the New York state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sort once in force in New York City .
The Court , satisfied that those changes gave the plaintiffs everything they asked for , tossed the case .
The justices also lifted lower court rulings upholding the old rules and said the plaintiffs could seek monetary damages .
Gun-rights activists said they were dismayed by the ruling but are ready to try again at the High Court .
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation told the Washington Free Beacon that he was undeterred by Monday 's decision , saying the conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment rights .
He said Justice Kavanaugh 's concurrence suggested that lower courts have unduly restricted the Second Amendment in recent years .
`` The Second Amendment Foundation currently has four cases pending before the Supreme Court , '' Gottlieb said .
`` We hope that one or all of these cases get heard and give notice to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the prior rulings that protect Second Amendment rights . ''
For their part , gun-control advocates applauded the decision .
`` The issue at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolved and the plaintiffs had already received everything they had demanded and more .
Recognizing this , the court 's decision that there is no case here is common-sense , '' Kris Brown , president of Brady United , said in a statement .
`` This case was moot in December .
That the court recognizes this too merely underscores the desperation of the NRA and their allies to use this issue to advance a radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment . ''
The Alito dissent faulted the Court for allowing `` our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city .
Alito also noted that the new rules require `` continuous and uninterrupted '' travel if a gun owner is carrying a firearm , suggesting that gun owners ca n't stop to visit a relative or pick up a friend .
Continued concerns over the legality of such stops are enough to keep the case alive , he argued .
`` The bottom line is that petitioners , who sought ‘ unrestricted access ' to out-of-city ranges and competitions , are still subject to restrictions of undetermined meaning , '' Alito wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City restrictions violated the landmark 2008 Heller precedent and expressed concern that lower courts across the country have been upholding other laws that similarly violate that ruling .
In Heller , the Court found the Second Amendment protects an individual 's gun rights and the only restrictions that are constitutional are ones with a long history of being applied , such as bans on especially dangerous guns or possession by especially dangerous people .
The case is No .
18-280 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York .

The Supreme Court sidestepped its first significant Second Amendment case in a decade, dismissing on technical grounds a challenge to New York City’s now-defunct ban on residents transporting their licensed guns outside the city.
New York City abandoned its contested restrictions, which made it unlawful to transport a gun even to a second home or shooting range outside the city, after the Supreme Court took up the case in January 2019. The decision said New York's decision to abandon the regulation gave the plaintiffs everything they were seeking in court, leaving nothing for the justices to resolve.
The ruling is a disappointment for legal conservatives, who saw the case as a promising vehicle for expanding Second Amendment rights. But their dismay may prove short-lived. In a brief concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that there are several cases now pending before the Court involving so-called assault weapons bans and rights to carry firearms outside the home, among other gun-rights issues. As such, the Court could take up a significant gun-rights dispute in the coming months.
The Court's two-page decision was unsigned. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
New York's regulations were some of the most restrictive in the nation. A city ordinance authorized gun owners to carry their firearms to one of seven small-arms ranges within the city. Gun owners needed the written permission of city officials to transport their weapons to locations other than an approved range and were forbidden from carrying their firearms beyond city limits.
Members of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA), a state affiliate of the NRA, challenged the rules in federal court. The plaintiffs wanted to carry weapons to vacation homes and shooting competitions outside the five boroughs.
The city successfully defended its restrictions before a trial judge and the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. After the justices took up Monday's case, New York relaxed its rules and allowed gun owners to transport firearms to second homes and shooting clubs outside the city. Simultaneously, with gun-control groups quietly lobbying for the change out of fear over how the Court might rule, the New York state legislature passed a law forbidding regulations of the sort once in force in New York City.
The Court, satisfied that those changes gave the plaintiffs everything they asked for, tossed the case. The justices also lifted lower court rulings upholding the old rules and said the plaintiffs could seek monetary damages.
Gun-rights activists said they were dismayed by the ruling but are ready to try again at the High Court. Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation told the Washington Free Beacon that he was undeterred by Monday's decision, saying the conservative justices are clearly interested in expanding Second Amendment rights. He said Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence suggested that lower courts have unduly restricted the Second Amendment in recent years.
"The Second Amendment Foundation currently has four cases pending before the Supreme Court," Gottlieb said. "We hope that one or all of these cases get heard and give notice to lower courts that they can no longer thumb their noses at the prior rulings that protect Second Amendment rights."
For their part, gun-control advocates applauded the decision.
"The issue at the heart of this case was already resolved and the plaintiffs had already received everything they had demanded and more. Recognizing this, the court's decision that there is no case here is common-sense," Kris Brown, president of Brady United, said in a statement. "This case was moot in December. That the court recognizes this too merely underscores the desperation of the NRA and their allies to use this issue to advance a radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment."
The Alito dissent faulted the Court for allowing "our docket to be manipulated" by the city. Alito also noted that the new rules require "continuous and uninterrupted" travel if a gun owner is carrying a firearm, suggesting that gun owners can't stop to visit a relative or pick up a friend. Continued concerns over the legality of such stops are enough to keep the case alive, he argued.
"The bottom line is that petitioners, who sought 'unrestricted access' to out-of-city ranges and competitions, are still subject to restrictions of undetermined meaning," Alito wrote.
Alito also said the New York City restrictions violated the landmark 2008 Heller precedent and expressed concern that lower courts across the country have been upholding other laws that similarly violate that ruling. In Heller, the Court found the Second Amendment protects an individual's gun rights and the only restrictions that are constitutional are ones with a long history of being applied, such as bans on especially dangerous guns or possession by especially dangerous people.
The case is No. 18-280 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.


freebeacon--2020-04-27--Appeals Court Reinstates California Ammo Ban

The California law mandating background checks for ammunition sales is back on despite a judge 's warning that the law is unconstitutional .
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency stay reinstating the law on Friday night , just one day after a federal judge declared that the law violated the Second Amendment .
Under the ruling , California residents are once again barred from purchasing firearms ammunition across state lines or without a background check until the case is decided .
Chuck Michel , president and general counsel for the California Rifle and Pistol Association , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confident that the appeals court will strike down the law after a full review .
`` The State wants to block the District Court 's order allowing ammunition to be sold as it had been for a hundred years at the exact same time the value of a firearm as a self-defense tool is even more realized given these uncertain times , '' Michel told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` We expect to be back in court this week to show that the State 's failed scare tactics are just as invalid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court rejected them in the past . ''
The office of California attorney general Xavier Becerra ( D. ) did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Judge Roger Benitez ruled on Thursday that `` California 's new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured . ''
He called the law , which passed in a 2016 ballot initiative , `` onerous and convoluted , '' pointing to the 16.4 percent false-positive rate in background checks on ammunition sales .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to keep and bear firearms along with the ammunition to make their firearms work , '' he wrote .
`` That a majority today may wish it were otherwise , does not change the Constitutional right .
It never has . ''
The Ninth Circuit granted a stay `` pending further court order '' but did not offer further explanation .
A court date has yet to be set for the next proceeding in the case .

The California law mandating background checks for ammunition sales is back on despite a judge's warning that the law is unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency stay reinstating the law on Friday night, just one day after a federal judge declared that the law violated the Second Amendment. Under the ruling, California residents are once again barred from purchasing firearms ammunition across state lines or without a background check until the case is decided.
Chuck Michel, president and general counsel for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, which brought the suit, said he is confident that the appeals court will strike down the law after a full review.
"The State wants to block the District Court's order allowing ammunition to be sold as it had been for a hundred years at the exact same time the value of a firearm as a self-defense tool is even more realized given these uncertain times," Michel told the Washington Free Beacon. "We expect to be back in court this week to show that the State's failed scare tactics are just as invalid now as they were when the District Court rejected them in the past."
The office of California attorney general Xavier Becerra (D.) did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Judge Roger Benitez ruled on Thursday that "California's new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured." He called the law, which passed in a 2016 ballot initiative, "onerous and convoluted," pointing to the 16.4 percent false-positive rate in background checks on ammunition sales.
"Law-abiding citizens are imbued with the unalienable right to keep and bear firearms along with the ammunition to make their firearms work," he wrote. "That a majority today may wish it were otherwise, does not change the Constitutional right. It never has."
The Ninth Circuit granted a stay "pending further court order" but did not offer further explanation.
A court date has yet to be set for the next proceeding in the case.


freebeacon--2020-04-27--Trump Admin Vows to ‘Enforce and Expand’ Pressure on Iran in Wake of New Military Threats

The Trump administration is working on new efforts to `` enforce and expand '' its maximum pressure campaign on Iran in the wake of increased military threats , including Tehran 's launch last week of a spy satellite .
The White House will continue to amp up the economic pressure on Iran until it comes to the table for `` comprehensive negotiations , '' a demand Tehran has rejected since President Donald Trump took office , a senior Trump administration official told the Washington Free Beacon .
Officials are contemplating an array of options including sanctions on Iran 's sponsorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Yemen , Syria , and Lebanon—military hotspots where Tehran arms and directs militia groups including Hezbollah .
Other efforts are currently taking place at the United Nations , where the Trump administration is laying the groundwork to expand an embargo on Iran 's purchase of military equipment from countries like Russia and China .
`` The president has been clear that the United States will enforce and expand maximum pressure to impose costs on Iran 's malign behavior so the regime will enter comprehensive negotiations , '' the senior administration official told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Iran comes less than a week after Iran 's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) successfully launched its first-ever military satellite , marking a significant step in Iran 's ballistic missile program , portions of which would be legitimized if the U.N. arms embargo were lifted .
Iran has also stepped up aggressive action in the Persian Gulf and recently threatened to attack 400 U.S. military sites around the world .
For months , the Trump administration has been working behind the scenes at the U.N. to ensure the current arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year .
It has accelerated these efforts in recent weeks , making the case to member nations that Iran 's access to advanced weaponry would pose a significant terror and proliferation risk .
If the United States does not take action , the embargo will expire , permitting Iran to legally purchase advanced military equipment .
If the United States can not convince U.N. Security Council members such as Russia and China to extend the embargo , it is likely to invoke what is known as `` snapback , '' which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of the 2015 nuclear deal .
Any nation involved in inking the accord can invoke the snapback mechanism , according to an internal legal opinion issued by the State Department and confirmed to the Free Beacon earlier this year by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
While the coronavirus pandemic has ravaged Iran , its government continues to spend its cash reserves on foreign terrorist operations—and the development of its nuclear program , including the enrichment of uranium , the key component in a bomb—rather than on medical aid for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any new sanctions are not meant to hurt the Iranian people , particularly during the coronavirus pandemic , which has hit Iran hard .
The Trump administration continues to grant exceptions permitting Tehran to import medicine and other humanitarian goods .
`` U.S. sanctions do not impact legitimate humanitarian aid , such as food , medicine , and medical supplies , '' the official told the Free Beacon .
`` The president supports the long-suffering Iranian people , which is why the United States established a humanitarian channel through the Swiss for transparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , `` the Iranian regime continues to refuse offers of coronavirus assistance from the United States , '' the official said .
Former Obama administration officials and their allies in the media continue to push for sanctions relief , falsely claiming the current measures block Iran 's access to humanitarian relief .
In response , a group of 50 former senior U.S. officials recently petitioned the White House to continue its maximum pressure campaign .
The letter , spearheaded by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a think tank with close ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` now is the time to double down on the maximum pressure campaign to force the mullahs to spend their money on the Iranian people , not their nuclear ambitions , imperialism , and internal oppression . ''
The group of U.S. officials—including former senators , ambassadors , and national security figures—expressed `` strong opposition to providing sanctions relief to the Islamic Republic of Iran , until and unless the regime ceases its sponsorship of terrorism , dismantles its nuclear and missile programs , releases all American hostages , removes its forces from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ends its relentless abuse of the Iranian people . ''
Mark Dubowitz , FDD 's CEO , told the Free Beacon that now is not the time to grant Iran relief from sanctions , particularly in light of its increased military threats and routine harassment of American vessels in the Persian Gulf region .
`` The regime in Iran must be blocked from taking patient pathways to nuclear weapons and ICBMs and escalating its dangerous and provocative activities , '' Dubowitz said .
`` This is not the time to throw the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in sanctions relief as some European and former Obama administration officials are recommending .
Instead , it 's the time to double down on the maximum pressure campaign including through a U.S. snapback of U.N. sanctions before Tehran can take advantage of JCPOA-related sunsets to acquire advanced weapons and expand its nuclear program . ''

The Trump administration is working on new efforts to "enforce and expand" its maximum pressure campaign on Iran in the wake of increased military threats, including Tehran's launch last week of a spy satellite.
The White House will continue to amp up the economic pressure on Iran until it comes to the table for "comprehensive negotiations," a demand Tehran has rejected since President Donald Trump took office, a senior Trump administration official told the Washington Free Beacon.
Officials are contemplating an array of options including sanctions on Iran's sponsorship of regional terror groups operating in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—military hotspots where Tehran arms and directs militia groups including Hezbollah. Other efforts are currently taking place at the United Nations, where the Trump administration is laying the groundwork to expand an embargo on Iran's purchase of military equipment from countries like Russia and China.
"The president has been clear that the United States will enforce and expand maximum pressure to impose costs on Iran's malign behavior so the regime will enter comprehensive negotiations," the senior administration official told the Free Beacon.
The increased pressure on Iran comes less than a week after Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) successfully launched its first-ever military satellite, marking a significant step in Iran's ballistic missile program, portions of which would be legitimized if the U.N. arms embargo were lifted. Iran has also stepped up aggressive action in the Persian Gulf and recently threatened to attack 400 U.S. military sites around the world.
For months, the Trump administration has been working behind the scenes at the U.N. to ensure the current arms embargo on Iran is not lifted later this year. It has accelerated these efforts in recent weeks, making the case to member nations that Iran's access to advanced weaponry would pose a significant terror and proliferation risk.
If the United States does not take action, the embargo will expire, permitting Iran to legally purchase advanced military equipment.
If the United States cannot convince U.N. Security Council members such as Russia and China to extend the embargo, it is likely to invoke what is known as "snapback," which would reimpose severe economic sanctions that were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal. Any nation involved in inking the accord can invoke the snapback mechanism, according to an internal legal opinion issued by the State Department and confirmed to the Free Beacon earlier this year by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
While the coronavirus pandemic has ravaged Iran, its government continues to spend its cash reserves on foreign terrorist operations—and the development of its nuclear program, including the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a bomb—rather than on medical aid for its citizens.
The Trump administration maintains that any new sanctions are not meant to hurt the Iranian people, particularly during the coronavirus pandemic, which has hit Iran hard. The Trump administration continues to grant exceptions permitting Tehran to import medicine and other humanitarian goods.
"U.S. sanctions do not impact legitimate humanitarian aid, such as food, medicine, and medical supplies," the official told the Free Beacon. "The president supports the long-suffering Iranian people, which is why the United States established a humanitarian channel through the Swiss for transparent deliveries of humanitarian aid."
However, "the Iranian regime continues to refuse offers of coronavirus assistance from the United States," the official said.
Former Obama administration officials and their allies in the media continue to push for sanctions relief, falsely claiming the current measures block Iran's access to humanitarian relief. In response, a group of 50 former senior U.S. officials recently petitioned the White House to continue its maximum pressure campaign.
The letter, spearheaded by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank with close ties to the administration, made clear that "now is the time to double down on the maximum pressure campaign to force the mullahs to spend their money on the Iranian people, not their nuclear ambitions, imperialism, and internal oppression."
The group of U.S. officials—including former senators, ambassadors, and national security figures—expressed "strong opposition to providing sanctions relief to the Islamic Republic of Iran, until and unless the regime ceases its sponsorship of terrorism, dismantles its nuclear and missile programs, releases all American hostages, removes its forces from other countries in the Middle East, and ends its relentless abuse of the Iranian people."
Mark Dubowitz, FDD's CEO, told the Free Beacon that now is not the time to grant Iran relief from sanctions, particularly in light of its increased military threats and routine harassment of American vessels in the Persian Gulf region.
"The regime in Iran must be blocked from taking patient pathways to nuclear weapons and ICBMs and escalating its dangerous and provocative activities," Dubowitz said. "This is not the time to throw the regime a lifeline of billions of dollars in sanctions relief as some European and former Obama administration officials are recommending. Instead, it's the time to double down on the maximum pressure campaign including through a U.S. snapback of U.N. sanctions before Tehran can take advantage of JCPOA-related sunsets to acquire advanced weapons and expand its nuclear program."


freebeacon--2020-04-29--Continetti: Coronavirus, Media Help Biden Avoid Tara Reade Questions

Washington Free Beacon founding editor Matthew Continetti said the coronavirus crisis and the media are helping presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden avoid addressing Tara Reade 's sexual assault accusation .
`` I 'm worried that this is one area that Joe Biden may be being shielded by coronavirus .
As long as the attention of the nation is on the pandemic , I think he might be able to skirt some of these questions for a little while longer , '' Continetti said Tuesday on Special Report .
Continetti also criticized the Washington Post for a convoluted headline Monday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sexual assault scandal : `` Developments in allegations against Biden amplify efforts to question his behavior . ''
The headline was later changed to `` Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden , '' making Trump the subject even though the president is not implicated in the scandal at all .
Continetti said the headline 's author must have taken `` a course in creative obfuscation in journalism school . ''
`` The media double standard is flagrant , '' he said .
Continetti also pointed out that Reade 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the record to corroborate the accusation , making it more substantiated than the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation battle .
`` These accounts are mounting and I think the key thing … was the fact that the woman spoke to Business Insider on the record , which was something missing back during the Kavanaugh episode , '' Continetti said .
`` Many people and allegations against Kavanaugh were kept anonymously . ''
Anchor Bret Baier noted that Biden has yet to be directly asked on the record about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .

Washington Free Beacon founding editor Matthew Continetti said the coronavirus crisis and the media are helping presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden avoid addressing Tara Reade's sexual assault accusation.
"I'm worried that this is one area that Joe Biden may be being shielded by coronavirus. As long as the attention of the nation is on the pandemic, I think he might be able to skirt some of these questions for a little while longer," Continetti said Tuesday on Special Report.
Continetti also criticized the Washington Post for a convoluted headline Monday that obscured the fact that Biden is facing a sexual assault scandal: "Developments in allegations against Biden amplify efforts to question his behavior." The headline was later changed to "Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden," making Trump the subject even though the president is not implicated in the scandal at all.
Continetti said the headline's author must have taken "a course in creative obfuscation in journalism school."
"The media double standard is flagrant," he said.
Continetti also pointed out that Reade's former neighbor spoke to Business Insider on the record to corroborate the accusation, making it more substantiated than the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation battle.
"These accounts are mounting and I think the key thing ... was the fact that the woman spoke to Business Insider on the record, which was something missing back during the Kavanaugh episode," Continetti said. "Many people and allegations against Kavanaugh were kept anonymously."
Anchor Bret Baier noted that Biden has yet to be directly asked on the record about the accusation. The Biden campaign has denied it.


freebeacon--2020-04-28--Axios Returns $5 Million Government Loan After ‘Backlash’

Political news site Axios announced Tuesday evening that it would return a federal pandemic loan , becoming the latest company to return funds amid controversy around big companies hoarding bailouts .
In a post to the site , Axios CEO Jim VandeHei cited a `` public backlash against a variety of companies for taking '' money from the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) , `` including us . ''
He also explained that a `` new alternative source '' of capital had emerged , giving the news site the `` confidence '' to return the PPP funds .
VandeHei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the `` new alternative source '' of capital is .
Axios has received generous financial support in past , including from NBC News and liberal activist and philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs , the widow of Steve Jobs who had an estimated net worth of over $ 20 billion .
As recently as December , the site expected to raise $ 20 million in an `` opportunistic '' round of fundraising , possible in part because it claimed to still be sitting on most of the $ 20 million it had raised in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some 190 individuals , previously qualified for $ 4.8 million in loans from the PPP , a program set up by Congress to provide forgivable loans to cover the payrolls of small businesses adversely affected by the coronavirus crisis .
The loan was , according to Axios ‘ s own reporting , larger than those received by over 99 percent of other companies—not counting the thousands who applied for , but were denied , PPP funding before the program ran dry several weeks ago .
VandeHei had previously written that the money had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in revenue due to the closing down of Axios ‘ s events business .
Axios did not provide an answer to questions from the Washington Free Beacon about whether or not the site had sought alternative funds from its wealthy backers before applying for a government loan , as the Treasury Department recently instructed businesses to do before seeking PPP loans .
VandeHei did tell the Daily Beast that no one at the site would be taking a pay cut , including himself .
VandeHei blamed Tuesday 's reversal on the increasing political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses—including hedge funds , chains like Ruth 's Chris and Shake Shack , and universities like Harvard—have run afoul of the media and popular criticism for taking loans for which they technically qualified , but which deprived other firms of access to the PPP 's limited pool of funds .
Axios , by contrast , had largely avoided increased scrutiny by its media peers .
VandeHei alleged that critics thought that media firms or venture-backed firms should seek funding elsewhere ; he made no mention of his site 's wealthy supporters .

Political news site Axios announced Tuesday evening that it would return a federal pandemic loan, becoming the latest company to return funds amid controversy around big companies hoarding bailouts.
In a post to the site, Axios CEO Jim VandeHei cited a "public backlash against a variety of companies for taking" money from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), "including us." He also explained that a "new alternative source" of capital had emerged, giving the news site the "confidence" to return the PPP funds.
VandeHei did not disclose in Tuesday's post what the "new alternative source" of capital is. Axios has received generous financial support in past, including from NBC News and liberal activist and philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs who had an estimated net worth of over $20 billion.
As recently as December, the site expected to raise $20 million in an "opportunistic" round of fundraising, possible in part because it claimed to still be sitting on most of the $20 million it had raised in 2017.
The site, which employs some 190 individuals, previously qualified for $4.8 million in loans from the PPP, a program set up by Congress to provide forgivable loans to cover the payrolls of small businesses adversely affected by the coronavirus crisis. The loan was, according to Axios's own reporting, larger than those received by over 99 percent of other companies—not counting the thousands who applied for, but were denied, PPP funding before the program ran dry several weeks ago.
VandeHei had previously written that the money had been used to make up for shortfalls in revenue due to the closing down of Axios's events business. Axios did not provide an answer to questions from the Washington Free Beacon about whether or not the site had sought alternative funds from its wealthy backers before applying for a government loan, as the Treasury Department recently instructed businesses to do before seeking PPP loans. VandeHei did tell the Daily Beast that no one at the site would be taking a pay cut, including himself.
VandeHei blamed Tuesday's reversal on the increasing political tension around PPP loans. Many wealthy businesses—including hedge funds, chains like Ruth's Chris and Shake Shack, and universities like Harvard—have run afoul of the media and popular criticism for taking loans for which they technically qualified, but which deprived other firms of access to the PPP's limited pool of funds.
Axios, by contrast, had largely avoided increased scrutiny by its media peers. VandeHei alleged that critics thought that media firms or venture-backed firms should seek funding elsewhere; he made no mention of his site's wealthy supporters.