hotair--2020-12-11--FBI serves subpoena on Texas Attorney General Paxton amid SCOTUS election lawsuit

The FBI served Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton with a least one subpoena on Wednesday .
Paxton is the subject of an ongoing investigation into allegations that he abused his authority to help a friend , a campaign donor .
Agents delivered the subpoena ( s ) to his office .
The investigation was launched after Paxton ’ s deputies in the attorney general ’ s office reported him to authorities over concerns of bribery and abuse of office .
As I wrote at the time , Paxton ’ s time in office has been riddled with his own legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cloud of indictment for the entire five years he has been in the office .
This case has to do with Paxton ’ s relationship with a businessman , Nate Paul , founder of World Class Holdings .
Paul has been under investigation by the FBI since 2019 .
Paul ’ s offices raided by the FBI last year .
It boils down to an uprising against Paxton by his deputies .
They asked the authorities to investigate Paxton for allegations of improper influence , abuse of office , bribery , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paxton , against their recommendation , hired an outside attorney to investigate claims by Paul that the FBI violated his constitutional rights during the raid .
Paxton ’ s staff have said they had already reviewed Paul ’ s complaint and closed the matter after finding no wrongdoing .
Their complaint touched off weeks of political fallout for Paxton , including calls for his resignation by some fellow Republicans , and led to the launch of the federal investigation .
FBI agents and federal prosecutors in the weeks since have conducted interviews with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s involvement with Paul .
Four people filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Paxton , all of whom have been fired or resigned from their positions in Paxton ’ s office .
They accuse Paxton of retaliation .
The lawsuit says that “ Paxton also improperly advocated for the release of investigative records to Paul and ordered staff to issue a legal opinion limiting foreclosure sales during the pandemic — allegedly to help Paul.
” And , to add some spice to the allegations , “ the suit claimed that Paxton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom he was reportedly having an affair and had recommended for a job with Paul.
” On a side note , Angela Paxton , his wife , was elected to the Texas Senate in November of 2018 .
She was a teacher for twenty years .
Paxton denies any wrongdoing .
He ’ s already under indictment from charges by a grand jury in 2015 .
The FBI is not commenting on the subpoena ( s ) or confirming the investigation .
Not only is this awkward timing for Paxton , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hail Mary lawsuit Paxton filed on behalf of the State of Texas to the Supreme Court to overturn election results in four battleground states .
Seventeen states have joined the lawsuit , though there is likely little chance of a victory .
Other states may be ready to join the lawsuit , too .
Did Paxton file the lawsuit to distract from his own legal problems ?
If we say the quiet part out loud , it ’ s very likely .
Many Texas Republicans have called for his resignation and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorable way with Trump supporters .
The FBI ’ s visit yesterday didn ’ t help him in the eyes of the Texas GOP .
Paxton is among a dozen state attorneys general scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump today at the White House .
It is being called a previously scheduled meeting and it will be interesting to see if Paxton attends .
If I had to place a bet , my money is on Paxton attending the meeting and soaking up the praises of President Trump for filing the lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @

The FBI served Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton with a least one subpoena on Wednesday. Paxton is the subject of an ongoing investigation into allegations that he abused his authority to help a friend, a campaign donor. Agents delivered the subpoena(s) to his office.
The investigation was launched after Paxton’s deputies in the attorney general’s office reported him to authorities over concerns of bribery and abuse of office. As I wrote at the time, Paxton’s time in office has been riddled with his own legal problems. He has been under the cloud of indictment for the entire five years he has been in the office. This case has to do with Paxton’s relationship with a businessman, Nate Paul, founder of World Class Holdings. Paul has been under investigation by the FBI since 2019. Paul’s offices raided by the FBI last year.
It boils down to an uprising against Paxton by his deputies. They asked the authorities to investigate Paxton for allegations of improper influence, abuse of office, bribery, and other potential crimes.
The group contended that Paxton, against their recommendation, hired an outside attorney to investigate claims by Paul that the FBI violated his constitutional rights during the raid. Paxton’s staff have said they had already reviewed Paul’s complaint and closed the matter after finding no wrongdoing. Their complaint touched off weeks of political fallout for Paxton, including calls for his resignation by some fellow Republicans, and led to the launch of the federal investigation. FBI agents and federal prosecutors in the weeks since have conducted interviews with anyone who might have information about Paxton’s involvement with Paul.
Four people filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Paxton, all of whom have been fired or resigned from their positions in Paxton’s office. They accuse Paxton of retaliation. The lawsuit says that “Paxton also improperly advocated for the release of investigative records to Paul and ordered staff to issue a legal opinion limiting foreclosure sales during the pandemic — allegedly to help Paul.” And, to add some spice to the allegations, “the suit claimed that Paxton’s actions benefited himself and a woman with whom he was reportedly having an affair and had recommended for a job with Paul.” On a side note, Angela Paxton, his wife, was elected to the Texas Senate in November of 2018. She was a teacher for twenty years.
Paxton denies any wrongdoing. He’s already under indictment from charges by a grand jury in 2015. The FBI is not commenting on the subpoena(s) or confirming the investigation.
Paxton remains under indictment on 2015 charges after a Collin County grand jury indicted him on two counts of securities fraud and one count of failing to register with state securities regulators based on private business deals from 2011 and 2012. Paxton has accused prosecutors of overzealous pursuit of the charges, particularly the fraud accusations — first-degree felonies that carry a maximum punishment of 99 years in prison.
The attorney general issued a brief statement Thursday night.
Paxton said in a statement Thursday evening: “At all times, as in every matter, I ask my staff only to search for the truth, wherever it leads. That’s my responsibility as Attorney General of Texas.”
Not only is this awkward timing for Paxton, but it’s also not great news for the Hail Mary lawsuit Paxton filed on behalf of the State of Texas to the Supreme Court to overturn election results in four battleground states. Seventeen states have joined the lawsuit, though there is likely little chance of a victory. Other states may be ready to join the lawsuit, too. Did Paxton file the lawsuit to distract from his own legal problems? If we say the quiet part out loud, it’s very likely. Many Texas Republicans have called for his resignation and this keeps him in the headlines in a favorable way with Trump supporters. The FBI’s visit yesterday didn’t help him in the eyes of the Texas GOP. Paxton is among a dozen state attorneys general scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump today at the White House. It is being called a previously scheduled meeting and it will be interesting to see if Paxton attends. If I had to place a bet, my money is on Paxton attending the meeting and soaking up the praises of President Trump for filing the lawsuit against those four battleground states.


hotair--2020-12-11--Feinstein on serving out her full term: Let me get back to you

That ’ s not exactly a confidence builder , Senator .
Yesterday morning , the New Yorker flayed Dianne Feinstein as barely compos mentis , thanks to multiple sources on Capitol Hill from her own caucus .
Feinstein has deteriorated so badly that Chuck Schumer had to play Groundhog Day in discussing her demotion on the Senate Judiciary Committee .
Jane Mayer ’ s sources all seemed to think Feinstein should be sent back home .
And then , oddly … no one defended Feinstein , not even Feinstein herself .
The story just hung in the air all day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editor at the Los Angeles Times demanded her resignation so that she ceased being an impediment to Gavin Newsom ’ s ability to pander to identity politics .
Finally , Feinstein responded today by , er , not committing to finishing out her six-year term : Sen. Dianne Feinstein , the 87-year-old California Democrat who has faced growing questions about her ability to do her job , defended her service but did not commit to serving out her full term that expires in 2025 .
“ Well , if it changes , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feinstein told CNN when asked if she would commit to serving out the rest of her term .
Asked if she feels she ’ s still able to carry out her duties now , Feinstein said : “ I do .
I work hard .
I have good staff .
I think I am productive .
And I represent the people of California as well as I possibly can.
” It ’ s the “ possibly can ” part that had Jane Mayer ’ s sources concerned .
And even Manu Raju ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sources had raised first : Did Feinstein forget being asked ?
Or did no one in her office tell her ?
And for that matter , assuming Mayer did attempt to get a comment from Feinstein ’ s office ( which is almost certainly the case ) , their lack of response itself seems rather telling .
How tough would it be to put together a quick if non-specific defense of Feinstein to make sure it got included in Mayer ’ s article ?
That itself seems like political malpractice … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be on the level after all , and not just retribution for Feinstein ’ s hug of Lindsey Graham .
Raju hears that from at least one of Feinstein ’ s colleagues , albeit anonymously : Oof .
Looks like Feinstein might be getting back to Raju more quickly than she thinks .
If it happens quickly , it might actually solve a couple of problems for Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom , too .
The LA Times Erika Smith wrote yesterday about the pressure Newsom is getting to appoint either a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Senate seat , which is why she wanted Feinstein to be “ selfless ” so Newsom didn ’ t take damage in picking one over the other .
If Feinstein resigns soon , Newsom could choose Xavier Becerra for her open seat — which would allow Biden to pick someone more qualified for HHS , and avoid a head-on collision with Senate Republicans over his confirmation .
If someone makes that pitch to Feinstein , perhaps she might be enticed into an early retirement … especially with all of the backbiting she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

That’s not exactly a confidence builder, Senator. Yesterday morning, the New Yorker flayed Dianne Feinstein as barely compos mentis, thanks to multiple sources on Capitol Hill from her own caucus. Feinstein has deteriorated so badly that Chuck Schumer had to play Groundhog Day in discussing her demotion on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Jane Mayer’s sources all seemed to think Feinstein should be sent back home.
And then, oddly … no one defended Feinstein, not even Feinstein herself. The story just hung in the air all day yesterday, unanswered, even after an editor at the Los Angeles Times demanded her resignation so that she ceased being an impediment to Gavin Newsom’s ability to pander to identity politics. Finally, Feinstein responded today by, er, not committing to finishing out her six-year term:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the 87-year-old California Democrat who has faced growing questions about her ability to do her job, defended her service but did not commit to serving out her full term that expires in 2025. “Well, if it changes, I’ll let you know,” Feinstein told CNN when asked if she would commit to serving out the rest of her term. Asked if she feels she’s still able to carry out her duties now, Feinstein said: “I do. I work hard. I have good staff. I think I am productive. And I represent the people of California as well as I possibly can.”
It’s the “possibly can” part that had Jane Mayer’s sources concerned. And even Manu Raju’s report raises a question that Mayer’s sources had raised first:
Asked if she found the article fair, Feinstein said: “No, not particularly. No one talked to me.” The article noted her office declined to comment.
Did Feinstein forget being asked? Or did no one in her office tell her? And for that matter, assuming Mayer did attempt to get a comment from Feinstein’s office (which is almost certainly the case), their lack of response itself seems rather telling. How tough would it be to put together a quick if non-specific defense of Feinstein to make sure it got included in Mayer’s article? That itself seems like political malpractice … or perhaps a tacit admission that this might be on the level after all, and not just retribution for Feinstein’s hug of Lindsey Graham.
Raju hears that from at least one of Feinstein’s colleagues, albeit anonymously:
“It’s sad to watch,” one Democratic senator told CNN.
Oof. Looks like Feinstein might be getting back to Raju more quickly than she thinks.
If it happens quickly, it might actually solve a couple of problems for Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom, too. The LA Times Erika Smith wrote yesterday about the pressure Newsom is getting to appoint either a black or Hispanic replacement for Kamala Harris’ Senate seat, which is why she wanted Feinstein to be “selfless” so Newsom didn’t take damage in picking one over the other. If Feinstein resigns soon, Newsom could choose Xavier Becerra for her open seat — which would allow Biden to pick someone more qualified for HHS, and avoid a head-on collision with Senate Republicans over his confirmation.
If someone makes that pitch to Feinstein, perhaps she might be enticed into an early retirement … especially with all of the backbiting she’s getting for sticking around now.


hotair--2020-12-11--Dem House aides: Austin's surprise SecDef nomination is a "hot mess" and a "clusterf***"

A leftover from a few days ago .
They were all set to try to shepherd Michele Flournoy through to become the first woman defense secretary , the Daily Beast reports — and even Flournoy herself had begun gladhanding legislators behind the scenes in the expectation that she ’ d soon be facing them in a confirmation hearing .
Instead Biden dropped Lloyd Austin on them and gave them an entirely new political problem , gathering enough votes in both houses of Congress to secure a waiver to the law banning military officers from leading the Pentagon unless they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It remains unclear today whether Austin will have the votes he needs for that waiver , particularly at the committee level .
Now Biden ’ s Democratic allies on the Hill , many of whom rejected such a waiver in 2017 for former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to serve , are in the uncomfortable position of eroding an institutional safeguard ensuring civilian control of the military on behalf of a figure few know and fewer saw coming .
One staffer for a member of the House Armed Services Committee , who did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement a “ clusterfuck.
” Another Democratic aide called the situation a “ hot mess.
” And it is jeopardizing what should be a historic moment : the nomination of the first Black secretary of defense .
A great deal of the confusion stemmed from a widespread expectation , shared by many on the Hill , that former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy was the likelier choice to run the Pentagon .
In fact , Flournoy was still personally courting skeptical Democrats on the Hill just days before the Austin news broke , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mention , many of the Democratic Party ’ s bench of defense experts , from whom Austin is likely to staff his Pentagon should he get that far , are Flournoy ’ s proteges and loyalists .
Austin is an understandable pick in some ways , a curious one in others .
He and Biden worked together during Obama ’ s administration , which seems to be a credential of utmost importance to Sleepy Joe as he assembles a cabinet of retreads .
And he ’ d check a major diversity box @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black SecDef in U.S. history .
But he has liabilities even beyond the ones I ’ ve noted in other posts this week , lack his inexperience with the Far East at a moment when China has emerged as America ’ s greatest threat .
The Free Beacon flagged this uncomfortable episode from Austin ’ s military service in a post on Wednesday : Austin , CENTCOM commander from 2013 to 2016 and Biden ’ s pick for defense secretary , publicly claimed that the Obama administration was making “ significant progress ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist organization was reaching its largest territorial extent .
Austin also told Congress that ISIS “ is losing this fight ” in March 2015 , two months before terrorists captured Ramadi , a key city just miles from Baghdad .
The Department of Defense inspector general ultimately cleared CENTCOM commanders of politicizing the battle against ISIS , but its 2017 report noted , according to witnesses , Austin had pushed his subordinates to paint a rosy picture of the situation .
The witness accounts are consistent with contemporary news accounts , which found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence reports .
Congressional probes conducted by Republicans *and* Democrats at the time concluded that CENTCOM ’ s intelligence process was making it harder for bad news to make its way up the chain .
In fact , when Austin testified before the Senate in 2015 , he got under John McCain ’ s skin by seeming far too sanguine about ISIS ’ s expansion in the region .
“ There haven ’ t been any dramatic gains on either side , ” Austin claimed — despite the fact that ISIS had captured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen a hearing that is as divorced from the reality of every outside expert and what you are saying , ” McCain replied .
Is the new SecDef going to put on rose-colored glasses when he briefs Biden too ?
Matt Continetti ’ s right that Austin ’ s nomination also guarantees “ a replay of the debate over America ’ s 2011 withdrawal from Iraq and the subsequent growth of the Islamic State.
” Austin was the commander in Iraq who supervised that retreat , clearing the way for ISIS to emerge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , obviously — Obama gave the order , not Austin — but it ’ s destined to lead to awkward questions during Austin ’ s hearing about whether he disagreed with the order at the time and whether he thinks the Obama/Biden administration ’ s eagerness to leave Iraq was a mistake in hindsight .
His biggest liability is his lack of expertise on China , though .
He can ’ t get his waiver without some Republican votes and the GOP has become a party of staunch hawks towards Beijing .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resume and it ’ s unclear how he ’ ll fill it .
“ The United States doesn ’ t have a clear strategy for dealing with China , and it doesn ’ t currently have the right weapons for the job , ” David Ignatius writes today .
“ Preparing for this adversary means a rethink , top to bottom .
It ’ s the biggest management and technology challenge the new administration faces .
If Austin is the right person to lead this transformative effort , he needs to show it.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Georgia runoffs who controls the Senate Armed Services Committee but we already know that no fewer than four Dems who sit on it oppose a waiver — Richard Blumenthal , Elizabeth Warren , Tammy Duckworth , and Kirsten Gillibrand — while a fifth , Mazie Hirono , has “ concerns.
” How many Republicans on the committee will cross the aisle for Austin ?
At least one will .
Jim Inhofe , the committee chairman , says he has no problem granting waivers .
But Tom Cotton is also on the committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about granting another waiver .
Josh Hawley ’ s on the committee too and won ’ t want to vote for any Biden nominees unless he has to , as he and Cotton both have presidential aspirations and know that greenlighting a Biden pick can and will be held against them in a primary .
There ’ s real suspense , at least for the moment , on whether Austin has the votes .
But when push comes to shove , I assume most Dems will roll over and vote yes in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early in his presidency .
There ’ s no obvious alternative to Austin either who checks the diversity box that he checks , as Jeh Johnson ( who was also being considered for SecDef ) said a few days ago that he won ’ t take a job in Biden ’ s administration .
It ’ s Austin or bust .
Senate Democrats won ’ t choose bust and Austin hasn ’ t given Republicans any sort of culture-war reason to galvanize a party-line vote against him .
He ’ ll make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for China is a separate question .

A leftover from a few days ago. They were all set to try to shepherd Michele Flournoy through to become the first woman defense secretary, the Daily Beast reports — and even Flournoy herself had begun gladhanding legislators behind the scenes in the expectation that she’d soon be facing them in a confirmation hearing.
Instead Biden dropped Lloyd Austin on them and gave them an entirely new political problem, gathering enough votes in both houses of Congress to secure a waiver to the law banning military officers from leading the Pentagon unless they’ve been retired for seven years.
It remains unclear today whether Austin will have the votes he needs for that waiver, particularly at the committee level.
Now Biden’s Democratic allies on the Hill, many of whom rejected such a waiver in 2017 for former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to serve, are in the uncomfortable position of eroding an institutional safeguard ensuring civilian control of the military on behalf of a figure few know and fewer saw coming. One staffer for a member of the House Armed Services Committee, who did not want to be named, called the announcement a “clusterfuck.” Another Democratic aide called the situation a “hot mess.” And it is jeopardizing what should be a historic moment: the nomination of the first Black secretary of defense. A great deal of the confusion stemmed from a widespread expectation, shared by many on the Hill, that former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy was the likelier choice to run the Pentagon. In fact, Flournoy was still personally courting skeptical Democrats on the Hill just days before the Austin news broke, according to a Democratic aide. Not to mention, many of the Democratic Party’s bench of defense experts, from whom Austin is likely to staff his Pentagon should he get that far, are Flournoy’s proteges and loyalists.
Austin is an understandable pick in some ways, a curious one in others. He and Biden worked together during Obama’s administration, which seems to be a credential of utmost importance to Sleepy Joe as he assembles a cabinet of retreads. And he’d check a major diversity box for the administration by becoming the first black SecDef in U.S. history. But he has liabilities even beyond the ones I’ve noted in other posts this week, lack his inexperience with the Far East at a moment when China has emerged as America’s greatest threat. The Free Beacon flagged this uncomfortable episode from Austin’s military service in a post on Wednesday:
Austin, CENTCOM commander from 2013 to 2016 and Biden’s pick for defense secretary, publicly claimed that the Obama administration was making “significant progress” against ISIS in fall 2014—just when the terrorist organization was reaching its largest territorial extent. Austin also told Congress that ISIS “is losing this fight” in March 2015, two months before terrorists captured Ramadi, a key city just miles from Baghdad. The Department of Defense inspector general ultimately cleared CENTCOM commanders of politicizing the battle against ISIS, but its 2017 report noted, according to witnesses, Austin had pushed his subordinates to paint a rosy picture of the situation. The witness accounts are consistent with contemporary news accounts, which found that CENTCOM officials regularly altered language in intelligence reports.
Congressional probes conducted by Republicans *and* Democrats at the time concluded that CENTCOM’s intelligence process was making it harder for bad news to make its way up the chain. In fact, when Austin testified before the Senate in 2015, he got under John McCain’s skin by seeming far too sanguine about ISIS’s expansion in the region. “There haven’t been any dramatic gains on either side,” Austin claimed — despite the fact that ISIS had captured Mosul. “I’ve never seen a hearing that is as divorced from the reality of every outside expert and what you are saying,” McCain replied.
Is the new SecDef going to put on rose-colored glasses when he briefs Biden too?
Matt Continetti’s right that Austin’s nomination also guarantees “a replay of the debate over America’s 2011 withdrawal from Iraq and the subsequent growth of the Islamic State.” Austin was the commander in Iraq who supervised that retreat, clearing the way for ISIS to emerge. That’s not his fault, obviously — Obama gave the order, not Austin — but it’s destined to lead to awkward questions during Austin’s hearing about whether he disagreed with the order at the time and whether he thinks the Obama/Biden administration’s eagerness to leave Iraq was a mistake in hindsight.
His biggest liability is his lack of expertise on China, though. He can’t get his waiver without some Republican votes and the GOP has become a party of staunch hawks towards Beijing. It’s the big gap on his resume and it’s unclear how he’ll fill it. “The United States doesn’t have a clear strategy for dealing with China, and it doesn’t currently have the right weapons for the job,” David Ignatius writes today. “Preparing for this adversary means a rethink, top to bottom. It’s the biggest management and technology challenge the new administration faces. If Austin is the right person to lead this transformative effort, he needs to show it.” We won’t know until the Georgia runoffs who controls the Senate Armed Services Committee but we already know that no fewer than four Dems who sit on it oppose a waiver — Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, and Kirsten Gillibrand — while a fifth, Mazie Hirono, has “concerns.” How many Republicans on the committee will cross the aisle for Austin?
At least one will. Jim Inhofe, the committee chairman, says he has no problem granting waivers. But Tom Cotton is also on the committee and has expressed “real reservations” about granting another waiver. Josh Hawley’s on the committee too and won’t want to vote for any Biden nominees unless he has to, as he and Cotton both have presidential aspirations and know that greenlighting a Biden pick can and will be held against them in a primary. There’s real suspense, at least for the moment, on whether Austin has the votes.
But when push comes to shove, I assume most Dems will roll over and vote yes in order to spare Biden a stinging humiliation so early in his presidency. There’s no obvious alternative to Austin either who checks the diversity box that he checks, as Jeh Johnson (who was also being considered for SecDef) said a few days ago that he won’t take a job in Biden’s administration. It’s Austin or bust. Senate Democrats won’t choose bust and Austin hasn’t given Republicans any sort of culture-war reason to galvanize a party-line vote against him. He’ll make it through. Whether he’s ready for China is a separate question.


hotair--2020-12-11--Reuters: Say, you know who seems fired up for the Georgia runoffs?

What would be a more reliable measure of public sentiment in Georgia ’ s runoff election for its two US Senate seats ?
Reuters chose a less scientific method , and came up with great news for the GOP .
Or at least 98 % great news : It ’ s a mixed message that many Republicans fear could tilt the tight Georgia Senate races in favor of Democrats if any significant number of Trump supporters boycott the election – as some of the president ’ s supporters have advocated in right-wing social media circles .
Among those calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two prominent pro-Trump lawyers – Sidney Powell and Lin Wood – who have promoted outlandish election-fraud conspiracy theories .
But voters like Frank and Townsend have tuned them out , according to Reuters interviews with 50 Republican voters over the past week in rural , urban and suburban areas of Georgia .
All 50 said they planned to vote in Senate runoffs they deemed crucial – even though almost all believed the presidential election was tainted by fraud .
( One , however , said he would support Democrats . )
The interviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong voter turnout despite the turmoil that has engulfed the Georgia Republican party , pitting Trump loyalists against top Republican state officials the president has attacked for rebuffing his fraud allegations .
It also suggests that the messaging from Donald Trump about the importance of the election has succeeded , too .
Trump went to Georgia last weekend to rally voters to turn out .
While Trump gave vent at length to his grievances about the 2020 election , he also kept returning to the necessity to vote for David Perdue and Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have entirely eclipsed the “ boycott ” campaign from Powell and Wood , one that had fellow MAGA-landers accusing both attorneys of being crypto-Democrats .
So why didn ’ t Reuters simply conduct a poll ?
Perhaps they will ; scientific public polling theoretically provides a predictive mathematical model of an electorate .
Stopping the first 50 Republicans on the street seems a bit less reliable — again , theoretically .
These days , however , polling has had its problems , even in these runoffs , which oddly hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least for now , five weeks after the election that forced both contests into a runoff , there are only four polls listed at RealClearPolitics ’ aggregations for the two races .
And two of those are from Republican pollsters who clearly want to assess the potential backfire of all the cross-messaging from Powell , Wood , and to no small extent Trump himself .
That seems like a very strange paucity , given that pollsters around the country have literally nothing else better to do than to survey Georgia for these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the margin of error , although that ’ s helped in large part by a questionable Survey USA poll putting Jon Ossoff up by two and Raphael Warnock up by seven .
Interestingly , the most recent Trafalgar poll has the gaps backwards : Kelly Loeffler leads Warnock by five while David Perdue trails by one .
Trafalgar may be a GOP pollster , but they ’ ve done better than some of their media-linked competition over the last few years in predictive modeling .
The upshot here is that this will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , Reuters believes that Republicans are fired up as well as angry .
That ’ s a tough combination for Democrats to beat , especially in a state where Republicans routinely turn out more heavily .
Republicans also have a massive spending and advertising advantage , plus a better ground game .
As long as they can prevent voters from falling for a “ boycott ” message , it ’ s better to be Loeffler and Perdue than Warnock and Ossoff .

What would be a more reliable measure of public sentiment in Georgia’s runoff election for its two US Senate seats? Reuters chose a less scientific method, and came up with great news for the GOP. Or at least 98% great news:
It’s a mixed message that many Republicans fear could tilt the tight Georgia Senate races in favor of Democrats if any significant number of Trump supporters boycott the election – as some of the president’s supporters have advocated in right-wing social media circles. Among those calling for sitting out the races in protest are two prominent pro-Trump lawyers – Sidney Powell and Lin Wood – who have promoted outlandish election-fraud conspiracy theories. But voters like Frank and Townsend have tuned them out, according to Reuters interviews with 50 Republican voters over the past week in rural, urban and suburban areas of Georgia. All 50 said they planned to vote in Senate runoffs they deemed crucial – even though almost all believed the presidential election was tainted by fraud. (One, however, said he would support Democrats.) The interviews suggest that Republican Senate candidates could see strong voter turnout despite the turmoil that has engulfed the Georgia Republican party, pitting Trump loyalists against top Republican state officials the president has attacked for rebuffing his fraud allegations.
It also suggests that the messaging from Donald Trump about the importance of the election has succeeded, too. Trump went to Georgia last weekend to rally voters to turn out. While Trump gave vent at length to his grievances about the 2020 election, he also kept returning to the necessity to vote for David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler on January 5th. That appears to have entirely eclipsed the “boycott” campaign from Powell and Wood, one that had fellow MAGA-landers accusing both attorneys of being crypto-Democrats.
So why didn’t Reuters simply conduct a poll? Perhaps they will; scientific public polling theoretically provides a predictive mathematical model of an electorate. Stopping the first 50 Republicans on the street seems a bit less reliable — again, theoretically. These days, however, polling has had its problems, even in these runoffs, which oddly hasn’t gotten much interest from pollsters anyway.
At least for now, five weeks after the election that forced both contests into a runoff, there are only four polls listed at RealClearPolitics’ aggregations for the two races. And two of those are from Republican pollsters who clearly want to assess the potential backfire of all the cross-messaging from Powell, Wood, and to no small extent Trump himself. That seems like a very strange paucity, given that pollsters around the country have literally nothing else better to do than to survey Georgia for these races.
RCP has both races within the margin of error, although that’s helped in large part by a questionable Survey USA poll putting Jon Ossoff up by two and Raphael Warnock up by seven. Interestingly, the most recent Trafalgar poll has the gaps backwards: Kelly Loeffler leads Warnock by five while David Perdue trails by one. Trafalgar may be a GOP pollster, but they’ve done better than some of their media-linked competition over the last few years in predictive modeling.
The upshot here is that this will be close, and enthusiasm matters. Right now, Reuters believes that Republicans are fired up as well as angry. That’s a tough combination for Democrats to beat, especially in a state where Republicans routinely turn out more heavily. Republicans also have a massive spending and advertising advantage, plus a better ground game. As long as they can prevent voters from falling for a “boycott” message, it’s better to be Loeffler and Perdue than Warnock and Ossoff.


hotair--2020-12-11--Confirmed: Barr kept Hunter Biden probe a secret until after Election Day

Someone on Twitter said last night that this is the most ethical thing Barr has done as Attorney General and he ’ s probably going to get fired for it .
Which would make this administration two for two in dispatching AGs for the crime of behaving ethically .
I ’ ll be a little surprised if he survives the day .
Trump was already thinking of firing him .
Now he has confirmation from the WSJ that Barr could have revealed that Hunter Biden was under federal investigation at any time before the election — and chose not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will beat him to the punch by resigning ?
Attorney General William Barr has known about a disparate set of investigations involving Hunter Biden ’ s business and financial dealings since at least this spring , a person familiar with the matter said , and worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign… While the investigations in Delaware and Manhattan proceeded , investigators tried to keep the cases out of public view by taking few visible steps in the weeks before the November election , recognizing the impact their work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people familiar with the matter .
Mr. Barr was aware of the investigations involving Hunter Biden before the spring , the person said , though it isn ’ t clear when or how he first learned of the inquiries .
According to the Journal there are — or were — two separate investigations into Hunter , one based in Delaware and one based in Manhattan .
The Delaware one is the one Biden has now copped to , having to do with his “ tax affairs.
” The Manhattan one focused on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a broader criminal investigation that two people familiar with the matter described as an international financial investigation that had been going on for at least a year.
” That sounds like money laundering , which CNN claimed was something the feds were looking at in Biden ’ s case in a story published a few days ago .
But that ’ s why I said “ are — or were.
” It *may* be that the DOJ has cleared Biden of money-laundering charges at this point and is focused exclusively on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Various other media outlets collated here by NRO have reported that the Biden investigation focused on money laundering at some point but it ’ s unclear whether that ’ s ongoing .
Maybe that explains why the probe finally went from covert to overt .
There are all sorts of reasons why that can happen , said former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy in another NRO piece today .
Possibility : The feds were chasing money-laundering leads on Biden for months , wanted to keep that hush-hush so that neither he nor any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave up when they couldn ’ t substantiate the claims .
With that angle foreclosed and the probe solely focused on taxes , maybe that ’ s when they finally decided to notify him formally .
If that ’ s true then Barr and his team had a good reason not to reveal their investigation .
Doing so may have helped Trump politically but it also would have tipped off Hunter that they were sniffing around his finances before they had enough evidence to secure an indictment .
The AP says the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr ’ s DOJ suppressed this scoop and he ’ s not happy : “ [ P ] rivately , he demanded to know why the investigation was not revealed ahead of Election Day , accusing officials of deliberately stalling in order to help Biden ’ s chances , according to two Republicans familiar with the conversations but not authorized to discuss them publicly.
” Given that Barr reportedly wanted to stay on as AG in a Trump second term , what incentive did he have to help Biden win ?
Keeping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odds that he ’ d soon be out of a job and end up vilified by the pro-Trump right .
Which is a bad place to be when you ’ re already vilified by anti-Trumpers of all stripes .
I ’ m coming around to the theory , though , that Barr and his allies are on a reputation rehab tour ahead of his departure from the government .
That was one of the theories offered to explain his surprising admission to the AP that the DOJ hasn ’ t found any evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the WSJ with a scoop that Barr knew all along that Hunter was under scrutiny and didn ’ t say anything when doing so might have helped Trump .
With the election results having forced Barr to return to private life , maybe he ’ s trying to make his landing as soft as possible .

Someone on Twitter said last night that this is the most ethical thing Barr has done as Attorney General and he’s probably going to get fired for it.
Which would make this administration two for two in dispatching AGs for the crime of behaving ethically.
I’ll be a little surprised if he survives the day. Trump was already thinking of firing him. Now he has confirmation from the WSJ that Barr could have revealed that Hunter Biden was under federal investigation at any time before the election — and chose not to. Highly “disloyal.”
Maybe Barr will beat him to the punch by resigning?
Attorney General William Barr has known about a disparate set of investigations involving Hunter Biden’s business and financial dealings since at least this spring, a person familiar with the matter said, and worked to avoid their public disclosure during the heated election campaign… While the investigations in Delaware and Manhattan proceeded, investigators tried to keep the cases out of public view by taking few visible steps in the weeks before the November election, recognizing the impact their work could have, said one of the people familiar with the matter. Mr. Barr was aware of the investigations involving Hunter Biden before the spring, the person said, though it isn’t clear when or how he first learned of the inquiries.
According to the Journal there are — or were — two separate investigations into Hunter, one based in Delaware and one based in Manhattan. The Delaware one is the one Biden has now copped to, having to do with his “tax affairs.” The Manhattan one focused on his “business and financial dealings, as part of a broader criminal investigation that two people familiar with the matter described as an international financial investigation that had been going on for at least a year.” That sounds like money laundering, which CNN claimed was something the feds were looking at in Biden’s case in a story published a few days ago.
But that’s why I said “are — or were.” It *may* be that the DOJ has cleared Biden of money-laundering charges at this point and is focused exclusively on taxes now. From the NYT:
But it is not clear whether the newly disclosed federal investigation has substantiated the Republican claims. The inquiry originally focused on possible money laundering but did not gather enough evidence for a prosecution, according to people close to the case. Instead, it turned to tax matters.
Various other media outlets collated here by NRO have reported that the Biden investigation focused on money laundering at some point but it’s unclear whether that’s ongoing. Maybe that explains why the probe finally went from covert to overt. There are all sorts of reasons why that can happen, said former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy in another NRO piece today. Possibility: The feds were chasing money-laundering leads on Biden for months, wanted to keep that hush-hush so that neither he nor any of his cronies destroyed evidence, and finally gave up when they couldn’t substantiate the claims. With that angle foreclosed and the probe solely focused on taxes, maybe that’s when they finally decided to notify him formally.
If that’s true then Barr and his team had a good reason not to reveal their investigation. Doing so may have helped Trump politically but it also would have tipped off Hunter that they were sniffing around his finances before they had enough evidence to secure an indictment.
The AP says the president is indeed aware of the news that Barr’s DOJ suppressed this scoop and he’s not happy: “[P]rivately, he demanded to know why the investigation was not revealed ahead of Election Day, accusing officials of deliberately stalling in order to help Biden’s chances, according to two Republicans familiar with the conversations but not authorized to discuss them publicly.” Given that Barr reportedly wanted to stay on as AG in a Trump second term, what incentive did he have to help Biden win? Keeping the Biden investigation a secret only improved the odds that he’d soon be out of a job and end up vilified by the pro-Trump right. Which is a bad place to be when you’re already vilified by anti-Trumpers of all stripes.
I’m coming around to the theory, though, that Barr and his allies are on a reputation rehab tour ahead of his departure from the government. That was one of the theories offered to explain his surprising admission to the AP that the DOJ hasn’t found any evidence of widespread voter fraud. Now here’s the WSJ with a scoop that Barr knew all along that Hunter was under scrutiny and didn’t say anything when doing so might have helped Trump. With the election results having forced Barr to return to private life, maybe he’s trying to make his landing as soft as possible.


hotair--2020-12-11--Tyranny reversed: California judge slaps down Newsom over religious-worship shutdowns

Just how huge a precedent will the recent Supreme Court decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn turn out to be ?
We can take one measure from a California court late yesterday in Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom .
In a stinging rebuke to Gov .
Newsom , Judge Gregory Pulskamp imposed an injunction against enforcement of California ’ s planned COVID-19 restrictions .
Using Brooklyn as a guide , Pulskamp ripped California ’ s arbitrary decision to shut down houses of worship while allowing commercial businesses to remain open .
Any such limitation on an explicit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard , Pulskamp ruled and cited Brooklyn for support .
But Pulskamp wonders whether the restrictions even pass a smell test .
In fact , Newsom ’ s order for a blanket ban on worship services was even harsher than Andrew Cuomo ’ s orders that prompted the Brooklyn decision , Pulskamp notes : However , Defendants ’ efforts to distinguish the permitted secular activity from the prohibited religious activity are not persuasive .
For example , Defendants contend that the congregations of shoppers in big-box stores , grocery stores , etc.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of crowd size , proximity , and length of stay .
To the contrary , based on the evidence presented ( or lack thereof ) and common knowledge , it appears that shoppers at a Costco , Walmart , Home Depot , etc .
may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers , proximity , and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship .
Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than “ essential businesses ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board .
… In addition , the restrictions at issue in this case are not “ narrowly tailored ” because the occupancy limits imposed on places of worship by the Purple Tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and the Regional Stay at Home Order are zero – a total and complete ban of indoor religious services .
These restrictions are arguably harsher than any other set of restrictions considered by the courts in all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action .
In Roman Catholic Diocese , the court considered New York ’ s religious services occupancy limits of 10 persons in “ Red Zones ” and 25 persons in “ orange zones ” to be “ very severe restrictions ” and “ far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court [ footnote omitted ] , much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic , and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Roman Catholic Diocese , supra , at p. 1 , 2 . )
What then should the courts think of California ’ s total ban on indoor services ?
“ Narrowly tailored ” regulations mean “ the least restrictive means available ” and may potentially include a variety of less draconian measures such as “ social distancing , wearing masks , leaving doors and windows open , forgoing singing , and disinfecting spaces between services.
” ( Roman Catholic Diocese , supra , at p. 4 ( conc .
opn .
of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it seems highly probable that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case should the matter proceed to trial .
Pulskamp quotes Justice Brett Kavanaugh from a dissent in the earlier South Bay United case , one of the precursors to Brooklyn , in pointing out the absurdity of the disparate treatment of religious houses : “ Assuming all of the same precautions are taken , why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew ?
And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not ‘ assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings . '
” In other words , this shows a demonstrable hostility to religious expression , which is on its face unconstitutional — and was at the time of South Bay United , for that matter .
The Supreme Court chose at that time to defer to governors but finally drew a line in the sand with Brooklyn .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn , they can clearly and justly deal with abusive and arbitrary examples of tyrannical rule-by-whim , such as Newsom ’ s order in California .
Mark Tapscott reports on the reaction from Thomas More Society counsel Chris Ferrara , who called this decision a vindication of religious liberty rights : Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision , saying , “ after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘ containing the spread ’ of a virus they have failed to contain , the gubernatorial dictators presiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘ essential businesses ’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100 % capacity .
“ The Supreme Court ’ s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population .
“ Not even hair salons , which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact , have been subjected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses of worship.
” It ’ s important to note that this does not spell the end of the case in Burfitt .
This just enjoins California from enforcing its current restrictions while the case continues .
Perhaps Newsom will rethink his approach before this comes back before Pulskamp … but then again , one might have thought Newsom would have done so after Brooklyn , too .
The tyrannical impulse dies hard .

Just how huge a precedent will the recent Supreme Court decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn turn out to be? We can take one measure from a California court late yesterday in Father Trevor Burfitt v Gavin Newsom. In a stinging rebuke to Gov. Newsom, Judge Gregory Pulskamp imposed an injunction against enforcement of California’s planned COVID-19 restrictions. Using Brooklyn as a guide, Pulskamp ripped California’s arbitrary decision to shut down houses of worship while allowing commercial businesses to remain open.
Any such limitation on an explicit and textual constitutional right requires a strict scrutiny standard, Pulskamp ruled and cited Brooklyn for support. But Pulskamp wonders whether the restrictions even pass a smell test. In fact, Newsom’s order for a blanket ban on worship services was even harsher than Andrew Cuomo’s orders that prompted the Brooklyn decision, Pulskamp notes:
However, Defendants’ efforts to distinguish the permitted secular activity from the prohibited religious activity are not persuasive. For example, Defendants contend that the congregations of shoppers in big-box stores, grocery stores, etc., are not comparable to religious services in terms of crowd size, proximity, and length of stay. To the contrary, based on the evidence presented (or lack thereof) and common knowledge, it appears that shoppers at a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, etc. may – and frequently do – congregate in numbers, proximity, and duration that is very comparable to worshippers in houses of worship. Defendants have not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than “essential businesses” or “critical infrastructure,” assuming the same requirements of social distancing and the wearing of masks were applied across the board. … In addition, the restrictions at issue in this case are not “narrowly tailored” because the occupancy limits imposed on places of worship by the Purple Tier of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy and the Regional Stay at Home Order are zero – a total and complete ban of indoor religious services. These restrictions are arguably harsher than any other set of restrictions considered by the courts in all of the cases cited by the parties in this action. In Roman Catholic Diocese, the court considered New York’s religious services occupancy limits of 10 persons in “Red Zones” and 25 persons in “orange zones” to be “very severe restrictions” and “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court [footnote omitted], much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 1, 2.) What then should the courts think of California’s total ban on indoor services? “Narrowly tailored” regulations mean “the least restrictive means available” and may potentially include a variety of less draconian measures such as “social distancing, wearing masks, leaving doors and windows open, forgoing singing, and disinfecting spaces between services.” (Roman Catholic Diocese, supra, at p. 4 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.).) Therefore, it seems highly probable that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case should the matter proceed to trial.
Pulskamp quotes Justice Brett Kavanaugh from a dissent in the earlier South Bay United case, one of the precursors to Brooklyn, in pointing out the absurdity of the disparate treatment of religious houses:
“Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister? … The State cannot ‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.'”
In other words, this shows a demonstrable hostility to religious expression, which is on its face unconstitutional — and was at the time of South Bay United, for that matter. The Supreme Court chose at that time to defer to governors but finally drew a line in the sand with Brooklyn. And now that judges have seen the line drawn, they can clearly and justly deal with abusive and arbitrary examples of tyrannical rule-by-whim, such as Newsom’s order in California.
Mark Tapscott reports on the reaction from Thomas More Society counsel Chris Ferrara, who called this decision a vindication of religious liberty rights:
Thomas More Senior Counsel Chris Ferrara lauded the decision, saying, “after more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity. “The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population. “Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”
It’s important to note that this does not spell the end of the case in Burfitt. This just enjoins California from enforcing its current restrictions while the case continues. Perhaps Newsom will rethink his approach before this comes back before Pulskamp … but then again, one might have thought Newsom would have done so after Brooklyn, too. The tyrannical impulse dies hard.


hotair--2020-12-11--Hmmm: White House memo tells staff to "prioritize preparations for a smooth transition"

This doesn ’ t sound like a vote of confidence in the case currently at the Supreme Court .
Perhaps one can chalk this up to an abundance of caution , but it does appear to be a hat-tip toward the reality of the upcoming transition .
According to CNN reporter Vivian Salama , a memo from chief of staff Mark Meadows and the White House Counsel ’ s office asked staff to “ prioritize preparations for a smooth transition , ” without naming the transition destination : What prompted this missive at this point in time ?
It might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court in Texas v PA et al , or more simply after the Electoral College meets on Monday .
It might have been outside lawsuits , Bloomberg reported , that forced the counsel office ’ s hand : The White House has directed staff to retain certain records to ensure a “ smooth transition , ” the latest sign the government is preparing for President-elect Joe Biden to take office even as President Donald Trump refuses to concede .
In a Dec. 10 memo issued by the White House counsel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News , aides are being directed to comply with the Presidential Records Act so they can be transferred to the National Archives “ at the end of President Trump ’ s administration.
” … The White House sent the reminder more than two weeks after the General Services Administration ascertained Biden as the apparent winner of the Nov. 3 election , clearing the way for formal transition activities to begin .
Trump , though , has refused to concede , and has continued with a pressure campaign to overturn the election result .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ assembling briefing books on their offices ’ activity is a priority “ to help facilitate a potential transition to a new administration.
” Those lawsuits got filed last week in an attempt to enforce the PRA .
The White House had dragged its heels on compliance , likely because the boss didn ’ t believe any transition needed to take place at all .
An earlier attempt to sue the administration got tossed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson over a lack of enforcement mechanisms in the law .
However , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Counsel ’ s office wants staff to begin its efforts to come into full compliance — “ in the event there is a transition to a new administration in January.
” The suspense will be mooted by Monday , with the meeting and casting of votes by the Electoral College .
Will it get mooted before then by the Supreme Court ?
There hasn ’ t been any puff of white smoke from America ’ s secular conclave , although submissions in Texas v PA et al keep getting added to the docket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the rebuttals from their respondents and various amici arguments .
If the court wants to dig into these in any substantive way , they might just end up getting mooted by the Electoral College too .
And maybe they ’ ll be okay with that .

This doesn’t sound like a vote of confidence in the case currently at the Supreme Court. Perhaps one can chalk this up to an abundance of caution, but it does appear to be a hat-tip toward the reality of the upcoming transition. According to CNN reporter Vivian Salama, a memo from chief of staff Mark Meadows and the White House Counsel’s office asked staff to “prioritize preparations for a smooth transition,” without naming the transition destination:
and energy you have brought to all of your work in the past.” The email details protocol regarding preservation of records, personal retention of copies of records, protocol for briefing books, & other legal matters. Trump has yet to concede even as transition is underway. (2/2) — Vivian Salama (@vmsalama) December 11, 2020
What prompted this missive at this point in time? It might have been expected after a loss at the Supreme Court in Texas v PA et al, or more simply after the Electoral College meets on Monday. It might have been outside lawsuits, Bloomberg reported, that forced the counsel office’s hand:
The White House has directed staff to retain certain records to ensure a “smooth transition,” the latest sign the government is preparing for President-elect Joe Biden to take office even as President Donald Trump refuses to concede. In a Dec. 10 memo issued by the White House counsel and chief of staff and obtained by Bloomberg News, aides are being directed to comply with the Presidential Records Act so they can be transferred to the National Archives “at the end of President Trump’s administration.” … The White House sent the reminder more than two weeks after the General Services Administration ascertained Biden as the apparent winner of the Nov. 3 election, clearing the way for formal transition activities to begin. Trump, though, has refused to concede, and has continued with a pressure campaign to overturn the election result. Staff were told in the memo that assembling briefing books on their offices’ activity is a priority “to help facilitate a potential transition to a new administration.”
Those lawsuits got filed last week in an attempt to enforce the PRA. The White House had dragged its heels on compliance, likely because the boss didn’t believe any transition needed to take place at all. An earlier attempt to sue the administration got tossed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson over a lack of enforcement mechanisms in the law. However, it’s apparently worrisome enough that the White House Counsel’s office wants staff to begin its efforts to come into full compliance — “in the event there is a transition to a new administration in January.”
The suspense will be mooted by Monday, with the meeting and casting of votes by the Electoral College. Will it get mooted before then by the Supreme Court? There hasn’t been any puff of white smoke from America’s secular conclave, although submissions in Texas v PA et al keep getting added to the docket. This morning Texas submitted two replies to the rebuttals from their respondents and various amici arguments. If the court wants to dig into these in any substantive way, they might just end up getting mooted by the Electoral College too. And maybe they’ll be okay with that.


hotair--2020-12-11--Great news: It's also okay to report on James Biden's corruption, too

Olly-olly oxen free ?
Some of us haven ’ t shied away from the Biden Inc graft over the last year , including some legit media outlets — Politico , for instance , which had been rather vocal about it during the primaries .
Now that the general election has concluded , however , perhaps we ’ ll start to hear more about Hunter , James , and maybe even Frank .
Today , however , it ’ s Biden ’ s brother James that has the graft hot seat .
The newly reported investigation into Hunter also includes Uncle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the securities fraud unit in the Southern District of New York also scrutinized Hunter Biden ’ s finances , according to the person with direct knowledge of the investigation .
The person said that , as of early last year , investigators in Delaware and Washington were also probing potential money laundering and Hunter Biden ’ s foreign ties .
The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly .
In addition to the probe into Hunter Biden , federal authorities in the Western @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation of a hospital business in which Joe Biden ’ s brother James was involved .
Federal officials have asked questions about James Biden ’ s role in the business , according to a second person with direct knowledge of that investigation , who said it remains ongoing .
This is the Americore Health scandal , which received scant attention when the FBI raided the organization in January .
Politico ’ s Ben Schreckinger was among the few who did write about it in depth in March , when the news of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company became public .
James has not been averse to using his brother ’ s name to get ahead in business without really trying : In the weeks since the raid , two small medical firms that did business with James Biden have claimed in civil court proceedings to have obtained evidence that he may have fraudulently transferred funds from Americore “ outside of the ordinary course of business , ” and a former Americore executive has told POLITICO that James Biden had more than half a million dollars transferred to him from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not yet been repaid .
… Even before the development surrounding Americore , James Biden ’ s venture into health care investing has been surrounded by legal allegations and claims that he invoked his brother ’ s clout .
Last year , two medical services firms jointly sued James Biden and his business partners in federal court in Tennessee , alleging James and his partners promised to provide a large investment from the Middle East , then pushed the firms to make expensive acquisitions , as part of a scheme to drive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business models .
As previously reported , those firms alleged that James Biden cited his family ’ s political connections and promised his older brother would promote their health care model as part of his 2020 presidential campaign .
Another health care firm sued Platinum Global Partners — a Florida corporation that lists James and his wife Sara as managers — in Palm Beach County in June .
The firm , which makes an oral rinse with applications for cancer patients , alleged that Platinum reneged on an agreement to invest in it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to the Biden Cancer Initiative , a nonprofit founded by Joe Biden to fund medical research .
An executive involved in litigation against James Biden previously told POLITICO that , on a call , James said he could get the Biden Cancer Initiative to promote the oral rinse .
Oddly , not too many media outlets pursued this story ( although Schreckinger did in August ) , even though Joe Biden ostensibly ran the Biden Cancer Initiative .
The Trump campaign kept trying to highlight this story along with its Hunter narratives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shrugged it off .
Schreckinger even notes that the story damaged the Trump campaign as much as it did the Biden campaign , but why ?
Because the national media made “ Trump slags Biden ” the story rather than … y ’ know … the actual and continuing story of Biden Inc. And now we find out that James is also under investigation by the FBI , just five weeks after the election .
Isn ’ t that convenient ?
Why , it ’ s almost as if the mainstream media put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with them openly and honestly , with few exceptions .
Go figure .
Update : Be sure to read this whole thread from Ben Domenech .
Like Ben , I doubt we ’ ll ever see accountability from the media or tech platforms — but we certainly deserve some .

Olly-olly oxen free? Some of us haven’t shied away from the Biden Inc graft over the last year, including some legit media outlets — Politico, for instance, which had been rather vocal about it during the primaries. Now that the general election has concluded, however, perhaps we’ll start to hear more about Hunter, James, and maybe even Frank.
Today, however, it’s Biden’s brother James that has the graft hot seat. The newly reported investigation into Hunter also includes Uncle Jim:
In addition to Delaware, the securities fraud unit in the Southern District of New York also scrutinized Hunter Biden’s finances, according to the person with direct knowledge of the investigation. The person said that, as of early last year, investigators in Delaware and Washington were also probing potential money laundering and Hunter Biden’s foreign ties. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. In addition to the probe into Hunter Biden, federal authorities in the Western District of Pennsylvania are conducting a criminal investigation of a hospital business in which Joe Biden’s brother James was involved. Federal officials have asked questions about James Biden’s role in the business, according to a second person with direct knowledge of that investigation, who said it remains ongoing.
This is the Americore Health scandal, which received scant attention when the FBI raided the organization in January. Politico’s Ben Schreckinger was among the few who did write about it in depth in March, when the news of the raid and James’ connection to the company became public. James has not been averse to using his brother’s name to get ahead in business without really trying:
In the weeks since the raid, two small medical firms that did business with James Biden have claimed in civil court proceedings to have obtained evidence that he may have fraudulently transferred funds from Americore “outside of the ordinary course of business,” and a former Americore executive has told POLITICO that James Biden had more than half a million dollars transferred to him from the firm as a personal loan that has not yet been repaid. … Even before the development surrounding Americore, James Biden’s venture into health care investing has been surrounded by legal allegations and claims that he invoked his brother’s clout. Last year, two medical services firms jointly sued James Biden and his business partners in federal court in Tennessee, alleging James and his partners promised to provide a large investment from the Middle East, then pushed the firms to make expensive acquisitions, as part of a scheme to drive them out of business and steal their business models. As previously reported, those firms alleged that James Biden cited his family’s political connections and promised his older brother would promote their health care model as part of his 2020 presidential campaign. Another health care firm sued Platinum Global Partners — a Florida corporation that lists James and his wife Sara as managers — in Palm Beach County in June. The firm, which makes an oral rinse with applications for cancer patients, alleged that Platinum reneged on an agreement to invest in it and requested that Platinum turn over documents related to the Biden Cancer Initiative, a nonprofit founded by Joe Biden to fund medical research. An executive involved in litigation against James Biden previously told POLITICO that, on a call, James said he could get the Biden Cancer Initiative to promote the oral rinse.
Oddly, not too many media outlets pursued this story (although Schreckinger did in August), even though Joe Biden ostensibly ran the Biden Cancer Initiative. The Trump campaign kept trying to highlight this story along with its Hunter narratives, but most of the mainstream media shrugged it off. Schreckinger even notes that the story damaged the Trump campaign as much as it did the Biden campaign, but why? Because the national media made “Trump slags Biden” the story rather than … y’know … the actual and continuing story of Biden Inc.
And now we find out that James is also under investigation by the FBI, just five weeks after the election. Isn’t that convenient? Why, it’s almost as if the mainstream media put a lid on these issues rather than deal with them openly and honestly, with few exceptions. Go figure.
Update: Be sure to read this whole thread from Ben Domenech. Like Ben, I doubt we’ll ever see accountability from the media or tech platforms — but we certainly deserve some.


hotair--2020-12-11--Justice: Judge disqualifies prosecutor -- and her entire office -- from one McCloskey case for polit

Justice: Judge disqualifies prosecutor -- and her entire office -- from one McCloskey case for politicizing it

Kim Gardner won her election while using Mark McCloskey as a fundraising tool .
She just lost in court for the same reason .
A Missouri judge took the unusual step of disqualifying the prosecutor and her entire office from prosecuting McCloskey , scolding Gardner for politicizing the case ( via Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms ) : Gardner had argued against the motion from the defense , saying that her campaign communications were intended to rebut criticism from the governor , president , and “ right wing media.
” Judge Thomas Clark didn ’ t buy that , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materials : “ If this is so , why mention defendants ?
” Clark wrote .
“ …If responding to her critics was the intent of the campaign solicitations , it seems reasonable that she would focus on them , not the defendants .
“ This email language extends beyond campaign rhetoric .
Rather , it seeks to seemingly energize supporters to contribute by referencing defendant , his conduct and even his social status…The twin fundraising solicitations paint defendant as a wealthy elitist and perhaps worse.
” Clark cited the July 17 email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a “ mansion.
” In a July 22 email , Gardner references her efforts to “ stand up against a system that elevates the privileged and powerful , ” and hold offenders “ accountable.
” … “ Ms .
Gardner has every right to rebut criticism , but it appears unnecessary to stigmatize defendant – or even mention him – in campaign solicitations , especially when she purports to be responding to others , ” he wrote .
“ In fact , the case law and Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit it.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to raise money using the defendant and the circumstances surrounding the case to rally Ms. Gardner ’ s political base and fuel contributions.
” There ’ s a price for demagoguery , it seems .
At least in Missouri .
The ruling only applies to Mark McCloskey and not his wife Patricia , whose trial is being conducted separately .
However , the defense attorneys plan to enter Clark ’ s ruling into her proceedings by her next court appearance on January 15 .
They will ask Judge Michael Steltzer to join Clark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her office out of Patricia ’ s case as well .
That would then require both judges to appoint special prosecutors , perhaps even separate special prosecutors , with no connection to Gardner and her office .
Cam notes the response from the defense , which couldn ’ t have asked for a better slap-down from Clark : Today ’ s decision only adds more weight to the argument by the couple that their prosecution was politically motivated from the start , and given the fact that Gov .
Mike Parson has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are convicted , there ’ s little need to waste taxpayer time and expense on a trial that ’ s based on trumped up charges in the first place .
Joel Schwartz , the McCloskeys ’ attorney , says he ’ s hopeful that once a special prosecutor has been appointed , they ’ ll decide that charges weren ’ t warranted to begin with .
“ This is what we wanted , ” Schwartz said .
“ We would like a fair-mined prosecutor to take a look at the alleged crimes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come up with because we don ’ t believe any of the evidence supports any of the charges .
… as long as that happens , then I think we ’ ll have the right outcome and that would hopefully be no charges.
” One has to wonder why any prosecutor would take up this case now .
Clark has made it pretty clear that this was a political hack job conducted by a political hack looking to make herself into a national star in politics .
The case already stinks , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a Sword of Damocles ’ Futility over everything a prosecutor would do .
That , along with earlier allegations of prosecutorial misconduct , makes this case an embarrassment for anyone not named Kim Gardner .
The best outcome would be a quiet dismissal , or at least as quiet as it possibly can be under present circumstances .
Cam and I will discuss this further in our VIP Gold Chat this afternoon at 1:30 ET .
We ’ ll see you there .

Kim Gardner won her election while using Mark McCloskey as a fundraising tool. She just lost in court for the same reason. A Missouri judge took the unusual step of disqualifying the prosecutor and her entire office from prosecuting McCloskey, scolding Gardner for politicizing the case (via Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms):
Gardner had argued against the motion from the defense, saying that her campaign communications were intended to rebut criticism from the governor, president, and “right wing media.” Judge Thomas Clark didn’t buy that, in large part because he read the campaign materials:
“If this is so, why mention defendants?” Clark wrote. “…If responding to her critics was the intent of the campaign solicitations, it seems reasonable that she would focus on them, not the defendants. “This email language extends beyond campaign rhetoric. Rather, it seeks to seemingly energize supporters to contribute by referencing defendant, his conduct and even his social status…The twin fundraising solicitations paint defendant as a wealthy elitist and perhaps worse.” Clark cited the July 17 email in which Gardner references the McCloskey home as a “mansion.” In a July 22 email, Gardner references her efforts to “stand up against a system that elevates the privileged and powerful,” and hold offenders “accountable.” … “Ms. Gardner has every right to rebut criticism, but it appears unnecessary to stigmatize defendant – or even mention him – in campaign solicitations, especially when she purports to be responding to others,” he wrote. “In fact, the case law and Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit it.” … “These email solicitations aim to raise money using the defendant and the circumstances surrounding the case to rally Ms. Gardner’s political base and fuel contributions.”
There’s a price for demagoguery, it seems. At least in Missouri.
The ruling only applies to Mark McCloskey and not his wife Patricia, whose trial is being conducted separately. However, the defense attorneys plan to enter Clark’s ruling into her proceedings by her next court appearance on January 15. They will ask Judge Michael Steltzer to join Clark’s ruling and toss Gardner and her office out of Patricia’s case as well. That would then require both judges to appoint special prosecutors, perhaps even separate special prosecutors, with no connection to Gardner and her office.
Cam notes the response from the defense, which couldn’t have asked for a better slap-down from Clark:
Today’s decision only adds more weight to the argument by the couple that their prosecution was politically motivated from the start, and given the fact that Gov. Mike Parson has already vowed to pardon the couple if they are convicted, there’s little need to waste taxpayer time and expense on a trial that’s based on trumped up charges in the first place. Joel Schwartz, the McCloskeys’ attorney, says he’s hopeful that once a special prosecutor has been appointed, they’ll decide that charges weren’t warranted to begin with. “This is what we wanted,” Schwartz said. “We would like a fair-mined prosecutor to take a look at the alleged crimes and reassess the evidence and see what they come up with because we don’t believe any of the evidence supports any of the charges. … as long as that happens, then I think we’ll have the right outcome and that would hopefully be no charges.”
One has to wonder why any prosecutor would take up this case now. Clark has made it pretty clear that this was a political hack job conducted by a political hack looking to make herself into a national star in politics. The case already stinks, and the governor’s pardon will hang like a Sword of Damocles’ Futility over everything a prosecutor would do. That, along with earlier allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, makes this case an embarrassment for anyone not named Kim Gardner. The best outcome would be a quiet dismissal, or at least as quiet as it possibly can be under present circumstances.
Cam and I will discuss this further in our VIP Gold Chat this afternoon at 1:30 ET. We’ll see you there.


hotair--2020-12-11--<span class='red'>Breaking: FDA approves Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine; 1st US vaccination within 24 hours

Breaking: FDA approves Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine; 1st US vaccination within 24 hours, says Trump

It ’ s here , it ’ s on its way , and it has FDA approval .
The emergency-use authorization came late tonight , followed immediately by an Oval Office announcement from Donald Trump , who hailed the achievement of his Operation Warp Speed project : The Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized the United States ’ first COVID-19 vaccine , a historic moment in a pandemic that has killed over 290,000 in this nation and nearly 1.6 million people worldwide .
The FDA ’ s authorization for emergency use of the first COVID-19 vaccine is a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has affected so many families in the United States and around the world , ” FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn , said in a statement .
“ Today ’ s action follows an open and transparent review process that included input from independent scientific and public health experts and a thorough evaluation by the agency ’ s career scientists to ensure this vaccine met FDA ’ s rigorous , scientific standards for safety , effectiveness , and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization.
” The emergency use authorization was expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doses to 636 sites across the country within 24 hours , primarily to hospitals where front-line health care workers are expected to receive them .
Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are also considered a top priority .
Trump made the announcement on Twitter less than an hour ago : The New York Times reminds us all of the logistical challenge to come , but we ’ ve had months to game this out : The authorization set off a complicated coordination effort from Pfizer , private shipping companies , state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals and pharmacy chains to get the first week ’ s batch of about three million doses to health care workers and nursing home residents as quickly as possible , all while keeping the vaccine at ultracold temperatures .
Pfizer has a deal with the U.S. government to supply 100 million doses of the vaccine by next March .
Under that agreement , the shots will be free to the public .
Every state , along with six major cities , has submitted to the federal government a list of locations — mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ship initially .
In populous Florida , the first recipients will be five hospitals , in Jacksonville , Miami , Orlando , Tampa and Hollywood .
In tiny , rural Vermont , only the University of Vermont Medical Center and a state warehouse will get supplies .
McKesson Corporation , a giant medical supplier , is sending kits of syringes , alcohol pads , face shields and other supplies to the same sites , where they will meet up with the vaccines that Pfizer is shipping in special boxes , packed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit .
The Pfizer packaging will include a device that tracks the location of the box , plus a thermal probe that will make sure the deep freeze is maintained throughout the journey from the company ’ s distribution sites in Michigan and Wisconsin .
The next questions will come from who can take it — and when .
For instance , my wife is a transplant patient , which puts us into a high-risk band .
Both of us are enthusiastic about getting vaccinated , but we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
We have been consulting with her transplant center , but they have not yet received the data to make the call as to whether she should take an mRNA-based vaccine .
It should be no problem with me , but I might need to wait for a while , perhaps only as long as it takes to get the Moderna vaccine out here in Minnesota , which might be in larger supply .
The next few days should get us answer to those question … hopefully soon .
Many families will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual situations , and providers will be overwhelmed at first dealing with them .
Given everything we ’ ve all been through in 2020 , I ’ m happy to be dealing with those logistical issues .
We now have a light at the end of the tunnel .
Operation Warp Speed delivered — and everyone involved should get thanks from a very grateful nation .

It’s here, it’s on its way, and it has FDA approval. The emergency-use authorization came late tonight, followed immediately by an Oval Office announcement from Donald Trump, who hailed the achievement of his Operation Warp Speed project:
The Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized the United States’ first COVID-19 vaccine, a historic moment in a pandemic that has killed over 290,000 in this nation and nearly 1.6 million people worldwide. The FDA’s authorization for emergency use of the first COVID-19 vaccine is a significant milestone in battling this devastating pandemic that has affected so many families in the United States and around the world,” FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn, said in a statement. “Today’s action follows an open and transparent review process that included input from independent scientific and public health experts and a thorough evaluation by the agency’s career scientists to ensure this vaccine met FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization.” The emergency use authorization was expected to trigger the first shipment of 2.9 million doses to 636 sites across the country within 24 hours, primarily to hospitals where front-line health care workers are expected to receive them. Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities are also considered a top priority.
Trump made the announcement on Twitter less than an hour ago:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337586206683574272
The New York Times reminds us all of the logistical challenge to come, but we’ve had months to game this out:
The authorization set off a complicated coordination effort from Pfizer, private shipping companies, state and local health officials, the military, hospitals and pharmacy chains to get the first week’s batch of about three million doses to health care workers and nursing home residents as quickly as possible, all while keeping the vaccine at ultracold temperatures. Pfizer has a deal with the U.S. government to supply 100 million doses of the vaccine by next March. Under that agreement, the shots will be free to the public. Every state, along with six major cities, has submitted to the federal government a list of locations — mostly hospitals — where the Pfizer vaccine is to ship initially. In populous Florida, the first recipients will be five hospitals, in Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tampa and Hollywood. In tiny, rural Vermont, only the University of Vermont Medical Center and a state warehouse will get supplies. McKesson Corporation, a giant medical supplier, is sending kits of syringes, alcohol pads, face shields and other supplies to the same sites, where they will meet up with the vaccines that Pfizer is shipping in special boxes, packed with dry ice, designed to keep them at minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit. The Pfizer packaging will include a device that tracks the location of the box, plus a thermal probe that will make sure the deep freeze is maintained throughout the journey from the company’s distribution sites in Michigan and Wisconsin.
The next questions will come from who can take it — and when. For instance, my wife is a transplant patient, which puts us into a high-risk band. Both of us are enthusiastic about getting vaccinated, but we’re not sure we can both take it. We have been consulting with her transplant center, but they have not yet received the data to make the call as to whether she should take an mRNA-based vaccine. It should be no problem with me, but I might need to wait for a while, perhaps only as long as it takes to get the Moderna vaccine out here in Minnesota, which might be in larger supply. The next few days should get us answer to those question … hopefully soon. Many families will have questions and concerns based on their individual situations, and providers will be overwhelmed at first dealing with them.
Given everything we’ve all been through in 2020, I’m happy to be dealing with those logistical issues. We now have a light at the end of the tunnel. Operation Warp Speed delivered — and everyone involved should get thanks from a very grateful nation.


hotair--2020-12-12--Another car runs down "protesters" in NYC

As you ’ ve probably gathered from the title , things have yet to calm down entirely in the streets of the Big Apple .
There was another demonstration this week by BLM activists , this time protesting the detention of illegal aliens .
The usual calls for the abolishment of ICE ( and/or the police ) were being heard as the marchers flooded the streets , blocking traffic for many city blocks .
All without a permit , of course , but apparently we don ’ t bother with such trivial matters these days .
Things turned ugly around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a car accelerating through a group of the demonstrators , sending several flying into the air .
None had life-threatening injuries .
Police quickly flooded the scene to bring matters under control , but it turned out that the “ demonstrators ” were doing a lot more than just demonstrating .
( NY Post ) Multiple pedestrians were struck by a vehicle during a Black Lives Matter protest in Midtown Manhattan on Friday afternoon , police said .
The crash happened at the intersection of 39th Street and Third Avenue just after 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cops said… At least two dozen cops flooded the intersection and surrounded an injured person being treated by EMS , according to video posted to social media .
This brief report from Fox NewsNOW provides a sense of the chaos unfolding and more of the details .
As mentioned above , at least one onlooker captured the incident on video and posted it to Twitter .
As you can see from the early news coverage , protesters were rushing to give their version of events to the reporters on the scene .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accelerating into the crowd ” as if the driver was just running people down and zooming off into the distance .
The reality was , of course , much different .
The driver , an unnamed 52-year-old woman from Queens , was in her car with her daughter .
When they came upon the demonstration , the street was entirely blocked by the protesters and she was forced to stop .
At that point , the “ protesters ” surrounded her car and began beating on the hood and the roof , threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fear for the safety of herself and her daughter , the woman hit the gas to escape from the crowd .
She only traveled a short distance until she saw some police officers and pulled over .
She was later taken into custody .
It will be interesting to see what happens if the city attempts to press charges against her .
She makes a credible claim that she was in fear for her safety and that of her passenger , a position that ’ s fairly easy to understand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ others by fleeing or potentially having both of them end up being dragged out of the car by an angry mob , it ’ s really not that tough of a call to make , is it ?
Further , none of this would have had to happen if the proper laws and procedures had been followed .
If the BLM demonstrators had applied for and received a permit to occupy that section of the street , the police would have blocked it off to vehicular traffic , redirecting all cars around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the driver and her daughter would never have been trapped by the mob and been put in that position .
Perhaps this will serve as a reminder to future participants in such activities .
If you use your own body to stand in front of and block a running vehicle and begin pounding on the hood until you ’ ve scared the driver out of her wits , bad things are very likely to happen .
None of us should cheer for or encourage violence in the streets of any sort , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collateral damage when being swarmed by large groups of people illegally blocking traffic .

As you’ve probably gathered from the title, things have yet to calm down entirely in the streets of the Big Apple. There was another demonstration this week by BLM activists, this time protesting the detention of illegal aliens. The usual calls for the abolishment of ICE (and/or the police) were being heard as the marchers flooded the streets, blocking traffic for many city blocks. All without a permit, of course, but apparently we don’t bother with such trivial matters these days.
Things turned ugly around four in the afternoon when pedestrians filmed a car accelerating through a group of the demonstrators, sending several flying into the air. None had life-threatening injuries. Police quickly flooded the scene to bring matters under control, but it turned out that the “demonstrators” were doing a lot more than just demonstrating. (NY Post)
Multiple pedestrians were struck by a vehicle during a Black Lives Matter protest in Midtown Manhattan on Friday afternoon, police said. The crash happened at the intersection of 39th Street and Third Avenue just after 4 p.m. where the protesters had gathered, cops said… At least two dozen cops flooded the intersection and surrounded an injured person being treated by EMS, according to video posted to social media.
This brief report from Fox NewsNOW provides a sense of the chaos unfolding and more of the details.
As mentioned above, at least one onlooker captured the incident on video and posted it to Twitter.
https://twitter.com/TheVengeance17/status/1337524862642958337
As you can see from the early news coverage, protesters were rushing to give their version of events to the reporters on the scene. They described the event as a car “accelerating into the crowd” as if the driver was just running people down and zooming off into the distance. The reality was, of course, much different.
The driver, an unnamed 52-year-old woman from Queens, was in her car with her daughter. When they came upon the demonstration, the street was entirely blocked by the protesters and she was forced to stop. At that point, the “protesters” surrounded her car and began beating on the hood and the roof, threatening to break the windows of the vehicle. In fear for the safety of herself and her daughter, the woman hit the gas to escape from the crowd. She only traveled a short distance until she saw some police officers and pulled over. She was later taken into custody.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the city attempts to press charges against her. She makes a credible claim that she was in fear for her safety and that of her passenger, a position that’s fairly easy to understand. Facing a choice between risking injury to others by fleeing or potentially having both of them end up being dragged out of the car by an angry mob, it’s really not that tough of a call to make, is it?
Further, none of this would have had to happen if the proper laws and procedures had been followed. If the BLM demonstrators had applied for and received a permit to occupy that section of the street, the police would have blocked it off to vehicular traffic, redirecting all cars around the area. Had that been done, the driver and her daughter would never have been trapped by the mob and been put in that position.
Perhaps this will serve as a reminder to future participants in such activities. If you use your own body to stand in front of and block a running vehicle and begin pounding on the hood until you’ve scared the driver out of her wits, bad things are very likely to happen. None of us should cheer for or encourage violence in the streets of any sort, but nobody is forced to sacrifice themselves as collateral damage when being swarmed by large groups of people illegally blocking traffic.