hotair--2020-05-06--Fake news? Trump reportedly questioning accuracy of coronavirus death toll

Yeah , that sounds like him .
If there ’ s a surprise here , it ’ s only that he hasn ’ t questioned it publicly already .
President Trump has complained to advisers about the way coronavirus deaths are being calculated , suggesting the real numbers are actually lower — and a number of his senior aides share this view , according to sources with direct knowledge .
What ’ s next : A senior administration official said he expects the president to begin publicly questioning the death toll as it closes in on his predictions for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A senior White House official pushed back , saying this of the president ’ s thinking : “ Skepticism isn ’ t the right way to frame it .
The numbers have been revised up to include presumptive cases — meaning deaths that are believed to be related to COVID but not known for sure.
” “ So he ’ s expressed the need to properly convey that to American people so they ’ re not startled by why numbers ticked up.
” I was sitting here thinking he was going to question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rising death toll is a major electoral liability for him , but it turns out he ’ s just worried about the tender sensibilities of the American people .
You know how he is .
Always thinking of others , never himself .
Deaths are being undercounted , not overcounted , but never mind that .
It sounds from the story like Trump might try to spin a theory of overcounting from the fact that hospitals are being paid 20 percent bonuses by Medicare for treating coronavirus patients , to help make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve lost lately as people avoid elective surgeries and treatments for other illnesses .
Imagine him interrupting the applause for hospital staff on their way to work each day to spitball a theory about those same staffers committing massive , ongoing taxpayer fraud .
Finally he ’ s identified the evildoers at the heart of the great COVID conspiracy to damage him politically : Doctors and hospitals .
The other route he could go would be to complain about “ probable deaths ” being counted as official deaths , as New York and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With something like this virus , where you ’ ve got this weird coagulation in the lungs … we need more autopsies , ” said one official to Axios , skeptically and semi-coherently .
I ’ m not sure what ’ s being implied there ; does he think there ’ s some sort of weird blood-clot epidemic that just so happens to be unfolding alongside but unrelated to the COVID epidemic , and coincidentally the patients with the clots also have COVID symptoms ?
If I were Trump I wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the difference between confirmed deaths from an infectious disease and deaths attributed to that disease but not confirmed to have been caused by it .
If they did that they ’ d realize that the number of confirmed deaths from the flu each year is much , much smaller than the number of deaths attributed to the flu based on best estimates .
Then the “ COVID is no worse than the flu ” talking point would go completely up in smoke , to the extent it hasn ’ t already .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he was going to challenge the death toll .
Trump ’ s super power is constructing attractive alternate realities for himself and getting other people to buy into them .
You can pick practically any element of his biography and find mythmaking or suspected mythmaking to it .
How much he ’ s worth , how he made his money , how much he gave to charity , what his social life was like , how successful he was at business , why he didn ’ t go to Vietnam , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 women have accused him of sexual misconduct of various stripes and he ’ s convinced some of his fans that they ’ re all lying .
He spent much of the fall of 2016 pre-spinning his defeat by insisting that the system was rigged against him , then switched after he won to complaining that he lost the popular vote because of some secret surge of illegal immigrant voters at the polls .
His greatest achievement until 2016 was convincing the country that he was an executive genius based on a role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On top of the mythmaking there ’ s the fact that he ’ s psychologically inclined towards conspiracy theories .
Obama ’ s supposed birth in Kenya is the most famous example but he ’ s forever being drawn to crankery like vaccine skepticism .
Put all of that together , the self-aggrandizement with his taste for garbage information , and it was inevitable that he ’ d become a truther about the coronavirus death count .
Everything ’ s pushing him towards it .
Here ’ s a perfect insight into his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may remember that he made a similar point in the earliest days of the epidemic , when some Americans were stranded on a cruise ship on which there ’ d been a COVID outbreak and a debate was starting over whether to bring them ashore or not .
I ’ d rather not , said Trump , because if we bring them ashore then we have to include them in the official case count .
That ’ s him .
The fate of the people onboard is secondary .
The fact that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly how many people have the disease and who they are also didn ’ t matter .
All that mattered were perceptions about the numbers because the numbers ultimately reflect on him .
If it ’ s a choice between ramping up testing to get the outbreak under control while seeing case counts climb or seeing case counts stable as the epidemic surges in secret , why wouldn ’ t he prefer the latter “ reality ” to the former one ?
The suspense isn ’ t whether he ’ ll start questioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people around him will put up with it .
And they probably will .
For Fauci and Birx , at this point if you ’ re in for a penny you ’ re in for a pound .

Yeah, that sounds like him. If there’s a surprise here, it’s only that he hasn’t questioned it publicly already.
President Trump has complained to advisers about the way coronavirus deaths are being calculated, suggesting the real numbers are actually lower — and a number of his senior aides share this view, according to sources with direct knowledge. What’s next: A senior administration official said he expects the president to begin publicly questioning the death toll as it closes in on his predictions for the final death count and damages him politically… A senior White House official pushed back, saying this of the president’s thinking: “Skepticism isn’t the right way to frame it. The numbers have been revised up to include presumptive cases — meaning deaths that are believed to be related to COVID but not known for sure.” “So he’s expressed the need to properly convey that to American people so they’re not startled by why numbers ticked up.”
I was sitting here thinking he was going to question the numbers for self-serving reasons, because the rising death toll is a major electoral liability for him, but it turns out he’s just worried about the tender sensibilities of the American people. You know how he is. Always thinking of others, never himself.
Deaths are being undercounted, not overcounted, but never mind that. It sounds from the story like Trump might try to spin a theory of overcounting from the fact that hospitals are being paid 20 percent bonuses by Medicare for treating coronavirus patients, to help make up for all the business they’ve lost lately as people avoid elective surgeries and treatments for other illnesses. Imagine him interrupting the applause for hospital staff on their way to work each day to spitball a theory about those same staffers committing massive, ongoing taxpayer fraud. Finally he’s identified the evildoers at the heart of the great COVID conspiracy to damage him politically: Doctors and hospitals.
The other route he could go would be to complain about “probable deaths” being counted as official deaths, as New York and some other jurisdictions have done. “With something like this virus, where you’ve got this weird coagulation in the lungs … we need more autopsies,” said one official to Axios, skeptically and semi-coherently. I’m not sure what’s being implied there; does he think there’s some sort of weird blood-clot epidemic that just so happens to be unfolding alongside but unrelated to the COVID epidemic, and coincidentally the patients with the clots also have COVID symptoms? If I were Trump I wouldn’t want people to start thinking too hard about the difference between confirmed deaths from an infectious disease and deaths attributed to that disease but not confirmed to have been caused by it. If they did that they’d realize that the number of confirmed deaths from the flu each year is much, much smaller than the number of deaths attributed to the flu based on best estimates. Then the “COVID is no worse than the flu” talking point would go completely up in smoke, to the extent it hasn’t already.
Still, there was never a question that he was going to challenge the death toll. Trump’s super power is constructing attractive alternate realities for himself and getting other people to buy into them. You can pick practically any element of his biography and find mythmaking or suspected mythmaking to it. How much he’s worth, how he made his money, how much he gave to charity, what his social life was like, how successful he was at business, why he didn’t go to Vietnam, on and on and on. Something like 25 women have accused him of sexual misconduct of various stripes and he’s convinced some of his fans that they’re all lying. He spent much of the fall of 2016 pre-spinning his defeat by insisting that the system was rigged against him, then switched after he won to complaining that he lost the popular vote because of some secret surge of illegal immigrant voters at the polls.
His greatest achievement until 2016 was convincing the country that he was an executive genius based on a role he played on a TV show.
On top of the mythmaking there’s the fact that he’s psychologically inclined towards conspiracy theories. Obama’s supposed birth in Kenya is the most famous example but he’s forever being drawn to crankery like vaccine skepticism. Put all of that together, the self-aggrandizement with his taste for garbage information, and it was inevitable that he’d become a truther about the coronavirus death count. Everything’s pushing him towards it. Here’s a perfect insight into his thinking from just this afternoon:
Trump tells WH press: "In a way by doing all this testing we make ourselves look bad… we're going to have more cases [because of more testing]." Of course, those cases would still exist w/o testing & would likely be worse as untested people unknowingly spread the virus. — Alice Miranda Ollstein (@AliceOllstein) May 6, 2020
You may remember that he made a similar point in the earliest days of the epidemic, when some Americans were stranded on a cruise ship on which there’d been a COVID outbreak and a debate was starting over whether to bring them ashore or not. I’d rather not, said Trump, because if we bring them ashore then we have to include them in the official case count.
That’s him. The fate of the people onboard is secondary. The fact that it would *aid* the mitigation effort to know exactly how many people have the disease and who they are also didn’t matter. All that mattered were perceptions about the numbers because the numbers ultimately reflect on him. If it’s a choice between ramping up testing to get the outbreak under control while seeing case counts climb or seeing case counts stable as the epidemic surges in secret, why wouldn’t he prefer the latter “reality” to the former one?
The suspense isn’t whether he’ll start questioning the count, the suspense is whether the people around him will put up with it. And they probably will. For Fauci and Birx, at this point if you’re in for a penny you’re in for a pound.


hotair--2020-05-06--NPR Public Editor: We were 'too slow' reporting on Tara Reade's allegations against Biden

You may remember that it took the NY Times 19 days to publish their first report on the Tara Reade allegations .
That was speedy compared to National Public Radio which published its first report on the story a full week after the NY Times .
Today NPR ’ s Public Editor admits ( in the headline no less ) that the radio network ’ s response was “ too slow ” and adds that the delay fuels “ critical narratives ” that suggest NPR is being partisan .
The New York Times and The Washington Post both published stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original work was broadcast for listeners a week after that , on April 19 , closing in on a full month after Reade first went public with her story .
That timing conveys a lack of urgency on the part of the NPR politics team… That it took nearly a month to get to air hurts .
NPR ’ s silence on the story feeds at least three critical narratives , or perhaps suspicions : 1 ) NPR preferred Biden over Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination ( the story broke before Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; 2 ) NPR is reluctant to tell stories that may help President Donald J. Trump ’ s re-election effort ; 3 ) NPR is hypocritical , covering claims of sexual assault leveled against Republicans , but burying similar accusations against Democrats .
The story goes on to say that reporter Asma Khalid was assigned the the story on March 25th but didn ’ t want to speak to Tara Reade until conducting research on her .
Public Editor Kelly McBride suggests that background could have been completed in a week if more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , Khalid spent 2 1/2 weeks allegedly gathering background information .
Reade responded to the belated interview request from Khalid immediately but it was two days before she agreed to be recorded .
The story was finally published on April 19 , which was a Sunday .
I was curious how the same reporter had handled previous sexual assault allegations .
In 2018 , Khalid appeared on air to disucss the allegations Deborah Ramiriz made against Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Sep. 24 .
That was a Monday and one day after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ramirez by Ronan Farrow .
Granted the Ramirez allegation was the second allegation against Kavanaugh .
Still , that ’ s quite a difference compared to how long it took to cover the Reade allegations .
And by the way , when NPR did finally publish their story it didn ’ t include any of the interview they had done with Reade ’ s close friend who confirmed hearing her account at the time .
Katie Halper , the first person to interview Reade about the sexual assault pointed this out last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reporting slow , it seems to have held back some things that the reporter did confirm in person .
Why is that ?
The public editor says it can ’ t be the obvious thing ( they slow-walked this ) so it must be something else : This is what the left-leaning media does week after week , year after year .
They apply two different standards and then , even when it ’ s obvious there are different standards being used , even when they bother to notice that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mystified as to the reason .
Consider that we have # MeToo leaders like Alyssa Milano out there right now contradicting what they said about believing Kavanaugh ’ s accusers because they like Joe Biden .
Just today a feminist wrote in the NY Times that Tara Reade had to be sacrificed for the greater good .
So there is clearly and obviously a shift to a new standard taking place before our eyes on the left , yet when NPR ’ s public editor sees evidence of the same thing at her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that media critics have a point .
The closest she can get is to say that this double standard “ feeds…critical narratives.
” Well , yes , it does .
But the point is that it feeds those narratives because those narratives are obviously true in some cases .

You may remember that it took the NY Times 19 days to publish their first report on the Tara Reade allegations. That was speedy compared to National Public Radio which published its first report on the story a full week after the NY Times. Today NPR’s Public Editor admits (in the headline no less) that the radio network’s response was “too slow” and adds that the delay fuels “critical narratives” that suggest NPR is being partisan.
The New York Times and The Washington Post both published stories on April 12… NPR’s own original work was broadcast for listeners a week after that, on April 19, closing in on a full month after Reade first went public with her story. That timing conveys a lack of urgency on the part of the NPR politics team… That it took nearly a month to get to air hurts. NPR’s silence on the story feeds at least three critical narratives, or perhaps suspicions: 1) NPR preferred Biden over Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination (the story broke before Sanders had dropped out, but barely); 2) NPR is reluctant to tell stories that may help President Donald J. Trump’s re-election effort; 3) NPR is hypocritical, covering claims of sexual assault leveled against Republicans, but burying similar accusations against Democrats.
The story goes on to say that reporter Asma Khalid was assigned the the story on March 25th but didn’t want to speak to Tara Reade until conducting research on her. Public Editor Kelly McBride suggests that background could have been completed in a week if more resources had been devoted to the story. Instead, Khalid spent 2 1/2 weeks allegedly gathering background information.
Reade responded to the belated interview request from Khalid immediately but it was two days before she agreed to be recorded. The story was finally published on April 19, which was a Sunday.
“That’s when it was ready,” [NPR managing editor Terence] Samuel said. “We don’t think that show is any less important than any other show. The story was ready, we weren’t going to hold it.”
I was curious how the same reporter had handled previous sexual assault allegations. In 2018, Khalid appeared on air to disucss the allegations Deborah Ramiriz made against Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Sep. 24. That was a Monday and one day after the New Yorker published a story about Ramirez by Ronan Farrow.
Granted the Ramirez allegation was the second allegation against Kavanaugh. Still, that’s quite a difference compared to how long it took to cover the Reade allegations. And by the way, when NPR did finally publish their story it didn’t include any of the interview they had done with Reade’s close friend who confirmed hearing her account at the time. Katie Halper, the first person to interview Reade about the sexual assault pointed this out last month:
So not only was NPR’s reporting slow, it seems to have held back some things that the reporter did confirm in person. Why is that? The public editor says it can’t be the obvious thing (they slow-walked this) so it must be something else:
I don’t believe NPR was trying to give Biden an edge. And I didn’t find evidence of a double standard, but creating standards on a case-by-case basis leaves the newsroom defenseless against those charges. Ultimately, NPR was slowed down by the frustration and complexity presented by an accusation of an assault that either did or didn’t happen 30 years ago.
This is what the left-leaning media does week after week, year after year. They apply two different standards and then, even when it’s obvious there are different standards being used, even when they bother to notice that’s the case, they still profess themselves mystified as to the reason.
Consider that we have #MeToo leaders like Alyssa Milano out there right now contradicting what they said about believing Kavanaugh’s accusers because they like Joe Biden. Just today a feminist wrote in the NY Times that Tara Reade had to be sacrificed for the greater good. So there is clearly and obviously a shift to a new standard taking place before our eyes on the left, yet when NPR’s public editor sees evidence of the same thing at her own outlet she can’t admit that media critics have a point. The closest she can get is to say that this double standard “feeds…critical narratives.” Well, yes, it does. But the point is that it feeds those narratives because those narratives are obviously true in some cases.


hotair--2020-05-06--Tucker Carlson: We need to maintain a healthy skepticism about the Tara Reade allegations

A sober , informative segment , although one wonders what sort of hay is being gleefully made of Reade ’ s claims in Fox primetime on Earth 2 , where the network ’ s own favorite politician doesn ’ t face many charges of sexual misconduct himself .
Trump is so exposed on this subject that he ’ s felt compelled in interviews to stick up for Biden ( even if his campaign feels no such qualms ) .
Attack dogs like Hannity can ’ t be too credulous of , or indignant about , what Reade alleges or they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spotlight on the charges against Trump .
Needless to say , Tucker ’ s right about maintaining healthy skepticism .
And most Republicans are doing so , I think .
There ’ s a strong partisan divide on whether to believe Reade , as I pointed out last night , but it ’ s not the sort of 90/10 vs. 10/90 splits that we ’ re used to seeing in polls of Democrats and Republicans on cultural issues .
Monmouth asked whether Reade ’ s allegation is “ probably true , ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know ” in its new poll and got this result : As many Republicans say it ’ s probably not true or that they ’ re reserving judgment about it as say that it ’ s probably true .
Among Democrats , nearly as many are as open to believing it as are skeptical .
Note the gender gap too , with men slightly more credulous of Reade ’ s claim than women are .
I think that ’ s an artifact of women voters skewing Democratic .
When forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sexual assault or putting the party ’ s interests first , women are almost evenly split .
Partisanship ’ s a hell of a drug .
Speaking of which , a notable data point from Monmouth : A third of the “ I believe Tara ” group is ready to pull the lever for a man whom they suspect of sexual assault .
Yes , Justin Amash , this is what we ’ ve become : I don ’ t even want to know how many Trump voters believe some or all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to put on the red hat anyway .
Too many , says Amanda Carpenter : While the double standards argument can be helpful in exposing hypocrites , Trump ’ s operatives aren ’ t proving the point they think they are .
Just try applying any of these attacks to their boss .
Do they think Trump ’ s accusers should be believed ?
Where are Trump ’ s tax records and what about all those non-disclosure agreements ?
It goes on and on .
The problem they are trying to highlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same unforgiving standard as they did Kavanaugh is totally muted by the fact Trump ’ s defenders have never been interested in applying any standards to Trump at all .
They are like atheists telling everyone else to go to church .
I think it ’ ll be enough for most righties during the Reade saga to ignore the question of Biden ’ s ( and Trump ’ s ) guilt and focus on the self-immolation of Kavanaugh ’ s critics instead .
It ’ s grim fun watching the left expose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sermonizing is partisanship disguised as righteousness .
They ’ ve already been tried and convicted .
Whether Biden ends up that way is almost beside the point .
The key bit here comes at 3:15 if you don ’ t want to sit through Carlson rehashing the basics of Reade ’ s accusation .
Exit question : How does this story “ advance ” at this point , exactly ?
The hunt for the 1993 complaint that Reade supposedly filed against Biden feels like a wild goose chase since she admits that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any kind .
Finding it would strengthen her account by proving that *some* sort of grievance existed , but Democrats would turn around and say that the fact that she didn ’ t specify an assault suggests that the grievance had to do with something else .
What then ?
Without a second accuser against Biden establishing a pattern of behavior , how is anyone supposed to draw a firm conclusion about what happened between him and Reade ?

A sober, informative segment, although one wonders what sort of hay is being gleefully made of Reade’s claims in Fox primetime on Earth 2, where the network’s own favorite politician doesn’t face many charges of sexual misconduct himself. Trump is so exposed on this subject that he’s felt compelled in interviews to stick up for Biden (even if his campaign feels no such qualms). Attack dogs like Hannity can’t be too credulous of, or indignant about, what Reade alleges or they’ll end up accidentally brightening the spotlight on the charges against Trump.
Needless to say, Tucker’s right about maintaining healthy skepticism. And most Republicans are doing so, I think. There’s a strong partisan divide on whether to believe Reade, as I pointed out last night, but it’s not the sort of 90/10 vs. 10/90 splits that we’re used to seeing in polls of Democrats and Republicans on cultural issues.
Monmouth asked whether Reade’s allegation is “probably true,” “probably not true,” or “don’t know” in its new poll and got this result:
As many Republicans say it’s probably not true or that they’re reserving judgment about it as say that it’s probably true. Among Democrats, nearly as many are as open to believing it as are skeptical. Note the gender gap too, with men slightly more credulous of Reade’s claim than women are. I think that’s an artifact of women voters skewing Democratic. When forced to choose between believing an alleged victim of sexual assault or putting the party’s interests first, women are almost evenly split. Partisanship’s a hell of a drug.
Speaking of which, a notable data point from Monmouth:
Among voters who say the sexual assault allegation is probably not true, the vast majority (79%) support Biden over Trump (14%) in the presidential contest. Among those who feel it is true, 59% back Trump but 32% still support Biden. Among those who have no opinion on the allegation’s validity, 45% support Trump and 43% support Biden.
A third of the “I believe Tara” group is ready to pull the lever for a man whom they suspect of sexual assault. Yes, Justin Amash, this is what we’ve become:
“Suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain.” “Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it.” “sacrificing Ms. Reade for the good of the many” Is this what we’ve become? https://t.co/QYZpzEim1Y — Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 6, 2020
I don’t even want to know how many Trump voters believe some or all of the allegations against him but are willing to put on the red hat anyway. Too many, says Amanda Carpenter:
While the double standards argument can be helpful in exposing hypocrites, Trump’s operatives aren’t proving the point they think they are. Just try applying any of these attacks to their boss. Do they think Trump’s accusers should be believed? Where are Trump’s tax records and what about all those non-disclosure agreements? It goes on and on. The problem they are trying to highlight about Democrats refusing to hold Biden to the same unforgiving standard as they did Kavanaugh is totally muted by the fact Trump’s defenders have never been interested in applying any standards to Trump at all. They are like atheists telling everyone else to go to church.
I think it’ll be enough for most righties during the Reade saga to ignore the question of Biden’s (and Trump’s) guilt and focus on the self-immolation of Kavanaugh’s critics instead. It’s grim fun watching the left expose just how much of their #MeToo sermonizing is partisanship disguised as righteousness. They’ve already been tried and convicted. Whether Biden ends up that way is almost beside the point.
The key bit here comes at 3:15 if you don’t want to sit through Carlson rehashing the basics of Reade’s accusation. Exit question: How does this story “advance” at this point, exactly? The hunt for the 1993 complaint that Reade supposedly filed against Biden feels like a wild goose chase since she admits that it doesn’t allege sexual misconduct of any kind. Finding it would strengthen her account by proving that *some* sort of grievance existed, but Democrats would turn around and say that the fact that she didn’t specify an assault suggests that the grievance had to do with something else. What then? Without a second accuser against Biden establishing a pattern of behavior, how is anyone supposed to draw a firm conclusion about what happened between him and Reade?


hotair--2020-05-06--Former FBI Agent: Michael Flynn was railroaded by the FBI

Last week we learned of some hand-written notes put down by FBI officials in advance of their meeting with then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn .
The notes seemed to suggest the FBI was gauging its approach to Flynn based on the outcome they wanted to pursue .
“ What ’ s our goal ?
Truth/Admission or get him to lie , so we can prosecute him or get him fired ?
” the official wrote .
Those notes were the last straw for former FBI agent James Gagliano who wrote a piece for the Washington Examiner titled “ Michael Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The time has come to cease affording the FBI ’ s Crossfire Hurricane team generous benefit of the doubt .
A steady stream of unflattering revelations , beginning with a by the Justice Department ’ s inspector general into egregious FISA abuses last December , has relentlessly pounded the reputation of my former agency .
Now , further irrefutable proof emerges that a small cabal of FBI headquarters decision-makers was hellbent on undoing a presidency .
I know it sounds strange to hear me make such an accusation .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the needle , accounting for honest human frailties , trusting that mistakes should not always be chalked up to malice or sinister intent .
Cautious skepticism was a default mindset that served me well across a quarter century as an FBI investigator .
That condition failed me here because one thing is clear .
I looked over Gagliano ’ s record and he has been writing fairly conservative-friendly criticism in the last couple of years , but it is true that if you go back to 2017 , he was taking a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this piece for Fortune says Flynn ’ s guilty plea will reflect badly on him and President Trump but he warns progressives that this isn ’ t going to lead to Trump being marched out of the White House for violating the Logan Act : The charges are related to two conversations that Flynn had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the president-elect ’ s transition period .
It must be presumed that these conversations were conducted at the direction of the president-elect .
There is nothing illegal or irregular about contacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All incoming administrations are expected to begin to forge relationships in the international arena as feasible .
And yet , the “ sins ” that the general has been accused of , and subsequently pled guilty to , are more than mere peccadilloes .
Flynn was charged with willingly and knowingly making false , fictitious , and fraudulent statements and representations to FBI agents .
This a serious charge .
Over the course of a quarter-century career in the FBI , I saw charges like this applied cautiously and only in circumstances where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was easily provable .
As you can see , Gagliano was still very much defending the honor of the FBI at the time .
So what changed his mind about that ?
He says the notes suggest this was a set up : The notes in question are handwritten and appear to outline the Crossfire Hurricane team ’ s objectives for the planned interview with Flynn at the White House , just days after the inauguration of President Trump .
They are clearly initialed by then-FBI Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overlapping assignments in the FBI ’ s New York office .
He is an experienced , honorable , and well-respected lawman… It almost appears as if Priestap is attempting to memorialize his own opposition to the Flynn ambush… Since the FBI was already in possession of the transcript of Flynn ’ s telephone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , what exactly was to be gained by the interview ?
Nothing except the potential to jam him up and get him removed as national security adviser .
It was never going to charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the Foreign Agents Registration Act .
Even Robert Mueller ’ s team could have done so .
It passed .
Gagliano also points to some obvious funny business with the 302 forms related to Flynn ’ s interview .
Strzok and Pientka were the agents who interviewed Flynn .
Pientka took the notes but Strzok later rewrote the 302 with some help from Lisa Page who Gagliano notes , “ was not present at the interview and was not an FBI agent.
” The other thing that convinced Galiano was the obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Clinton “ matter ” vs. the Flynn interview .
Where the FBI went around the White House Counsel ( Comey even bragged about it ) to interview Flynn , Hillary was given the kid gloves treatment .
He quotes Rep. Trey Gowdy who said Hillary , “ had a medium-sized law firm in the room with her .
They gave the questions to her lawyer before they interviewed her , and they most assuredly told her there ’ s a consequence for lying .
None of which they did for Michael Flynn.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ text exchange in which they discussed not being too aggressive with Hillary : Not at all how they approached Flynn .
And given Strzok ’ s evident personal preference for Hillary over Trump , it ’ s hard to dismiss that as a factor in how the two cases were handled .
Gagliano concludes , “ No plausible explanation exists here other than rank partisan , political bias.
” Gagliano was interviewed yesterday by Matt Lewis .
If you ’ re interested in hearing Gagliano ’ s opinion on this topic at more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is mostly him discussing it :

Last week we learned of some hand-written notes put down by FBI officials in advance of their meeting with then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The notes seemed to suggest the FBI was gauging its approach to Flynn based on the outcome they wanted to pursue. “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” the official wrote. Those notes were the last straw for former FBI agent James Gagliano who wrote a piece for the Washington Examiner titled “Michael Flynn was railroaded by Comey’s FBI.”
The time has come to cease affording the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team generous benefit of the doubt. A steady stream of unflattering revelations, beginning with a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general into egregious FISA abuses last December, has relentlessly pounded the reputation of my former agency. Now, further irrefutable proof emerges that a small cabal of FBI headquarters decision-makers was hellbent on undoing a presidency. I know it sounds strange to hear me make such an accusation. I’m the guy who long attempted to thread the needle, accounting for honest human frailties, trusting that mistakes should not always be chalked up to malice or sinister intent. Cautious skepticism was a default mindset that served me well across a quarter century as an FBI investigator. That condition failed me here because one thing is clear. Michael Flynn got railroaded.
I looked over Gagliano’s record and he has been writing fairly conservative-friendly criticism in the last couple of years, but it is true that if you go back to 2017, he was taking a position somewhere in the middle. For instance, this piece for Fortune says Flynn’s guilty plea will reflect badly on him and President Trump but he warns progressives that this isn’t going to lead to Trump being marched out of the White House for violating the Logan Act:
The charges are related to two conversations that Flynn had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the president-elect’s transition period. It must be presumed that these conversations were conducted at the direction of the president-elect. There is nothing illegal or irregular about contacts with foreign governments during this timeframe. All incoming administrations are expected to begin to forge relationships in the international arena as feasible. And yet, the “sins” that the general has been accused of, and subsequently pled guilty to, are more than mere peccadilloes. Flynn was charged with willingly and knowingly making false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations to FBI agents. This a serious charge. Over the course of a quarter-century career in the FBI, I saw charges like this applied cautiously and only in circumstances where evidence was abundant and “intent” was easily provable.
As you can see, Gagliano was still very much defending the honor of the FBI at the time. So what changed his mind about that? He says the notes suggest this was a set up:
The notes in question are handwritten and appear to outline the Crossfire Hurricane team’s objectives for the planned interview with Flynn at the White House, just days after the inauguration of President Trump. They are clearly initialed by then-FBI Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap. I know Bill from our overlapping assignments in the FBI’s New York office. He is an experienced, honorable, and well-respected lawman… It almost appears as if Priestap is attempting to memorialize his own opposition to the Flynn ambush… Since the FBI was already in possession of the transcript of Flynn’s telephone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, what exactly was to be gained by the interview? Nothing except the potential to jam him up and get him removed as national security adviser. It was never going to charge him for violations of the Logan Act or the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Even Robert Mueller’s team could have done so. It passed.
Gagliano also points to some obvious funny business with the 302 forms related to Flynn’s interview. Strzok and Pientka were the agents who interviewed Flynn. Pientka took the notes but Strzok later rewrote the 302 with some help from Lisa Page who Gagliano notes, “was not present at the interview and was not an FBI agent.”
The other thing that convinced Galiano was the obvious difference in the way the FBI pursued the Clinton “matter” vs. the Flynn interview. Where the FBI went around the White House Counsel (Comey even bragged about it) to interview Flynn, Hillary was given the kid gloves treatment. He quotes Rep. Trey Gowdy who said Hillary, “had a medium-sized law firm in the room with her. They gave the questions to her lawyer before they interviewed her, and they most assuredly told her there’s a consequence for lying. None of which they did for Michael Flynn.”
Galiano also points to this Strzok-Page text exchange in which they discussed not being too aggressive with Hillary:
Page: “One more thing: She might be our next president. The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more DOJ than FBI?” Strzok: “I called Bill and relayed what we discussed. He agrees.”
Not at all how they approached Flynn. And given Strzok’s evident personal preference for Hillary over Trump, it’s hard to dismiss that as a factor in how the two cases were handled. Gagliano concludes, “No plausible explanation exists here other than rank partisan, political bias.”
Gagliano was interviewed yesterday by Matt Lewis. If you’re interested in hearing Gagliano’s opinion on this topic at more length, the first half hour of this is mostly him discussing it:


hotair--2020-05-06--One airline will offer you a bit of social distancing... for a price

When I discussed the steps airlines were willing to take when dealing with the pandemic , I asked one simple question .
Would they make the conditions more palatable ?
The initial answer seemed to be a resounding no .
The airlines were going implement rules requiring everyone to wear masks and submit health checks , but not much else .
But as it turns out , there ’ s one airline that actually will offer you some extra space in the name of social distancing .
Sort of .
For a price .
Frontier Airlines is about to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option assuring you that the seat next to you will be empty .
Of course , you ’ re going to have to pay more for that peace of mind .
( CBS Denver ) Now that the federal government ’ s social distancing guidelines have expired , Frontier Airlines is offering a new option for people who want a little more personal space .
For an extra $ 39 , the airline will make sure the seat next to you is empty .
“ Frontier Airlines passengers can now reserve a ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a confirmed empty middle seat next to them , ” airline officials announced Monday .
Frontier officials say its an option for travelers who want “ an empty seat next to them for extra peace of mind or simply additional comfort.
” Flights departing May 8 through Aug. 31 will have 18 “ More Room ” seats available for passengers to choose from .
They are so concerned about your health and well being that they ’ re going to offer to charge you even more money to not have anyone sitting next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be any larger or have any more legroom , but at least you won ’ t be rubbing elbows with another passenger .
How thoughtful of them .
Of course , what they ’ re offering isn ’ t really much of anything .
The social distancing rules call for six feet between people .
The width of one airline seat is far less than that .
And if there is someone in the row in front of you or behind you , they ’ re just as close to you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a psychological comfort at most , not offering any real protection .
Also , assuming we ’ re talking about a three-seat row ( one of the most common arrangements ) and I ’ m in the window seat , what about the person in the aisle seat ?
If they didn ’ t bother to pay the extra fee , they ’ re getting their own “ More Room ” seat while I pay the bill for it .
What this sounds like to me is an excuse for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using the pandemic as cover .
And they get to falsely advertise it as some sort of precaution against the novel coronavirus so they can get in some virtue signaling while they ’ re at it .
If Frontier was actually interested in doing what so many other companies have done and put some of their own skin in the game to help people during this crisis , they would figure out how to keep six feet of distance between all passengers and not charge them any extra money for it .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of people , I ’ m guessing ) enough to build up some brand loyalty for them .
But that ’ s not what they ’ re doing here at all .
Airline service has been horrible for a very long time now and many of the factors that make it so were put in place intentionally by the airlines .
The tiny , cramped seats are not only a device to be able to sell more tickets per flight .
They ’ re an “ incentive ” to get you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” seating just to give yourself some breathing room .
If these airlines expect us to be thanking them for this I hope they ’ re not holding their breath .

When I discussed the steps airlines were willing to take when dealing with the pandemic, I asked one simple question. Would they make the conditions more palatable? The initial answer seemed to be a resounding no. The airlines were going implement rules requiring everyone to wear masks and submit health checks, but not much else.
But as it turns out, there’s one airline that actually will offer you some extra space in the name of social distancing. Sort of. For a price. Frontier Airlines is about to begin offering a “More Room” seating option assuring you that the seat next to you will be empty. Of course, you’re going to have to pay more for that peace of mind. (CBS Denver)
Now that the federal government’s social distancing guidelines have expired, Frontier Airlines is offering a new option for people who want a little more personal space. For an extra $39, the airline will make sure the seat next to you is empty.
“Frontier Airlines passengers can now reserve a ‘More Room’ seat assignment – with a confirmed empty middle seat next to them,” airline officials announced Monday. Frontier officials say its an option for travelers who want “an empty seat next to them for extra peace of mind or simply additional comfort.” Flights departing May 8 through Aug. 31 will have 18 “More Room” seats available for passengers to choose from.
They are so concerned about your health and well being that they’re going to offer to charge you even more money to not have anyone sitting next to you. Your actual seat won’t be any larger or have any more legroom, but at least you won’t be rubbing elbows with another passenger. How thoughtful of them.
Of course, what they’re offering isn’t really much of anything. The social distancing rules call for six feet between people. The width of one airline seat is far less than that. And if there is someone in the row in front of you or behind you, they’re just as close to you as they’ve always been. This is a psychological comfort at most, not offering any real protection.
Also, assuming we’re talking about a three-seat row (one of the most common arrangements) and I’m in the window seat, what about the person in the aisle seat? If they didn’t bother to pay the extra fee, they’re getting their own “More Room” seat while I pay the bill for it.
What this sounds like to me is an excuse for the airline to charge yet another extra fee using the pandemic as cover. And they get to falsely advertise it as some sort of precaution against the novel coronavirus so they can get in some virtue signaling while they’re at it. If Frontier was actually interested in doing what so many other companies have done and put some of their own skin in the game to help people during this crisis, they would figure out how to keep six feet of distance between all passengers and not charge them any extra money for it. That would actually impress me (and a lot of people, I’m guessing) enough to build up some brand loyalty for them.
But that’s not what they’re doing here at all. Airline service has been horrible for a very long time now and many of the factors that make it so were put in place intentionally by the airlines. The tiny, cramped seats are not only a device to be able to sell more tickets per flight. They’re an “incentive” to get you to pay for first-class or “economy plus” seating just to give yourself some breathing room. If these airlines expect us to be thanking them for this I hope they’re not holding their breath.


hotair--2020-05-06--Cuomo to out-of-state volunteers: Thanks for the help -- and here's your tax bill

No good deed goes unpunished .
When the COVID-19 outbreak hit New York like a Category 5 hurricane , Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio put out an all-points bulletin for as many volunteers as possible to boost their health-care resources .
Thousands of people responded , in many cases with the help of their employers , who continued to pay their salaries while coming to the rescue of New York .
Now that the crisis has passed , Cuomo reportedly wants to give these heroes a souvenir of their time in the Empire State — a tax bill , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that came to New York to help fight the coronavirus pandemic at its epicenter will have to pay state taxes , according to the governor .
He addressed the issues Tuesday at a news conference .
“ We ’ re not in a position to provide any subsidies right now because we have a $ 13 billion deficit , ” Gov .
Andrew Cuomo said .
“ So there ’ s a lot of good things I ’ d like to do , and if we get federal funding , we can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me to sit here looking at a $ 13 billion deficit and say I ’ m gon na spend more money , when I can ’ t even pay the essential services.
” Even though the state government asked thousands of people to come to New York from out of state to help fight coronavirus , they will have to pay New York state taxes , even on income they might make from their home states that they ’ re paid while in New York .
That was news to the volunteers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which set up a temporary hospital in New York City .
No one told him that their workers would create a tax liability on Day 15 that rates as one of the highest in the nation : Ken Isaacs , the vice president of Samaritan ’ s Purse , a nonprofit organization that set up a temporary hospital in Central Park to help with the pandemic , told PIX 11 he was shocked to learn that workers who volunteered to come to the state would have to pay the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called me , and he said , ‘ Do you know that all of you are going to be liable for New York state income tax ?
’ I said , ‘ What ?
’ [ The comptroller ] said , ‘ Yeah , there ’ s a law .
If you work in New York State for more than 14 days , you have to pay state income tax , ' ” Isaacs said .
Isaacs noted that the situation could be a nightmare for organizations and their employees as they deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that comes with filing in multiple states .
That ’ s not the only rude awakening Samaritan ’ s Purse received in New York .
After the crisis had passed , NYC council speaker Corey Johnson demanded their ejection , calling the Christian community-service group “ bigoted , hate-spewing ” for their embrace of traditional Christian sexuality : Can they at least take their money with them ?
Anyway , watch the video clip at the Washington Examiner for the full context of Cuomo ’ s remarks .
The reporter asks explicitly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have unknowingly incurred while doing their best to assist New Yorkers in their hour of greatest need , so it ’ s not as if Cuomo got taken out of context — exactly , anyway .
Cuomo turns the question around to demand that the federal government provide subsidies for their budget gaps and scold Donald Trump for partisanship , and says obliquely that granting an exemption from this tax liability would be a “ subsidy ” that the state can ’ t afford .
Cuomo may not be explicit in his answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those people who put their lives and health on the line to help will get stuck with a tax bill for their efforts .
That ’ s so awful morally and politically that it surely can ’ t be sustained … can it ?
Does Cuomo really plan to shaft the people who came to New York ’ s rescue just to use them as pawns in his political gamesmanship with Trump and Mitch McConnell ?
That won ’ t exactly build up any goodwill outside of New York for the idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget woes , especially when those volunteers return home to their own states to tell their neighbors what a bunch of ingrates they left behind in the Empire State .
And the next time New York asks people to volunteer in a crisis , Cuomo et al had better not be surprised when all they hear in return is crickets chirping .

No good deed goes unpunished. When the COVID-19 outbreak hit New York like a Category 5 hurricane, Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio put out an all-points bulletin for as many volunteers as possible to boost their health-care resources. Thousands of people responded, in many cases with the help of their employers, who continued to pay their salaries while coming to the rescue of New York.
Now that the crisis has passed, Cuomo reportedly wants to give these heroes a souvenir of their time in the Empire State — a tax bill, according to WPIX:
Health care workers that came to New York to help fight the coronavirus pandemic at its epicenter will have to pay state taxes, according to the governor. He addressed the issues Tuesday at a news conference. “We’re not in a position to provide any subsidies right now because we have a $13 billion deficit,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. “So there’s a lot of good things I’d like to do, and if we get federal funding, we can do, but it would be irresponsible for me to sit here looking at a $13 billion deficit and say I’m gonna spend more money, when I can’t even pay the essential services.” Even though the state government asked thousands of people to come to New York from out of state to help fight coronavirus, they will have to pay New York state taxes, even on income they might make from their home states that they’re paid while in New York.
That was news to the volunteers, including those at Samaritan’s Purse, which set up a temporary hospital in New York City. No one told him that their workers would create a tax liability on Day 15 that rates as one of the highest in the nation:
Ken Isaacs, the vice president of Samaritan’s Purse, a nonprofit organization that set up a temporary hospital in Central Park to help with the pandemic, told PIX 11 he was shocked to learn that workers who volunteered to come to the state would have to pay the state’s income tax. “Our financial comptroller called me, and he said, ‘Do you know that all of you are going to be liable for New York state income tax?’ I said, ‘What?’ [The comptroller] said, ‘Yeah, there’s a law. If you work in New York State for more than 14 days, you have to pay state income tax,'” Isaacs said. Isaacs noted that the situation could be a nightmare for organizations and their employees as they deal with the “bureaucracy and the paperwork” that comes with filing in multiple states.
That’s not the only rude awakening Samaritan’s Purse received in New York. After the crisis had passed, NYC council speaker Corey Johnson demanded their ejection, calling the Christian community-service group “bigoted, hate-spewing” for their embrace of traditional Christian sexuality:
Their continued presence here is an affront to our values of inclusion, and is painful for all New Yorkers who care deeply about the LGBTQ community. 2/ — NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson (@NYCSpeakerCoJo) May 1, 2020
Can they at least take their money with them?
Anyway, watch the video clip at the Washington Examiner for the full context of Cuomo’s remarks. The reporter asks explicitly about the tax liabilities that volunteers may have unknowingly incurred while doing their best to assist New Yorkers in their hour of greatest need, so it’s not as if Cuomo got taken out of context — exactly, anyway. Cuomo turns the question around to demand that the federal government provide subsidies for their budget gaps and scold Donald Trump for partisanship, and says obliquely that granting an exemption from this tax liability would be a “subsidy” that the state can’t afford. Cuomo may not be explicit in his answer, but the implication is clear — those people who put their lives and health on the line to help will get stuck with a tax bill for their efforts.
That’s so awful morally and politically that it surely can’t be sustained … can it? Does Cuomo really plan to shaft the people who came to New York’s rescue just to use them as pawns in his political gamesmanship with Trump and Mitch McConnell? That won’t exactly build up any goodwill outside of New York for the idea of pitching in to help them with their budget woes, especially when those volunteers return home to their own states to tell their neighbors what a bunch of ingrates they left behind in the Empire State.
And the next time New York asks people to volunteer in a crisis, Cuomo et al had better not be surprised when all they hear in return is crickets chirping.


hotair--2020-05-06--Feminist author: We need to sacrifice Tara Reade 'for the good of the many'

I ’ ve seen quite a few Democrats online and some media pieces arguing that Democrats should support Biden anyway because Trump ’ s record with regard to sexual harassment is worse .
I suspect a lot of people who have already heard and seen that argument will misunderstand what Hirshman is saying here .
She ’ s not saying we should vote for Biden because he ’ s a better person .
She ’ s actually saying Biden is not a better person .
He ’ s someone who ( she believes ) sexually assaulted a junior staffer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaining about it .
That ’ s what Tara Reade is alleging .
But Hirshman is saying she ’ ll vote for Biden anyway because she believes he ’ ll be a better president .
To be fair , there probably are some Trump supporters out there who have made a similar bargain .
They may find Trump ’ s “ locker room talk ” about grabbing women disturbing .
They may suspect some of the stories about him grabbing women aren ’ t false as Trump claims .
But they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hirshman , they believe the election is bigger than one man ’ s flaws or one woman ’ s allegations .
What ’ s striking is that , for most part of the past three years , the left has been arguing against exactly this kind of utilitiarian bargain .
The many progressives who thought Brett Kavanaugh didn ’ t belong on the Supreme Court claimed the allegations themselves should be disqualifying .
The writers of endless columns about how the GOP is complicit because it doesn ’ t resists Trump at every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of utilitarian bargains .
Some have even suggested putting people who were ever part of Trump ’ s administration on a list to ensure they never live down the infamy .
And yet , suddenly , it looks like a whole lot of Democrats are prepared to do the very thing they have long faulted Trump supporters for doing : Deciding a man ’ s flaws are less important than his policy prescriptions or the direction he ’ s leading .
This is a hypocrisy that goes well beyond # MeToo .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rejection of nearly everything they have been arguing vis a vis Trump .
That said , this is definitely a dagger pointed at the heart of the # MeToo movement which was about finally holding powerful men accontable for crimes which had long been ignored .
Now Hirshman is saying we should go right on ignoring those crimes so long as the powerful men in question are good for the country .
Hirshman is endorsing the same reasoning that Harvey Weinstein himself offered when he was first accused .
Remember when Weinstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can not be more remorseful about the people I hurt , and I plan to do right by all of them.
” How would he do right by them ?
He explained , “ I am going to need a place to channel that anger , so I ’ ve decided that I ’ m going to give the NRA my full attention.
” He went on to say that he was also making a movie about President Trump .
In short , I may be accused of being a serial rapist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful progressive voice who will advance the cause .
Weinstein was counting on the Hollywood left to make the utilitiarian bargain which had allowed him and others to flourish in Hollywood for decades .
And , to their credit , the Hollywood left finally said no .
In fact , they said hell no .
No more winking at assault and harassment because the guy ’ s a friend of the Clintons and on our side politically .
Now , Hirshman is saying it ’ s time to stop being so picky .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he ’ s accused of but , hey , he ’ s one of us and right now that ’ s what matters .
Sorry , Tara Reade but we need to sacrifice you for the greater good .
Somewhere Bill Clinton is breathing a deep sigh of relief .

I’ve seen quite a few Democrats online and some media pieces arguing that Democrats should support Biden anyway because Trump’s record with regard to sexual harassment is worse. I suspect a lot of people who have already heard and seen that argument will misunderstand what Hirshman is saying here. She’s not saying we should vote for Biden because he’s a better person. She’s actually saying Biden is not a better person. He’s someone who (she believes) sexually assaulted a junior staffer and then let his office fire her for complaining about it. That’s what Tara Reade is alleging. But Hirshman is saying she’ll vote for Biden anyway because she believes he’ll be a better president.
To be fair, there probably are some Trump supporters out there who have made a similar bargain. They may find Trump’s “locker room talk” about grabbing women disturbing. They may suspect some of the stories about him grabbing women aren’t false as Trump claims. But they’re voting for him anyway because, like Hirshman, they believe the election is bigger than one man’s flaws or one woman’s allegations.
What’s striking is that, for most part of the past three years, the left has been arguing against exactly this kind of utilitiarian bargain. The many progressives who thought Brett Kavanaugh didn’t belong on the Supreme Court claimed the allegations themselves should be disqualifying. The writers of endless columns about how the GOP is complicit because it doesn’t resists Trump at every step don’t accept the idea of utilitarian bargains. Some have even suggested putting people who were ever part of Trump’s administration on a list to ensure they never live down the infamy.
And yet, suddenly, it looks like a whole lot of Democrats are prepared to do the very thing they have long faulted Trump supporters for doing: Deciding a man’s flaws are less important than his policy prescriptions or the direction he’s leading. This is a hypocrisy that goes well beyond #MeToo. If adopted by Democrats, it’s a rejection of nearly everything they have been arguing vis a vis Trump.
That said, this is definitely a dagger pointed at the heart of the #MeToo movement which was about finally holding powerful men accontable for crimes which had long been ignored. Now Hirshman is saying we should go right on ignoring those crimes so long as the powerful men in question are good for the country.
Hirshman is endorsing the same reasoning that Harvey Weinstein himself offered when he was first accused. Remember when Weinstein put out a statement saying, “I cannot be more remorseful about the people I hurt, and I plan to do right by all of them.” How would he do right by them? He explained, “I am going to need a place to channel that anger, so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention.” He went on to say that he was also making a movie about President Trump. In short, I may be accused of being a serial rapist, but I’m also a powerful progressive voice who will advance the cause.
Weinstein was counting on the Hollywood left to make the utilitiarian bargain which had allowed him and others to flourish in Hollywood for decades. And, to their credit, the Hollywood left finally said no. In fact, they said hell no. No more winking at assault and harassment because the guy’s a friend of the Clintons and on our side politically.
Now, Hirshman is saying it’s time to stop being so picky. Yes, she believes Joe Biden did what he’s accused of but, hey, he’s one of us and right now that’s what matters. Sorry, Tara Reade but we need to sacrifice you for the greater good. Somewhere Bill Clinton is breathing a deep sigh of relief.


hotair--2020-05-06--Is Trump going to be the "UFO Disclosure" president after all?

Over at the Washington Times , Ben Wolfgang has an interesting analysis of a topic that drops into the rare intersection of politics and ufology .
He ’ s checked in with a number of UFO enthusiasts and some of them seem to be increasingly confident that Donald Trump may wind up being the President who finally lifts the veil of government secrecy that ’ s surrounded this topic for the past seventy years or more .
But what would give them that idea ?
Back in 2016 , most of the people who have traditionally been interested in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Hillary Clinton to win the election .
Whether you believe it or not , there actually are plenty of people in that community who were willing to base their votes almost entirely on how likely the candidate was to move toward disclosure .
Clinton was seen as the best choice because of her long association with UFO enthusiast John Podesta .
She even said during one radio interview that she would examine the evidence and see what was possible to show to the public .
Trump , by contrast , has never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topic .
But now , some of the ufologists seem to believe that the situation has changed .
And they ’ re crediting the recent , official release of the Navy UFO videos as evidence .
Top UFO researchers were banking on a Hillary Clinton presidential victory four years ago in the hopes that her administration would lift the dark veil of secrecy over military and federal government research into unidentified craft and otherworldly technology .
Instead , UFO activists find themselves over the moon with President Trump , whose unexpected decision last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military close encounters with unexplained objects in the sky has created an unprecedented wave of momentum that could finally break an information dam that has held for decades .
The White House has been tight-lipped on the subject , other than Mr. Trump ’ s declaration of the Navy release to be a “ hell of a video , ” but the Pentagon has shifted the national debate by putting forward military UFO videos through official government channels .
That decision , specialists say , should end once and for all any debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sky and instead should fuel deeper questions about exactly what the government knows and what other UFO interactions may be buried deep within classified Pentagon and intelligence agency files .
While I ’ d personally love for this to be true , let ’ s just say that I ’ m not going to be holding my breath .
For one thing , I ’ ve seen no indication whatsoever that Donald Trump personally made the decision to officially release those videos .
The military declassifies and releases things all the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could imagine .
The President is not dragged in to personally authorize every such declassification decision .
If he was , he ’ d never have time to do anything else .
Further , as I mentioned when I first wrote about this subject last week , this wasn ’ t exactly a tough call for the Pentagon to make .
The videos were already out in the public eye and had been for more than two years .
And it doesn ’ t sound like Trump was very interested in the release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it was that it was “ a hell of a video ” and he only said that after being directly asked about it by a reporter .
Previously , when he was asked if he believed there was anything to the whole UFO topic he said , “ not really.
” But should he be ?
One of the heads of the Mutual UFO Network ( MUFON ) is quoted in the linked article as saying that “ the time is ripe ” for a radical change in how the government treats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconventional ” type of president who could lead the charge .
Maybe , but that idea rests on a couple of very big assumptions .
First of all , we ’ d have to believe that Trump actually knows anything about the whole UFO situation .
I highly doubt that the deep intelligence agencies involved in the subject are telling him much if anything .
And they probably wouldn ’ t even if he asked .
Bill Clinton tried to get the information when he was president and he later related the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are layers upon layers of military and intelligence agencies between the President and the information we ’ re looking for .
But just imagine if he did somehow dig up some shocking revelations and decide to take them public .
Trump ’ s critics are constantly accusing him of creating “ distractions ” to draw the public ’ s attention away from his many other perceived sins or shortcomings .
Can you imagine a bigger or better distraction than spilling the beans about extraterrestrial technology or even the aliens themselves ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily backfire on him too .
Given the current circumstances in the world , you can probably guess the sort of reaction at least some people would have .
“ Really ?
First a global pandemic .
Then swarms of Murder Hornets .
And now it ’ s an alien invasion ?
That ’ s just super .
”

Over at the Washington Times, Ben Wolfgang has an interesting analysis of a topic that drops into the rare intersection of politics and ufology. He’s checked in with a number of UFO enthusiasts and some of them seem to be increasingly confident that Donald Trump may wind up being the President who finally lifts the veil of government secrecy that’s surrounded this topic for the past seventy years or more. But what would give them that idea?
Back in 2016, most of the people who have traditionally been interested in the topic were placing all of their chips on Hillary Clinton to win the election. Whether you believe it or not, there actually are plenty of people in that community who were willing to base their votes almost entirely on how likely the candidate was to move toward disclosure. Clinton was seen as the best choice because of her long association with UFO enthusiast John Podesta. She even said during one radio interview that she would examine the evidence and see what was possible to show to the public. Trump, by contrast, has never seemed to show much interest in the topic.
But now, some of the ufologists seem to believe that the situation has changed. And they’re crediting the recent, official release of the Navy UFO videos as evidence.
Top UFO researchers were banking on a Hillary Clinton presidential victory four years ago in the hopes that her administration would lift the dark veil of secrecy over military and federal government research into unidentified craft and otherworldly technology. Instead, UFO activists find themselves over the moon with President Trump, whose unexpected decision last week to release stunning footage showing U.S. military close encounters with unexplained objects in the sky has created an unprecedented wave of momentum that could finally break an information dam that has held for decades. The White House has been tight-lipped on the subject, other than Mr. Trump’s declaration of the Navy release to be a “hell of a video,” but the Pentagon has shifted the national debate by putting forward military UFO videos through official government channels. That decision, specialists say, should end once and for all any debate about the existence of unidentified objects in the sky and instead should fuel deeper questions about exactly what the government knows and what other UFO interactions may be buried deep within classified Pentagon and intelligence agency files.
While I’d personally love for this to be true, let’s just say that I’m not going to be holding my breath. For one thing, I’ve seen no indication whatsoever that Donald Trump personally made the decision to officially release those videos. The military declassifies and releases things all the time, dealing with nearly every subject you could imagine. The President is not dragged in to personally authorize every such declassification decision. If he was, he’d never have time to do anything else.
Further, as I mentioned when I first wrote about this subject last week, this wasn’t exactly a tough call for the Pentagon to make. The videos were already out in the public eye and had been for more than two years. And it doesn’t sound like Trump was very interested in the release to begin with. His only comment on it was that it was “a hell of a video” and he only said that after being directly asked about it by a reporter. Previously, when he was asked if he believed there was anything to the whole UFO topic he said, “not really.”
But should he be? One of the heads of the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) is quoted in the linked article as saying that “the time is ripe” for a radical change in how the government treats this subject and Trump is the “unconventional” type of president who could lead the charge. Maybe, but that idea rests on a couple of very big assumptions.
First of all, we’d have to believe that Trump actually knows anything about the whole UFO situation. I highly doubt that the deep intelligence agencies involved in the subject are telling him much if anything. And they probably wouldn’t even if he asked. Bill Clinton tried to get the information when he was president and he later related the story of how nobody would tell him anything. There are layers upon layers of military and intelligence agencies between the President and the information we’re looking for.
But just imagine if he did somehow dig up some shocking revelations and decide to take them public. Trump’s critics are constantly accusing him of creating “distractions” to draw the public’s attention away from his many other perceived sins or shortcomings. Can you imagine a bigger or better distraction than spilling the beans about extraterrestrial technology or even the aliens themselves?
Of course, that could just as easily backfire on him too. Given the current circumstances in the world, you can probably guess the sort of reaction at least some people would have. “Really? First a global pandemic. Then swarms of Murder Hornets. And now it’s an alien invasion? That’s just super.”


hotair--2020-05-06--Hmmm: Did Kavanaugh debacle and Biden accusation kill #MeToo?

Nearly three years ago , when the story of Harvey Weinstein finally got told , the # MeToo movement burst into prominence and rewired public debate over sexually abuse .
For a brief period of time , an accusation alone had the power to derail powerful men and to give accusers leverage to demand accountability — and for others to exploit the opening for other purposes .
The latest Morning Consult poll ( other aspects of which Allahpundit covered last night ) suggests that people of all political stripes have begun to recoil from the # MeToo movement and bounce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long overdue , but what precisely caused it ?
Voters ’ views about political consequences for politicians who are facing credible accusations of sexual misconduct have shifted since that December 2017 poll , when allegations against Franken , Conyers and Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore moved the ongoing # MeToo discussion into the political arena .
Since the poll conducted that month , the share of voters who said a politician should resign in the face of credible allegations has dropped 18 points , while the share who said the decision should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 points .
( Respondents were shown this question before viewing the MSNBC clip . )
While most Democrats and independents in 2017 agreed that the elected official should resign , independents are now evenly split and only a plurality of Democrats still hold that view .
And while nearly half of Republicans used to back resignation for such officials , a plurality now says the voters should decide the politician ’ s future .
The Morning Consult chart captures this best : That ’ s quite a shift in just two-plus years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due process by a double-digit plurality in the wake of the Big Harv/Roy Moore/Al Franken revelations .
In the time since , overall support for immediate resignation in the face of a “ credible accusation ” has dropped 18 points , and the drop among Republican vote turns out to be the smallest , although they are the only demographic with a plurality tilt toward due process .
Support for immediate resignations dropped 22 points among independents , and 20 points among the same Democrats that tried to apply the previous standard all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed ?
The subjective nature of the “ credible accusation ” standard became a lot more clear during those hearings , Tiana Lowe argues at the Washington Examiner .
Republicans just got stung first , though .
Now that Joe Biden is presently being hoist by his own “ Believe All Women ” petard , Democrats are now having second thoughts , too — and that spells the eventual end of the # MeToo approach : We can pretty much pinpoint the moment of Republican backlash to the # MeToo movement to October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that that Republican support for the movement as a whole fell by seven points in just five months .
By contrast , support among Democrats increased by two points in that amount of time .
But now , Democratic voters are reaping the standards that their party leadership has sown .
As Joe Biden faces a credible sexual assault allegation backed by at least one contemporaneously corroborating witness , far more evidence than any of the claims against Kavanaugh ever had , Democrats have begun to run away from the # MeToo movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that perverting # MeToo evidentiary standards to that of considering allegations in and of themselves to be clear proof of wrongdoing would come back to bite them .
Now , it finally has , and the Democratic Faustian bargain to destroy Kavanaugh has come full circle , murdering the # MeToo movement in the process .
It ’ s not dead yet , and due process hasn ’ t yet been fully re-embraced yet either .
Some of the reaction among leading Democrats and media has been to simply shrug off the Tara @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , rather than to reset the environment in which these accusations get scrutinized .
Social panics don ’ t turn on a dime , and there seems little doubt that Democrats and media will pick up the very same cudgels to use against the next Republican and not worry much about hypocrisy or backfire .
The difference will be that the pitchfork-and-torch mobs will get much smaller the next time around .
That is how social panics end — not because the people who push them for their own purposes stop , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implosion .
We then return to due process each time so that real victims can seek justice without mobs tearing everyone to pieces unjustly .
Color me skeptical that we ’ ve reached that point yet on the Believe All Women !
!
mantra .
But don ’ t say we weren ’ t warned about this …

Nearly three years ago, when the story of Harvey Weinstein finally got told, the #MeToo movement burst into prominence and rewired public debate over sexually abuse. For a brief period of time, an accusation alone had the power to derail powerful men and to give accusers leverage to demand accountability — and for others to exploit the opening for other purposes. The latest Morning Consult poll (other aspects of which Allahpundit covered last night) suggests that people of all political stripes have begun to recoil from the #MeToo movement and bounce back toward due process.
This is long overdue, but what precisely caused it?
Voters’ views about political consequences for politicians who are facing credible accusations of sexual misconduct have shifted since that December 2017 poll, when allegations against Franken, Conyers and Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore moved the ongoing #MeToo discussion into the political arena. Since the poll conducted that month, the share of voters who said a politician should resign in the face of credible allegations has dropped 18 points, while the share who said the decision should be made at the ballot box increased 10 points. (Respondents were shown this question before viewing the MSNBC clip.) While most Democrats and independents in 2017 agreed that the elected official should resign, independents are now evenly split and only a plurality of Democrats still hold that view. And while nearly half of Republicans used to back resignation for such officials, a plurality now says the voters should decide the politician’s future.
The Morning Consult chart captures this best:
That’s quite a shift in just two-plus years. Even Republicans at the time eschewed due process by a double-digit plurality in the wake of the Big Harv/Roy Moore/Al Franken revelations. In the time since, overall support for immediate resignation in the face of a “credible accusation” has dropped 18 points, and the drop among Republican vote turns out to be the smallest, although they are the only demographic with a plurality tilt toward due process. Support for immediate resignations dropped 22 points among independents, and 20 points among the same Democrats that tried to apply the previous standard all through the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
What changed? The subjective nature of the “credible accusation” standard became a lot more clear during those hearings, Tiana Lowe argues at the Washington Examiner. Republicans just got stung first, though. Now that Joe Biden is presently being hoist by his own “Believe All Women” petard, Democrats are now having second thoughts, too — and that spells the eventual end of the #MeToo approach:
We can pretty much pinpoint the moment of Republican backlash to the #MeToo movement to October 2018, when Morning Consult also found that that Republican support for the movement as a whole fell by seven points in just five months. By contrast, support among Democrats increased by two points in that amount of time. But now, Democratic voters are reaping the standards that their party leadership has sown. As Joe Biden faces a credible sexual assault allegation backed by at least one contemporaneously corroborating witness, far more evidence than any of the claims against Kavanaugh ever had, Democrats have begun to run away from the #MeToo movement. … Good faith conservatives warned Democrats that perverting #MeToo evidentiary standards to that of considering allegations in and of themselves to be clear proof of wrongdoing would come back to bite them. Now, it finally has, and the Democratic Faustian bargain to destroy Kavanaugh has come full circle, murdering the #MeToo movement in the process.
It’s not dead yet, and due process hasn’t yet been fully re-embraced yet either. Some of the reaction among leading Democrats and media has been to simply shrug off the Tara Reade accusation as secondary to beating Donald Trump, rather than to reset the environment in which these accusations get scrutinized. Social panics don’t turn on a dime, and there seems little doubt that Democrats and media will pick up the very same cudgels to use against the next Republican and not worry much about hypocrisy or backfire.
The difference will be that the pitchfork-and-torch mobs will get much smaller the next time around. That is how social panics end — not because the people who push them for their own purposes stop, but because their influence erodes with each implosion. We then return to due process each time so that real victims can seek justice without mobs tearing everyone to pieces unjustly. Color me skeptical that we’ve reached that point yet on the Believe All Women!! mantra. But don’t say we weren’t warned about this …


hotair--2020-05-06--Poll: Justin Amash takes more votes from Joe Biden than from Trump

Just as we were warned .
A few weeks ago anti-Trump righties Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller made the case for Amash taking a pass on the Libertarian Party nomination , precisely because they feared he ’ d draw more votes from Biden than from Trump .
Take a look at the increase in vote total among center-right , third party candidates ( Gary Johnson / Evan McMullin / Constitution Party ) plus write-ins in the three key upper Midwest states in 2016 over 2012 : Pennsylvania : 135,170 more votes ; Trump won by 44,292 votes Wisconsin : 123,447 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan : 165,214 more votes ; Trump won by 10,704 That ’ s the whole ballgame right there .
That ’ s why President Total Authority was the one standing in the Oval Office waving his hands and sniffing about how the coronavirus would disappear “ like a miracle ” instead of a grown-up who would have made the necessary , basic preparations for the epidemic .
Today ’ s new numbers from Monmouth confirm that Biden does worse with Amash in the race than without him .
But there ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins comfortably in a three-way race , if not quite as comfortably as in a two-way one .
Here ’ s Biden vs. Trump… Four points come out of Biden ’ s support among independents with Amash in the race , which isn ’ t surprising .
More surprising is the fact that five points also come out of his support among Democrats .
By comparison , Trump loses just a single point among Republicans to the libertarian , a testament to how tight his grip on the party is .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strength here .
Monmouth notes that when libertarian Gary Johnson first jumped into the 2016 race he pulled 11 percent against the widely disliked Hillary and Trump .
By Election Day , with voters convinced that their choice was a binary one , he fell to three percent .
I ’ d be surprised if Amash matches that given the ferocious partisan pressure on both sides of a November referendum on Trump ’ s first term .
The Monmouth poll isn ’ t good news for Trump but other surveys are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers from Morning Consult : A separate poll taken by Reuters/Ipsos also finds voters trending away from Biden lately : The opinion poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday found that 43 % of registered voters said they would support Biden in the Nov. 3 presidential election , while 41 % said they would back Trump .
That makes the contest essentially a toss-up , as the results are within the poll ’ s credibility interval .
Biden led by 6 percentage points in a similar poll last week and by 8 points in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21… According to the poll , 45 % of Americans said Trump was better suited to create jobs , while 32 % said Biden was the better candidate for that .
That pushed Trump ’ s advantage over Biden in terms of job creation to 13 points , compared with the Republican president ’ s 6-point edge in a similar poll that ran in mid-April .
Trump ’ s advantage on the economy is striking given the catastrophic corona-driven collapse in the labor force lately .
Drudge had a headline yesterday mocking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if he built a great economy once he can do it twice : “ Make America Great Again , Again ?
” But maybe Team Trump ’ s more clever than its critics think .
It ’ ll be months before voters feel they have enough data from the pandemic to make an informed judgment on whether Trump handled it well or not — how many deaths , did we get a second wave , and so on .
But Trump ’ s advantage over Biden on who ’ d be better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be durable because of how rosy the monthly jobs report and the Dow average were until March of this year .
Twenty percent unemployment would destroy most presidents , but given Trump ’ s economic track record for most of his first term , it may end up being neutral at worst in November .
Jobs were wiped out by the economic equivalent of a meteor strike , not presidential policy .
All voters might consider is which candidate they trust more to repair the damage .
I ’ ll leave you with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PRRI gauging the trends in Trump ’ s favorability in battleground states .
Not good , although it should be noted that this poll was taken nearly two weeks ago .
Maybe the outlook has brightened now that he ’ s abandoned the horrible optics of the evening coronavirus briefing/rant session .

My God, he’s the right-wing Ralph Nader.
Just as we were warned.
A few weeks ago anti-Trump righties Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller made the case for Amash taking a pass on the Libertarian Party nomination, precisely because they feared he’d draw more votes from Biden than from Trump.
Take a look at the increase in vote total among center-right, third party candidates (Gary Johnson / Evan McMullin / Constitution Party) plus write-ins in the three key upper Midwest states in 2016 over 2012: Pennsylvania: 135,170 more votes; Trump won by 44,292 votes
Wisconsin: 123,447 more votes; Trump won by 22,748
Michigan: 165,214 more votes; Trump won by 10,704 That’s the whole ballgame right there. That’s why President Total Authority was the one standing in the Oval Office waving his hands and sniffing about how the coronavirus would disappear “like a miracle” instead of a grown-up who would have made the necessary, basic preparations for the epidemic.
Today’s new numbers from Monmouth confirm that Biden does worse with Amash in the race than without him. But there’s one big difference from 2016: He still wins comfortably in a three-way race, if not quite as comfortably as in a two-way one. Here’s Biden vs. Trump…
…and here’s Biden vs. Trump vs. Amash:
Four points come out of Biden’s support among independents with Amash in the race, which isn’t surprising. More surprising is the fact that five points also come out of his support among Democrats. By comparison, Trump loses just a single point among Republicans to the libertarian, a testament to how tight his grip on the party is. But I don’t mean to oversell Amash’s strength here. Monmouth notes that when libertarian Gary Johnson first jumped into the 2016 race he pulled 11 percent against the widely disliked Hillary and Trump. By Election Day, with voters convinced that their choice was a binary one, he fell to three percent. I’d be surprised if Amash matches that given the ferocious partisan pressure on both sides of a November referendum on Trump’s first term.
The Monmouth poll isn’t good news for Trump but other surveys are looking up for him today. Interesting numbers from Morning Consult:
Trust more to handle… The economy:
Trump 46% (+9)
Biden 37% Jobs:
Trump 43% (+4)
Biden 39% National security:
Trump 43% (+4)
Biden 39% Immigration:
Trump 43% (+3)
Biden 40% Gun policy:
Trump 40% (+1)
Biden 39%@MorningConsult/@politico 5/2-3https://t.co/NULUmebGT7 — Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) May 6, 2020
A separate poll taken by Reuters/Ipsos also finds voters trending away from Biden lately:
The opinion poll conducted on Monday and Tuesday found that 43% of registered voters said they would support Biden in the Nov. 3 presidential election, while 41% said they would back Trump. That makes the contest essentially a toss-up, as the results are within the poll’s credibility interval. Biden led by 6 percentage points in a similar poll last week and by 8 points in a poll that ran April 15 to 21… According to the poll, 45% of Americans said Trump was better suited to create jobs, while 32% said Biden was the better candidate for that. That pushed Trump’s advantage over Biden in terms of job creation to 13 points, compared with the Republican president’s 6-point edge in a similar poll that ran in mid-April.
Trump’s advantage on the economy is striking given the catastrophic corona-driven collapse in the labor force lately. Drudge had a headline yesterday mocking the president’s new campaign message, that if he built a great economy once he can do it twice: “Make America Great Again, Again?” But maybe Team Trump’s more clever than its critics think. It’ll be months before voters feel they have enough data from the pandemic to make an informed judgment on whether Trump handled it well or not — how many deaths, did we get a second wave, and so on. But Trump’s advantage over Biden on who’d be better at overseeing the eventual economic recovery may be durable because of how rosy the monthly jobs report and the Dow average were until March of this year. Twenty percent unemployment would destroy most presidents, but given Trump’s economic track record for most of his first term, it may end up being neutral at worst in November. Jobs were wiped out by the economic equivalent of a meteor strike, not presidential policy. All voters might consider is which candidate they trust more to repair the damage.
I’ll leave you with one more piece of data, from PRRI gauging the trends in Trump’s favorability in battleground states. Not good, although it should be noted that this poll was taken nearly two weeks ago. Maybe the outlook has brightened now that he’s abandoned the horrible optics of the evening coronavirus briefing/rant session.