hotair--2020-05-21--The new race to contact E.T.

The new race to contact E.T.

In an article over at Space.com , Leonard David describes a new development in the efforts by humans to contact extraterrestrial life elsewhere in the galaxy .
While the SETI program ( Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence ) has been in operation for decades , the results thus far have been mostly disappointing .
There was a brief flurry of excitement in 1977 when “ the WOW signal ” was received , but in later years even that one has been called into question .
Now , however , there ’ s a new player in the game .
China has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world and they are reportedly gearing up to hunt for potential alien signals from space .
So are we headed toward a 21st-century arms race to see who can get E.T .
to phone home first ?
Researchers using China ’ s new Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope ( FAST ) , the largest single-dish scope in the world , are piecing together a technological strategy to carry out a major and sweeping search for extraterrestrial intelligence ( SETI ) .
What if China someday announces that this hunt has been successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ verified , and what might the consequences be ?
And could an unofficial international SETI race already be underway ?
Space.com asked several SETI authorities to flesh out the implications of China being the first nation to get a ping from ET .
According to the experts they spoke with , this one of those rare areas where there really won ’ t be much in the way of geopolitics messing up the process , so a “ new space race ” isn ’ t in the cards .
The reason is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low levels across such a vast target area requires the cooperation of nations with large radio telescopes around the world .
The odds are good that if we do finally hear something interesting , no single country will claim all the “ credit ” for it as it will likely involve scientists from multiple nations .
The interesting word in their analysis , however , is the word “ contact.
” Up until now , most of what we ’ ve done has just involved listening in the hopes of detecting some sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the new FAST dish in China is capable of more than passive detection .
They can actually broadcast powerful , targeted signals out into space that might eventually be detected by another civilization .
So is that really a good idea ?
Scientists from Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking have warned us against such a move over the years .
Sure , everyone wants to be the first to discover another intelligent species , but what if these signals attract undesirable attention from a potentially hostile race ?
If they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the way to Earth , they ’ ve probably got weapons we haven ’ t even imagined yet .
Of course , the odds of any signals sent from China today reaching another civilization and getting an answer in our lifetimes are pretty slim .
Even a signal sent to the closest star to ours would take more than four years to arrive and another for years for the reply to reach us .
And most of the really interesting exoplanets discovered during the Kepler mission were much further away than that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should by now , be an obvious question dangling in front of us .
What if we don ’ t need to hook up a phone call with someone that ’ s light-years away from us to contact E.T.
?
What if they ’ re already within cell tower distance ?
Let ’ s face it… somebody had to build those Tic Tacs that our Navy has been chasing around .
And somebody might even be flying them .
I ’ d be a lot more interested in seeing them dial-up someone ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going on .
( Hey… aliens .
I ’ ll give you my digits .
I ’ m available . )
But at least so far , whoever or whatever is directing the movements of those things doesn ’ t seem interested in talking to us .
Unless , of course , they ’ re already talking to our government and we ’ re being left in the dark about it .
But that ’ s a conspiracy theory for another column .

In an article over at Space.com, Leonard David describes a new development in the efforts by humans to contact extraterrestrial life elsewhere in the galaxy. While the SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has been in operation for decades, the results thus far have been mostly disappointing. There was a brief flurry of excitement in 1977 when “the WOW signal” was received, but in later years even that one has been called into question. Now, however, there’s a new player in the game. China has constructed the largest single-dish radio telescope in the world and they are reportedly gearing up to hunt for potential alien signals from space. So are we headed toward a 21st-century arms race to see who can get E.T. to phone home first?
Researchers using China’s new Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST), the largest single-dish scope in the world, are piecing together a technological strategy to carry out a major and sweeping search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). What if China someday announces that this hunt has been successful? How would such a claim be verified, and what might the consequences be? And could an unofficial international SETI race already be underway? Space.com asked several SETI authorities to flesh out the implications of China being the first nation to get a ping from ET.
According to the experts they spoke with, this one of those rare areas where there really won’t be much in the way of geopolitics messing up the process, so a “new space race” isn’t in the cards. The reason is that the process of acquiring signals at such low levels across such a vast target area requires the cooperation of nations with large radio telescopes around the world. The odds are good that if we do finally hear something interesting, no single country will claim all the “credit” for it as it will likely involve scientists from multiple nations.
The interesting word in their analysis, however, is the word “contact.” Up until now, most of what we’ve done has just involved listening in the hopes of detecting some sort of radio waves from an alien intelligence. But the new FAST dish in China is capable of more than passive detection. They can actually broadcast powerful, targeted signals out into space that might eventually be detected by another civilization.
So is that really a good idea? Scientists from Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking have warned us against such a move over the years. Sure, everyone wants to be the first to discover another intelligent species, but what if these signals attract undesirable attention from a potentially hostile race? If they’ve got the technology to make it all the way to Earth, they’ve probably got weapons we haven’t even imagined yet.
Of course, the odds of any signals sent from China today reaching another civilization and getting an answer in our lifetimes are pretty slim. Even a signal sent to the closest star to ours would take more than four years to arrive and another for years for the reply to reach us. And most of the really interesting exoplanets discovered during the Kepler mission were much further away than that.
But all of this leaves what should by now, be an obvious question dangling in front of us. What if we don’t need to hook up a phone call with someone that’s light-years away from us to contact E.T.? What if they’re already within cell tower distance? Let’s face it… somebody had to build those Tic Tacs that our Navy has been chasing around. And somebody might even be flying them. I’d be a lot more interested in seeing them dial-up someone’s smartphone and let us know what’s going on. (Hey… aliens. I’ll give you my digits. I’m available.)
But at least so far, whoever or whatever is directing the movements of those things doesn’t seem interested in talking to us. Unless, of course, they’re already talking to our government and we’re being left in the dark about it. But that’s a conspiracy theory for another column.


hotair--2020-05-21--Flynn attorney: Why hasn't the defense ever heard the Kislyak call?

This isn ’ t a bad question , and it raises more questions about the prosecution of Michael Flynn if true .
Sidney Powell told Dan Abrams yesterday on his SirusXM radio show that despite Flynn ’ s conversation with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak being the core of the special counsel ’ s obstruction case , none of his defense attorneys have ever heard the call or had access to a transcript of it .
In an at-times contentious conversation with Abrams , Powell called for the release of the call and a full transcript , and predicted the word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found in it : “ I ’ d love to see them , ” Powell said of the transcripts , before offering a theory as to why they haven ’ t been made public by numerous officials , including the judge overseeing Flynn ’ s trial for lying to the FBI .
“ I think the reason we haven ’ t seen them is because the word ‘ sanctions ’ doesn ’ t even appear in them.
” Back in January , Flynn tried to change his plea to not guilty from guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t remember the exact details of his conversation with the Russian ambassador .
“ I still don ’ t remember if I discussed sanctions , ” Flynn wrote .
“ I would love to see the release of that transcript , ” Powell reiterated to Abrams .
“ Apparently , the Washington Post or the New York Times had it , but has the defense been allowed to see it ?
No .
No defense lawyer for General Flynn has been allowed to hear the recording or see the transcript .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both , because I can ’ t trust the FBI or the CIA , or the NSA , or whoever it was , to do an accurate transcription of anything based on the lies I ’ ve seen in the 302.
” This information would be at the heart of any discovery in a case such as this , where prosecutors charge obstruction on the basis of an alleged lie about a conversation .
The first and most obvious way to challenge the charge is to force the government to produce evidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) concluded that Flynn lied to its investigators about not discussing sanctions with Kislyak , which they claim to have had through intel intercepts .
That conversation would be subject to discovery ; if the government refused to declassify it , that could have prompted a dismissal on that basis alone .
Prosecutors can not use secret evidence to convict people without granting them access to it and allowing them to challenge it in a public trial , a practice explicitly prohibited by the Sixth Amendment .
( It ’ s why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases — to protect its sources and methods . )
In fact , this point is so basic that it ’ s puzzling why it never came up before Flynn ’ s guilty plea .
That does take discovery off the table [ see update below ] , but Flynn didn ’ t plead guilty right away , either .
It took the special counsel quite a while to pressure Flynn into that plea , and only succeeded after nearly bankrupting Flynn and threatening to prosecute his son on unrelated matters .
Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to the conversation or the transcript before working on the guilty plea , which seems quite odd in retrospect .
Why would a defense attorney allow his client to plead guilty without first taking a full look at the evidence first ?
That sounds like a pretty good predicate for incompetent representation on appeal , although the guilty plea would normally moot that as well .
Powell ’ s bet on the word “ sanctions ” seems a bit foolish at this point , though , especially given better grounds on which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens if it gets released and the word “ sanctions ” turns out to be in the conversation ?
It ’ s meaningless anyway ; as an official on the presidential transition team and incoming nat-sec adviser , Flynn had authority to discuss policy with foreign diplomats , including sanctions policy .
The FBI interrogation on that point was illegitimate in the first place .
Powell ’ s argument here gives ground that she should be protecting , just in case the Department of Justice ’ s effort to withdraw the case doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems more and more clear that the FBI ’ s interest in the Kislyak conversation was just a pretext anyway : An FBI offer to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to collect intelligence on Michael Flynn in the weeks before the 2016 election has been one of the more overlooked revelations in a Justice Department inspector general ’ s report released in December .
The reference to the FBI proposal , which was made in an Oct. 3 , 2016 , meeting in an unidentified European city , has received virtually no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new significance following the recent release of government documents that show that Steele peddled an unfounded rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the United Kingdom .
It is not clear how and when Steele came across the rumor , or if it was the result of the FBI asking him to look into Flynn .
The inspector general ’ s report , released on Dec. 9 , 2019 , said that FBI agents offered to pay Steele “ significantly ” to collect intelligence from three separate “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of Crossfire Hurricane , its counterintelligence probe of four Trump campaign associates .
One bucket was “ Additional intelligence/reporting on specific , named individuals ( such as [ Carter Page ] or [ Flynn ] ) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship , ” the IG report stated .
Note that the offer to Steele and its specific interest in Flynn predates the Kislyak call by almost two full months .
The FBI and special counsel never charged Flynn with any alleged misconduct prior to the December 29 , 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look as though Steele came up empty on Flynn .
Powell ’ s right that the Kislyak call should be made a part of the record with Flynn .
So should other developments , too , if Emmet Sullivan really wants to keep this case alive .
But betting on the word “ sanctions ” is as foolish as it is irrelevant , from a PR perspective .
Update : A guilty plea does not waive a later claim of incompetent counsel , our friend and former federal prosecutor Shipwreckedcrew informs me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at our fine sister sure RedState , but he sent me this update via DM earlier : Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not waived by a guilty plea .
BUT they GENERALLY can not be raised on direct appeal .
They usually are only asserted in the “ next ” step open to a defendant which is a “ collateral attack ” on their conviction which is a “ habeas corpus ” petition .
The basis of habeas claims is that a constitution right was violated in the process leading to your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Supreme Court held that the right to representation includes the right that the representation be “ effective ” .
Flynn ’ s motion to withdraw his plea relies in part on his claim that the Covington & Burling lawyers provided him ineffective assistance , but I think the claim at this point is limited to the fact that they had a conflict of interest in representing him because the Special Counsel was also investigating the FARA filing by Flynn ’ s company , which had been prepared by C & B @

This isn’t a bad question, and it raises more questions about the prosecution of Michael Flynn if true. Sidney Powell told Dan Abrams yesterday on his SirusXM radio show that despite Flynn’s conversation with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak being the core of the special counsel’s obstruction case, none of his defense attorneys have ever heard the call or had access to a transcript of it. In an at-times contentious conversation with Abrams, Powell called for the release of the call and a full transcript, and predicted the word “sanctions” won’t be found in it:
“I’d love to see them,” Powell said of the transcripts, before offering a theory as to why they haven’t been made public by numerous officials, including the judge overseeing Flynn’s trial for lying to the FBI. “I think the reason we haven’t seen them is because the word ‘sanctions’ doesn’t even appear in them.” Back in January, Flynn tried to change his plea to not guilty from guilty, and told the court that he doesn’t remember the exact details of his conversation with the Russian ambassador. “I still don’t remember if I discussed sanctions,” Flynn wrote. “I would love to see the release of that transcript,” Powell reiterated to Abrams. “Apparently, the Washington Post or the New York Times had it, but has the defense been allowed to see it? No. No defense lawyer for General Flynn has been allowed to hear the recording or see the transcript. And, frankly, I would want both, because I can’t trust the FBI or the CIA, or the NSA, or whoever it was, to do an accurate transcription of anything based on the lies I’ve seen in the 302.”
This information would be at the heart of any discovery in a case such as this, where prosecutors charge obstruction on the basis of an alleged lie about a conversation. The first and most obvious way to challenge the charge is to force the government to produce evidence of a lie. The FBI (eventually) concluded that Flynn lied to its investigators about not discussing sanctions with Kislyak, which they claim to have had through intel intercepts. That conversation would be subject to discovery; if the government refused to declassify it, that could have prompted a dismissal on that basis alone. Prosecutors cannot use secret evidence to convict people without granting them access to it and allowing them to challenge it in a public trial, a practice explicitly prohibited by the Sixth Amendment. (It’s why the government occasionally opts not to prosecute espionage cases — to protect its sources and methods.)
In fact, this point is so basic that it’s puzzling why it never came up before Flynn’s guilty plea. That does take discovery off the table [see update below], but Flynn didn’t plead guilty right away, either. It took the special counsel quite a while to pressure Flynn into that plea, and only succeeded after nearly bankrupting Flynn and threatening to prosecute his son on unrelated matters. Flynn’s original attorneys apparently never got access to the conversation or the transcript before working on the guilty plea, which seems quite odd in retrospect. Why would a defense attorney allow his client to plead guilty without first taking a full look at the evidence first? That sounds like a pretty good predicate for incompetent representation on appeal, although the guilty plea would normally moot that as well.
Powell’s bet on the word “sanctions” seems a bit foolish at this point, though, especially given better grounds on which to fight at the moment. What happens if it gets released and the word “sanctions” turns out to be in the conversation? It’s meaningless anyway; as an official on the presidential transition team and incoming nat-sec adviser, Flynn had authority to discuss policy with foreign diplomats, including sanctions policy. The FBI interrogation on that point was illegitimate in the first place. Powell’s argument here gives ground that she should be protecting, just in case the Department of Justice’s effort to withdraw the case doesn’t succeed.
Plus, it seems more and more clear that the FBI’s interest in the Kislyak conversation was just a pretext anyway:
From the IG report section on the FBI's Oct. 3, 2016 meeting with Steele. pic.twitter.com/oXsGpnkSWr — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) May 21, 2020
An FBI offer to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to collect intelligence on Michael Flynn in the weeks before the 2016 election has been one of the more overlooked revelations in a Justice Department inspector general’s report released in December. The reference to the FBI proposal, which was made in an Oct. 3, 2016, meeting in an unidentified European city, has received virtually no press attention. But it might have new significance following the recent release of government documents that show that Steele peddled an unfounded rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the United Kingdom. It is not clear how and when Steele came across the rumor, or if it was the result of the FBI asking him to look into Flynn. The inspector general’s report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to pay Steele “significantly” to collect intelligence from three separate “buckets” that the bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane, its counterintelligence probe of four Trump campaign associates. One bucket was “Additional intelligence/reporting on specific, named individuals (such as [Carter Page] or [Flynn]) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship,” the IG report stated.
Note that the offer to Steele and its specific interest in Flynn predates the Kislyak call by almost two full months. The FBI and special counsel never charged Flynn with any alleged misconduct prior to the December 29, 2016 call with Kislyak, which makes it look as though Steele came up empty on Flynn.
Powell’s right that the Kislyak call should be made a part of the record with Flynn. So should other developments, too, if Emmet Sullivan really wants to keep this case alive. But betting on the word “sanctions” is as foolish as it is irrelevant, from a PR perspective.
Update: A guilty plea does not waive a later claim of incompetent counsel, our friend and former federal prosecutor Shipwreckedcrew informs me. He’s writing about these issues at our fine sister sure RedState, but he sent me this update via DM earlier:


hotair--2020-05-21--Cuomo boyz yuk it up on CNN in wake of nursing home fiasco

I ’ m trying to imagine the media reaction if Hannity did a mid-pandemic interview as chummy as this with , say , Ron DeSantis .
Except that ’ s not an apt analogy because : 1 .
Unlike Cuomo , DeSantis succeeded in avoiding an apocalyptic outcome in Florida .
2 .
Hannity ’ s not related to DeSantis so there ’ d be no glaring — glaring — conflict of interest in interviewing him .
The contempt for this spectacle isn ’ t strictly partisan .
Vox ’ s Jane Coaston cringes : Coincidentally , as the interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Times reported on a new model estimating how many American lives might have been saved if local authorities moved a tiny bit faster in late February and early March to mandate social distancing .
New York is the epicenter of the disease in the United States and so the potential effects in New York were dramatic : In the New York metro area alone , 21,800 people had died by May 3 .
Fewer than 4,300 would have died by then if control measures had been put in place and adopted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 8 , the researchers estimated .
All models are only estimates , and it is impossible to know for certain the exact number of people who would have died .
But Lauren Ancel Meyers , a University of Texas at Austin epidemiologist who was not involved in the research , said that it “ makes a compelling case that even slightly earlier action in New York could have been game changing.
” According to the expose published by Pro Publica last weekend , Cuomo was more reluctant than even Bill de Blasio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He waited five long days after de Blasio floated the idea to actually pull the trigger .
Combine that with his catastrophic policy of sending infected residents back into nursing homes and you ’ re left with the question of what the picture in New York would look like today if Gavin Newsom or Mike DeWine or Ron DeSantis were in charge instead .
A 90 percent reduction in deaths , maybe ?
More ?
Happy fun time with the Cuomo brothers has been a recurring segment on CNN throughout the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not something that just started as deaths in New York finally and mercifully began to recede and the mood in the city lightened .
Seth Mandel points to this quote from all the way back in early April raising an eyebrow at the practice : It ’ s easy , in this strange moment , to forget how far even outside the stretched norms of television news this is… Fabian Reinbold , a German foreign correspondent based in Washington , was also puzzled .
“ It would be considered highly inappropriate and corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting applause on Twitter by a lot of colleagues , ” Mr. Reinbold said .
“ Needless to say , there are plenty of such problems in the Fox News/Trump corner as well , but this surprised much more.
” Why does CNN allow it now when they didn ’ t used to let Cuomo interview his brother , asks Mandel ?
Internally maybe they justify it in terms of a “ new normal ” supposedly created by the pandemic : We ’ re All In This Together and we ’ re all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore it ’ s okay to suspend the trappings of adversarial journalism towards Andrew Cuomo , up to and including letting a blood relation goof around with him on air .
But I think they must also justify it in terms of the political identity CNN has cultivated during the Trump years as adversarial specifically towards Trump .
It ’ s not that they ’ ll never ask a challenging question of a Democrat , it ’ s more that asking challenging questions of Democrats is incidental to their mission at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll let Chris razz his big bro a bit on air .
Why not ?
They ’ re all on the same team .

I’m trying to imagine the media reaction if Hannity did a mid-pandemic interview as chummy as this with, say, Ron DeSantis. Except that’s not an apt analogy because:
1. Unlike Cuomo, DeSantis succeeded in avoiding an apocalyptic outcome in Florida.
2. Hannity’s not related to DeSantis so there’d be no glaring — glaring — conflict of interest in interviewing him.
Instead of asking his brother, @NYGovCuomo why he decided to pack COVID patients into nursing homes, killing untold amounts of people, @ChrisCuomo pulled out oversized, prop cotton swabs to mock how big his brother's nose was. This is the state of "journalism" on @CNN. Pathetic! pic.twitter.com/undeQMyVeN — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 21, 2020
The contempt for this spectacle isn’t strictly partisan. Vox’s Jane Coaston cringes:
If my sister became governor of Ohio, I would not interview her, because that would be a conflict of interest. If I worked for a television network, I could not then write about how awesome that television network was without mentioning that I worked for them. It’s not hard! — Jane Coaston (@janecoaston) May 21, 2020
Zaid Jilani too:
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1263310982102777858
Coincidentally, as the interview was playing out last night on CNN, the Times reported on a new model estimating how many American lives might have been saved if local authorities moved a tiny bit faster in late February and early March to mandate social distancing. New York is the epicenter of the disease in the United States and so the potential effects in New York were dramatic:
In the New York metro area alone, 21,800 people had died by May 3. Fewer than 4,300 would have died by then if control measures had been put in place and adopted nationwide just a week earlier, on March 8, the researchers estimated. All models are only estimates, and it is impossible to know for certain the exact number of people who would have died. But Lauren Ancel Meyers, a University of Texas at Austin epidemiologist who was not involved in the research, said that it “makes a compelling case that even slightly earlier action in New York could have been game changing.”
According to the expose published by Pro Publica last weekend, Cuomo was more reluctant than even Bill de Blasio to lock down New York City. He waited five long days after de Blasio floated the idea to actually pull the trigger. Combine that with his catastrophic policy of sending infected residents back into nursing homes and you’re left with the question of what the picture in New York would look like today if Gavin Newsom or Mike DeWine or Ron DeSantis were in charge instead.
A 90 percent reduction in deaths, maybe? More?
Happy fun time with the Cuomo brothers has been a recurring segment on CNN throughout the pandemic, by the way. It’s not something that just started as deaths in New York finally and mercifully began to recede and the mood in the city lightened. Seth Mandel points to this quote from all the way back in early April raising an eyebrow at the practice:
It’s easy, in this strange moment, to forget how far even outside the stretched norms of television news this is… Fabian Reinbold, a German foreign correspondent based in Washington, was also puzzled. “It would be considered highly inappropriate and corrupt back home, but here it is getting applause on Twitter by a lot of colleagues,” Mr. Reinbold said. “Needless to say, there are plenty of such problems in the Fox News/Trump corner as well, but this surprised much more.”
Why does CNN allow it now when they didn’t used to let Cuomo interview his brother, asks Mandel? Internally maybe they justify it in terms of a “new normal” supposedly created by the pandemic: We’re All In This Together and we’re all rooting for New York to recover and therefore it’s okay to suspend the trappings of adversarial journalism towards Andrew Cuomo, up to and including letting a blood relation goof around with him on air. But I think they must also justify it in terms of the political identity CNN has cultivated during the Trump years as adversarial specifically towards Trump. It’s not that they’ll never ask a challenging question of a Democrat, it’s more that asking challenging questions of Democrats is incidental to their mission at this point. So, sure, they’ll let Chris razz his big bro a bit on air. Why not? They’re all on the same team.


hotair--2020-05-21--Why is the Harris County CEO extending lockdown while Texas reopens?

The goalposts continue to shift during the coronavirus pandemic lockdown .
At a time when every state is now in the process of reopening to one degree or another , some local officials are finding it difficult to loosen their grip , even in the freedom-loving state of Texas .
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo announced yesterday that today she will sign an order that will extend the county ’ s ‘ Stay Home , Work Safe ’ order until June 10 .
The first reaction in my home upon hearing this during the late-night local news broadcast ( ok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me ) was what the what ?
This extension will have to be amended to comply with Governor Abbott ’ s order to reopen the state .
Hidalgo will hold a press conference today to clarify her decision .
As a reminder for those who do not live in Texas , a county judge is not necessarily an actual judge .
The title of County judge is given to the county CEO .
In the case of Ms. Hidalgo , she is not a lawyer .
It is a nonjudicial position .
Ms. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ‘ progressive ’ Democrat ( think AOC ) who embraces her inner Socialist .
She can thank the blue wave created by Beto O ’ Rourke in the 2018 election cycle for her victory .
Here ’ s the thing about Ms. Hidalgo ’ s premise – Texans are not trying to “ tempt fate ” , they are just easing back into reopening the state and getting some sort of life back .
We know there is no cure , there is no vaccine yet .
The whole reason the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week is that Texans have taken the coronavirus pandemic very seriously .
We have done what is expected of us .
We wear masks when necessary , we social distance when we are in public , and we ’ ve washed our hands raw .
Texans are protecting Texans and no one is complaining about that .
Texans are complaining about the heavy hand of authoritarianism from leftists who do not want to see a return to life as we knew it before the coronavirus pandemic .
According to Hidalgo ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least June 10 .
It will be amended to comply with the Gov .
Abbott ’ s orders to open up more of the state .
The Harris County extended order will strongly urge people in Harris County to take precautions against the spread of COVID-19 by staying home and working from home when possible .
She ’ s expected to announce the extended order in a news conference Thursday , May 21 .
“ The truth is that we are no safer today from this virus than we were in March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is still no vaccine , no treatment , no cure .
Thanks to the people of Harris County we have already saved thousands of lives from this awful virus , but we must stay the course .
I urge residents to continue to stay or work from home unless it is necessary to go out , and get tested if you feel you may have been exposed.
” Stay the course ?
Which course ?
The course that would have us remain home and businesses shuttered indefinitely or the course set by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ?
The latter course is the one that most Texans will choose .
One reason for Hidalgo ’ s latest decision to reissue a stay at home order may have to do with money .
Shocking , I know , for a politician to have dollar signs in her eyes .
When the Harris County Commissioner ’ s Court met Tuesday , May 19 , the commissioners voted to extend the county ’ s disaster declaration through June 10 .
It was set to expire yesterday , May 20 and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Previously set to expire May 20 , the disaster declaration allows the county to adequately respond to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic , Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo said during the meeting .
The declaration was first issued March 11 .
“ What we ’ re using it for right now , most importantly , is reimbursements from [ the Federal Emergency Management Agency ] , being able to submit those more easily and also , quick purchasing , obviously , in terms of issuing orders , the governor has pretty much taken that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a matter of being able to do the purchasing and the FEMA reimbursement , ” she said .
During that meeting , one county commissioner , a Republican , pointed out that he thinks the county is approaching the recovery phase , not stuck in the emergency phase .
He has requested reports from the county auditor ’ s office and county attorney ’ s office to be delivered during the next meeting outlining what purchases may need to be made by the county and if those purchases would be put in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the emergency phase .
Hidalgo pushed back , said Harris County is not in recovery yet and made comparisons to the days of the Spanish flu .
“ It seems like we ’ ve done a pretty good job in the county with regard to the curve and our percentages that are being impacted , ” Cagle said .
“ As you have said , everyone still needs to be careful and cautious and needs to be safe , but we still have a great deal of hospital bed availability ; we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the state and the rest of the nation ; and our percentage of population [ that has the coronavirus ] is fairly low .
… We ’ re now more in that recovery phase as opposed to the crisis phase.
” However , Hidalgo said while she was in favor of the reports , she believes the county is still very much in an emergency state .
“ We ’ re not in recovery .
We just had 118 new cases yesterday .
… We had a pseudo army of 296 contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re meeting virtually because … one of the council members came down positive at the city of Houston—the virus hasn ’ t gone anywhere , ” Hidalgo said .
“ It ’ s a very strange thing ; we ’ ve fallen into a bit of a new normal ; but that doesn ’ t mean [ we ’ re in recovery ] .
We may well be in the eye of the hurricane .
I hope we ’ re not.
” Hidalgo said she was concerned that by lifting the emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their personal health , which could lead to future outbreaks .
She added most other major Texas counties are likewise continuing to extend their respective disaster declarations into the month of June .
“ If you look at the curves from the Spanish flu , you see one little curve and then there ’ s a much bigger one later because I guess folks thought they beat the first curve and they were done , and so that ’ s what we really can ’ t let happen , ” Hidalgo said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing as a halfway disaster [ declaration ] .
We ’ re still in this disaster , [ and ] if things come back I may need this authority.
” Taxpayer money and the power to spend it is a hell of a drug , amirite ?
The Democrats on the commission ( the majority ) voted with Hidalgo .
The commissioners will consider further extensions ( ! )
of the emergency declaration at the next meeting , scheduled for June 9 .
Never let a crisis go to waste .

The goalposts continue to shift during the coronavirus pandemic lockdown. At a time when every state is now in the process of reopening to one degree or another, some local officials are finding it difficult to loosen their grip, even in the freedom-loving state of Texas.
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo announced yesterday that today she will sign an order that will extend the county’s ‘Stay Home, Work Safe’ order until June 10. The first reaction in my home upon hearing this during the late-night local news broadcast (ok, it was just my husband and me) was what the what? This extension will have to be amended to comply with Governor Abbott’s order to reopen the state. Hidalgo will hold a press conference today to clarify her decision.
As a reminder for those who do not live in Texas, a county judge is not necessarily an actual judge. The title of County judge is given to the county CEO. In the case of Ms. Hidalgo, she is not a lawyer. It is a nonjudicial position. Ms. Hidalgo is a 29-year-old political newbie, a ‘progressive’ Democrat (think AOC) who embraces her inner Socialist. She can thank the blue wave created by Beto O’Rourke in the 2018 election cycle for her victory.
This is no time to tempt fate. As folks settle into a new normal please remember we don’t have a cure, and people are still getting sick. Keep yourself and your family safe by social distancing as best as you can and avoiding unnecessary contacts. — Lina Hidalgo (@LinaHidalgoTX) May 19, 2020
Here’s the thing about Ms. Hidalgo’s premise – Texans are not trying to “tempt fate”, they are just easing back into reopening the state and getting some sort of life back. We know there is no cure, there is no vaccine yet. The whole reason the state has progressed to Phase Two of reopening this week is that Texans have taken the coronavirus pandemic very seriously. We have done what is expected of us. We wear masks when necessary, we social distance when we are in public, and we’ve washed our hands raw. Texans are protecting Texans and no one is complaining about that. Texans are complaining about the heavy hand of authoritarianism from leftists who do not want to see a return to life as we knew it before the coronavirus pandemic.
According to Hidalgo’s office, the order will go through at least June 10. It will be amended to comply with the Gov. Abbott’s orders to open up more of the state. The Harris County extended order will strongly urge people in Harris County to take precautions against the spread of COVID-19 by staying home and working from home when possible. She’s expected to announce the extended order in a news conference Thursday, May 21. “The truth is that we are no safer today from this virus than we were in March,” said Judge Hidalgo. “There is still no vaccine, no treatment, no cure. Thanks to the people of Harris County we have already saved thousands of lives from this awful virus, but we must stay the course. I urge residents to continue to stay or work from home unless it is necessary to go out, and get tested if you feel you may have been exposed.”
Stay the course? Which course? The course that would have us remain home and businesses shuttered indefinitely or the course set by the governor that slowly and responsibly reopens the state? The latter course is the one that most Texans will choose.
One reason for Hidalgo’s latest decision to reissue a stay at home order may have to do with money. Shocking, I know, for a politician to have dollar signs in her eyes. When the Harris County Commissioner’s Court met Tuesday, May 19, the commissioners voted to extend the county’s disaster declaration through June 10. It was set to expire yesterday, May 20 and it’s all about FEMA money.
Previously set to expire May 20, the disaster declaration allows the county to adequately respond to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo said during the meeting. The declaration was first issued March 11. “What we’re using it for right now, most importantly, is reimbursements from [the Federal Emergency Management Agency], being able to submit those more easily and also, quick purchasing, obviously, in terms of issuing orders, the governor has pretty much taken that authority, so right now it’s a matter of being able to do the purchasing and the FEMA reimbursement,” she said.
During that meeting, one county commissioner, a Republican, pointed out that he thinks the county is approaching the recovery phase, not stuck in the emergency phase. He has requested reports from the county auditor’s office and county attorney’s office to be delivered during the next meeting outlining what purchases may need to be made by the county and if those purchases would be put in jeopardy if Harris County moves out of the emergency phase. Hidalgo pushed back, said Harris County is not in recovery yet and made comparisons to the days of the Spanish flu.
“It seems like we’ve done a pretty good job in the county with regard to the curve and our percentages that are being impacted,” Cagle said. “As you have said, everyone still needs to be careful and cautious and needs to be safe, but we still have a great deal of hospital bed availability; we have a great recovery rate, especially compared to the state and the rest of the nation; and our percentage of population [that has the coronavirus] is fairly low. … We’re now more in that recovery phase as opposed to the crisis phase.” However, Hidalgo said while she was in favor of the reports, she believes the county is still very much in an emergency state. “We’re not in recovery. We just had 118 new cases yesterday. … We had a pseudo army of 296 contact tracers as of yesterday. … We’re meeting virtually because … one of the council members came down positive at the city of Houston—the virus hasn’t gone anywhere,” Hidalgo said. “It’s a very strange thing; we’ve fallen into a bit of a new normal; but that doesn’t mean [we’re in recovery]. We may well be in the eye of the hurricane. I hope we’re not.” Hidalgo said she was concerned that by lifting the emergency state, residents would become less cautious about their personal health, which could lead to future outbreaks. She added most other major Texas counties are likewise continuing to extend their respective disaster declarations into the month of June. “If you look at the curves from the Spanish flu, you see one little curve and then there’s a much bigger one later because I guess folks thought they beat the first curve and they were done, and so that’s what we really can’t let happen,” Hidalgo said. “There’s no such thing as a halfway disaster [declaration]. We’re still in this disaster, [and] if things come back I may need this authority.”
Taxpayer money and the power to spend it is a hell of a drug, amirite? The Democrats on the commission (the majority) voted with Hidalgo. The commissioners will consider further extensions (!) of the emergency declaration at the next meeting, scheduled for June 9. Never let a crisis go to waste.


hotair--2020-05-21--Breaking: Aunt Becky's going from Full House to big house in plea deal; <sp

Breaking: Aunt Becky's going from Full House to big house in plea deal; One question ...Update: Cohen out too

Remember that incredibly secure feeling the nation had when Felicity Huffman did two weeks in prison for her role in Operation Varsity Blues ?
Get ready for two more months of peace now that Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli have cut a deal and cut their losses with federal prosecutors .
On the other hand , looking at the deal , it ’ s tough to figure which side wanted to cut its losses in the college admissions scandal case : Lori Loughlin and her husband , Mossimo Giannulli , have agreed to a plea deal in connection with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The “ Full House ” actress and the fashion designer will serve two months in prison , pay a $ 150,000 fine and have two years of supervised release with 100 hours of community service for conspiracy charges , according to the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office in the District of Massachusetts .
Er … huh ?
That ’ s not all that much different than what the Department of Justice got from Huffman , who put up much less of a fight .
When Loughlin and Giannulli started fighting the original charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding on counts that could have gotten the two several years in prison and perhaps millions of dollars in fines .
Clearly they wanted to get more leverage on Loughlin and Giannulli , even if it felt very much like wildly over-prosecuting the couple for getting suckered by a huckster .
That doesn ’ t feel exactly like a win for the DOJ , especially given this set of parents ’ much-larger investment in Rick Singer ’ s fraudulent scheme .
Huffman paid $ 15,000 for corrupting an admissions test for one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Club Fed .
Loughlin and Giannulli spent $ 500,000 to get two daughters into USC and faked an athletic history to defraud the school .
Loughlin got a sentence four times longer than Huffman for offenses that seem much more than four times greater , at least under the prosecution ’ s theory of the case .
CNN reports , as does the NYT , that Giannulli will do five months and pay $ 250,000 , but that ’ s still not very much for all of this effort .
How much did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this couple just to get a few more weeks of work-farm imprisonment out of them ?
I ’ d guess it cost a lot more than the $ 400,000 combined fine , which will be a drop in the bucket for Giannulli .
This looks like both sides cutting losses and closing out embarrassing chapters in a strange case in which the real perps cut the best deals up front .
At some point , the Department of Justice needs to explain why they cut deals with Rick Singer and some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents .
No one ’ s an angel in this case , but shouldn ’ t prosecutors have actually targeted the people who profited off this scheme , rather than the morons who valued prestige over common sense ?
Update : Maybe we shouldn ’ t expect a peaceful feeling on this at all .
How does the DoJ propose to explain why Loughlin and Giannulli should go to prison in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic when they let Paul Manafort out on home confinement to serve a much longer term on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of other Varsity Blues defendants have had their sentences deferred already for the same reason .
If Manafort can do his time with an ankle bracelet to avoid the plague , why not Aunt Becky ?
Update : Speaking of which , Michael Cohen got the ankle-bracelet treatment today , too : This was supposed to have happened three weeks ago , and Manafort ’ s release ahead of Cohen ’ s raised questions about potential favoritism .
It now raises questions about jail time for people involved in this scam who didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
It ’ s not that they don ’ t deserve some form of punishment , but if we ’ re letting out perjurers and major fraudsters on the basis of health risk , why would we send Loughlin and Giannulli in to replace them ?

Remember that incredibly secure feeling the nation had when Felicity Huffman did two weeks in prison for her role in Operation Varsity Blues? Get ready for two more months of peace now that Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli have cut a deal and cut their losses with federal prosecutors. On the other hand, looking at the deal, it’s tough to figure which side wanted to cut its losses in the college admissions scandal case:
Lori Loughlin and her husband, Mossimo Giannulli, have agreed to a plea deal in connection with their involvement in the college admissions scandal. The “Full House” actress and the fashion designer will serve two months in prison, pay a $150,000 fine and have two years of supervised release with 100 hours of community service for conspiracy charges, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Massachusetts.
Er … huh? That’s not all that much different than what the Department of Justice got from Huffman, who put up much less of a fight. When Loughlin and Giannulli started fighting the original charges, prosecutors ramped up their case by adding on counts that could have gotten the two several years in prison and perhaps millions of dollars in fines. Clearly they wanted to get more leverage on Loughlin and Giannulli, even if it felt very much like wildly over-prosecuting the couple for getting suckered by a huckster.
That doesn’t feel exactly like a win for the DOJ, especially given this set of parents’ much-larger investment in Rick Singer’s fraudulent scheme. Huffman paid $15,000 for corrupting an admissions test for one of her children and got two weeks at Club Fed. Loughlin and Giannulli spent $500,000 to get two daughters into USC and faked an athletic history to defraud the school. Loughlin got a sentence four times longer than Huffman for offenses that seem much more than four times greater, at least under the prosecution’s theory of the case. CNN reports, as does the NYT, that Giannulli will do five months and pay $250,000, but that’s still not very much for all of this effort.
How much did it cost the DoJ to run down this couple just to get a few more weeks of work-farm imprisonment out of them? I’d guess it cost a lot more than the $400,000 combined fine, which will be a drop in the bucket for Giannulli. This looks like both sides cutting losses and closing out embarrassing chapters in a strange case in which the real perps cut the best deals up front.
At some point, the Department of Justice needs to explain why they cut deals with Rick Singer and some of the corrupt school officials and went after the parents. No one’s an angel in this case, but shouldn’t prosecutors have actually targeted the people who profited off this scheme, rather than the morons who valued prestige over common sense?
Update: Maybe we shouldn’t expect a peaceful feeling on this at all. How does the DoJ propose to explain why Loughlin and Giannulli should go to prison in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic when they let Paul Manafort out on home confinement to serve a much longer term on much more serious charges? A couple of other Varsity Blues defendants have had their sentences deferred already for the same reason. If Manafort can do his time with an ankle bracelet to avoid the plague, why not Aunt Becky?
Update: Speaking of which, Michael Cohen got the ankle-bracelet treatment today, too:
Michael Cohen arrives at his NYC apartment to serve the rest of his 3-year sentence at home. https://t.co/5FDocAGmiR pic.twitter.com/CO2ZoW3DZe — NBC News (@NBCNews) May 21, 2020
This was supposed to have happened three weeks ago, and Manafort’s release ahead of Cohen’s raised questions about potential favoritism. It now raises questions about jail time for people involved in this scam who didn’t see any monetary profit from it. It’s not that they don’t deserve some form of punishment, but if we’re letting out perjurers and major fraudsters on the basis of health risk, why would we send Loughlin and Giannulli in to replace them?


hotair--2020-05-21--Should it be a crime to take pictures of accident scenes?

After the crash of a helicopter carrying Kobe Bryant and several other people last year , a bit of a scandal erupted when it was determined that one of the sheriffs responding to the scene had taken photographs of the wreckage and the bodies of the victims .
Those photos leaked out into the public over social media , causing distress to the families of some of the victims .
But while certainly a tasteless thing to do , it wasn ’ t technically illegal so there wasn ’ t much to be done about it .
That will change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill introduced in the California Assembly makes it into law , however .
The bill ’ s sponsors are seeking to criminalize the taking or sharing of photographs of crime scenes or accident scenes by first responders .
( CBS Los Angeles ) A bill that would make it a misdemeanor for first responders to share accident and crime scene photos in the wake of the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash has passed through its first policy committee and is expected to get support Wednesday from Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva .
AB-2655 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike A. Gipson , D-Carson , after eight Los Angeles County sheriff ’ s deputies had been confirmed to be involved in taking or sharing photos of the helicopter crash site where the Lakers star , his 13-year-old daughter Gigi and seven others died… The photos that were shared were reportedly of the crash site and victims ’ remains , and had been shared by a deputy trainee trying to impress a woman at a bar a few days after the crash .
Anyone found committing this “ crime ” could be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year in jail and a $ 5,000 fine .
While it ’ s unsurprising to see California trying to criminalize virtually anything other than illegal immigration , this bill seems to have a number of problems .
As I mentioned at the top , it ’ s obviously distasteful to photograph a tragedy ( and particularly the remains of the recently deceased ) , but should it be illegal ?
Assuming the accident takes place out in public as most of them do , rather than on private property , people are generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want .
And unless you ’ re trying to profit from someone else ’ s image without their consent , you generally aren ’ t going to get into trouble for it .
This bill doesn ’ t apply to everyone , though .
It ’ s specifically targeting first responders , including law enforcement officers , firemen and paramedics .
That ’ s an awfully specific law , isn ’ t it ?
And even if you can single out first responders for punishment but not the general public ( which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t that just massively dilute the intended purpose of the legislation ?
If two cars wind up in a head-on collision , the police and ambulance workers responding to the scene would be forbidden from taking pictures , but everyone else rubbernecking as they pass by could whip out their phones and live stream all the action on Twitter .
Even if such a law were restricted to only crime scenes instead of including accidents it would still be on shaky ground .
When police respond to some perceived emergency situation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a while whether it ’ s actually a crime scene or just an unfortunate accident .
It ’ s understandable why the police wouldn ’ t want crime scene photos making the rounds in the early stages of an investigation , but it seems as if most first responders would already understand this and restrain themselves .
In order for this action to be limited to first responders , it seems to me that it would be better enacted as departmental policy in the first response units .
They could provide for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be violating the rules .
Making this a state law seems like an effort that ’ s doomed to fail if anyone challenges it .

After the crash of a helicopter carrying Kobe Bryant and several other people last year, a bit of a scandal erupted when it was determined that one of the sheriffs responding to the scene had taken photographs of the wreckage and the bodies of the victims. Those photos leaked out into the public over social media, causing distress to the families of some of the victims. But while certainly a tasteless thing to do, it wasn’t technically illegal so there wasn’t much to be done about it. That will change in the near future if a new bill introduced in the California Assembly makes it into law, however. The bill’s sponsors are seeking to criminalize the taking or sharing of photographs of crime scenes or accident scenes by first responders. (CBS Los Angeles)
A bill that would make it a misdemeanor for first responders to share accident and crime scene photos in the wake of the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash has passed through its first policy committee and is expected to get support Wednesday from Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva.
AB-2655 was introduced earlier this month by Assemblyman Mike A. Gipson, D-Carson, after eight Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies had been confirmed to be involved in taking or sharing photos of the helicopter crash site where the Lakers star, his 13-year-old daughter Gigi and seven others died… The photos that were shared were reportedly of the crash site and victims’ remains, and had been shared by a deputy trainee trying to impress a woman at a bar a few days after the crash.
Anyone found committing this “crime” could be in line for a maximum punishment of one year in jail and a $5,000 fine.
While it’s unsurprising to see California trying to criminalize virtually anything other than illegal immigration, this bill seems to have a number of problems. As I mentioned at the top, it’s obviously distasteful to photograph a tragedy (and particularly the remains of the recently deceased), but should it be illegal? Assuming the accident takes place out in public as most of them do, rather than on private property, people are generally free to take all the pictures they want. And unless you’re trying to profit from someone else’s image without their consent, you generally aren’t going to get into trouble for it.
This bill doesn’t apply to everyone, though. It’s specifically targeting first responders, including law enforcement officers, firemen and paramedics. That’s an awfully specific law, isn’t it? And even if you can single out first responders for punishment but not the general public (which is questionable to begin with), doesn’t that just massively dilute the intended purpose of the legislation? If two cars wind up in a head-on collision, the police and ambulance workers responding to the scene would be forbidden from taking pictures, but everyone else rubbernecking as they pass by could whip out their phones and live stream all the action on Twitter.
Even if such a law were restricted to only crime scenes instead of including accidents it would still be on shaky ground. When police respond to some perceived emergency situation, they frequently won’t know for a while whether it’s actually a crime scene or just an unfortunate accident. It’s understandable why the police wouldn’t want crime scene photos making the rounds in the early stages of an investigation, but it seems as if most first responders would already understand this and restrain themselves.
In order for this action to be limited to first responders, it seems to me that it would be better enacted as departmental policy in the first response units. They could provide for their own disciplinary measures for those found to be violating the rules. Making this a state law seems like an effort that’s doomed to fail if anyone challenges it.


hotair--2020-05-21--Minnesota Gov: Eateries can have 50 people. Churches? Ten

Minnesota is moving into the third phase of its reopening under Governor Tim Walz ’ s plan on June 1st .
After plenty of comments from the public , however , he ’ s been making last-minute changes to the plan .
The most recent update offered more opportunities for people to out for dinner and put some food in their bellies .
Food for the soul , on the other hand , still won ’ t be quite as available .
Restaurants will be allowed to host up to fifty customers on outdoor patio seating , but churches will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are indoors or outdoors .
( Washington Examiner ) Democratic Minnesota Gov .
Tim Walz announced on Wednesday that restaurants will be able to host up to 50 customers in outdoor seating but that churches will still be limited to 10 no matter the setting .
Walz announced several changes to his coronavirus policies that will take effect on June 1 , including the limited reopening of hair salons and tattoo parlors .
Under the new guidance , restaurants will be able to allow 50 customers to dine in on outdoor patios .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks , though it is not clear how customers would wear a mask while eating or drinking in the restaurant .
Churches were not granted more liberty by Walz .
Under the policy , indoor and outdoor religious services are still limited to 10 or fewer people .
Religious groups can still host drive-up services .
It ’ s not hard to see where the Governor ’ s priorities line up here .
The needs of people of faith clearly aren ’ t deemed as urgent as the need to allow restaurant owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could almost forgive this if the relative risks posed by the types of gatherings we ’ re talking about were reversed , but that ’ s not the case .
Congregants can make it through an entire sermon while wearing masks .
Diners have to remove their masks in order to eat or drink .
Unless you ’ re picking up a hymnal , you can get through the entire church service without touching anything but your chair/pew .
Diners will be touching silverware , glasses , condiments and napkins , so there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done .
These points have been raised to Walz already , but his only response was to say that the answer wasn ’ t “ perfect.
” He then launched into a rambling sort of answer about the “ predictability ” of people attending a church that wound up sounding like a striking impression of Joe Biden when his mind begins to wander .
“ I think , and I ’ m hearing strongly on this , of trying to figure out how we make that happen because I think the logic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , it was the predictability of who ’ s there .
But I think you could argue , ‘ Boy , I see the same people every Sunday at my congregation and , in fact , the Smiths sat in the same pew every year for 30 years , so we know exactly where they ’ re at and we know exactly where they are , ' ” Walz said .
What does that even mean ?
Even if you theoretically knew who was going to show up for church every week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wouldn ’ t that make it easier to enforce social distancing ?
Walz claims that he ’ s aware that he needs to “ fix ” the issue of church attendance but offered no plans of how to do so .
Nothing will be getting better when Minnesota reaches phase four of his plan , either .
At that point , churches will be allowed to have 20 people indoors and up to 100 people outdoors .
But restaurants will be allowed to begin serving indoors at that point with no maximum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remind Governor Walz that citizens have a Constitutional right to practice their religion , but there is no comparable right regarding going out to dinner .

Minnesota is moving into the third phase of its reopening under Governor Tim Walz’s plan on June 1st. After plenty of comments from the public, however, he’s been making last-minute changes to the plan. The most recent update offered more opportunities for people to out for dinner and put some food in their bellies. Food for the soul, on the other hand, still won’t be quite as available. Restaurants will be allowed to host up to fifty customers on outdoor patio seating, but churches will remain limited to 10 congregants whether they are indoors or outdoors. (Washington Examiner)
Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced on Wednesday that restaurants will be able to host up to 50 customers in outdoor seating but that churches will still be limited to 10 no matter the setting. Walz announced several changes to his coronavirus policies that will take effect on June 1, including the limited reopening of hair salons and tattoo parlors. Under the new guidance, restaurants will be able to allow 50 customers to dine in on outdoor patios. Customers and employees are encouraged to wear masks, though it is not clear how customers would wear a mask while eating or drinking in the restaurant. Churches were not granted more liberty by Walz. Under the policy, indoor and outdoor religious services are still limited to 10 or fewer people. Religious groups can still host drive-up services.
It’s not hard to see where the Governor’s priorities line up here. The needs of people of faith clearly aren’t deemed as urgent as the need to allow restaurant owners to get back into gear. You could almost forgive this if the relative risks posed by the types of gatherings we’re talking about were reversed, but that’s not the case. Congregants can make it through an entire sermon while wearing masks. Diners have to remove their masks in order to eat or drink. Unless you’re picking up a hymnal, you can get through the entire church service without touching anything but your chair/pew. Diners will be touching silverware, glasses, condiments and napkins, so there’s a lot more sanitizing to be done.
These points have been raised to Walz already, but his only response was to say that the answer wasn’t “perfect.” He then launched into a rambling sort of answer about the “predictability” of people attending a church that wound up sounding like a striking impression of Joe Biden when his mind begins to wander.
“I think, and I’m hearing strongly on this, of trying to figure out how we make that happen because I think the logic behind it, and I think, again, it was the predictability of who’s there. But I think you could argue, ‘Boy, I see the same people every Sunday at my congregation and, in fact, the Smiths sat in the same pew every year for 30 years, so we know exactly where they’re at and we know exactly where they are,'” Walz said.
What does that even mean? Even if you theoretically knew who was going to show up for church every week and where they were going to sit, wouldn’t that make it easier to enforce social distancing? Walz claims that he’s aware that he needs to “fix” the issue of church attendance but offered no plans of how to do so.
Nothing will be getting better when Minnesota reaches phase four of his plan, either. At that point, churches will be allowed to have 20 people indoors and up to 100 people outdoors. But restaurants will be allowed to begin serving indoors at that point with no maximum capacity specified. Perhaps someone needs to remind Governor Walz that citizens have a Constitutional right to practice their religion, but there is no comparable right regarding going out to dinner.


hotair--2020-05-21--Trump: Let's face it, Fox News is doing nothing to get me reelected

Early this morning , before Trump ’ s latest tweets about Fox , Robert Tracinski made a provocative comparison about how progressives and Trump view loyalty to their respective causes : “ It turns out that , just as you will never be woke enough , you will never be # MAGA enough.
” What he meant was that there are new litmus tests for wokeness all the time and failing any one of them is apt to call your woke cred into question even if you ’ ve passed all previous tests .
Your good standing as a soldier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the next test , not the ones you ’ ve already taken and aced .
You ’ re liable to be cast out for a wrong answer at any moment .
Same with Trumpism , said Tracinski , except there ’ s really only one litmus test there — doing and saying whatever Trump wants you to do and say at a given moment to back him up .
No matter how often you ’ ve complied previously , any refusal will call your MAGA bona fides into question .
Trump-style political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting his actions to pressure Ukraine over Biden and Burisma or as trivial as defending his off-label use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 even though there are still no solid clinical trials proving its efficacy .
Whether the drug works or not is beside the point .
You don ’ t defend HCQ because you have reason to believe it works , you defend it because Trump wants you to , because it would make him look bad to be out on that limb all alone .
This afternoon he went after Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lately .
Tracinski cited his recent weird bout of Fox-bashing as Exhibit A in how one can never quite be loyal enough to satisfy Trump .
As if to prove Tracinski ’ s point , he dropped this out of the blue : Running three hours of pro-Trump propaganda in primetime every day with the biggest cable-news audience in America isn ’ t enough to spare you from nasty criticism about some of your employees being “ garbage.
” Fox failed the new litmus test after passing the previous 50,000 , even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the litmus test was in this case .
What ’ s he mad about ?
Was it Cavuto scolding him a few days ago for taking hydroxychloroquine ?
Did some rando Democrat dare to say a critical word in an interview ?
Who knows ?
I had to google Chris Hahn and Richard Goodstein to find out who they were .
As for poor Juan Williams , imagine having an ego so fragile that the combined firepower in your favor of Tucker and Hannity and Ingraham and most of “ The Five ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributors like Dan Bongino isn ’ t enough to soothe you from the slings and arrows of the one liberal on the network who gets extended speaking time after 5 p.m. each day .
He really does want an out-and-out state media outlet , and made no bones about it by admitting in his tweet that he expects the network to work for his reelection .
No matter how close Fox gets to that model — and it ’ s a lot closer to unquestioning Trumpism now than it was circa 2015 under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neutral in the GOP primary — it ’ s not close enough to suit him .
Just as you ’ ll never be woke enough , you ’ ll never be MAGA enough .
My pal and Townhall cousin ( and Fox contributor ) Guy Benson gently pushed back in a tweet today : That ’ s a noble thought , and it should be true , but I say we poll Fox viewers and let them say what they think job one for the network should be .
Debates over Fox ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ news side ” and the “ opinion side ” but Trump ’ s making the straightforward point that sometimes the goals of those sides conflict .
When they do , which goal should take precedence ?
That ’ s a tension that exists in all partisan media — when the truth and the cause conflict , which should come first ?
— and different people answer it differently .
How do Fox ’ s audience prioritize between the two ?
I know which way I ’ d bet .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way .
So in a sense , Trump is right : If the audience wants a state-media outlet that works to reelect the president , why shouldn ’ t they get one ?
Fox is already 80 percent of the way there .
Why keep the 20-percent fig leaf of Juan Williams and Chris Goodstein or whoever ?
Be who you are .
Here ’ s Mark Cuban smuggling a truthbomb onto Hannity ’ s show last night and detonating it , which may be why Trump is grumpy today .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) nothing is that Trump is going after Fox lately not just because he fears losing in the fall and needs a scapegoat but because he might be thinking of launching a competitor to Fox next year if he ends up unemployed .
Remember that rumors of a “ Trump TV ” were swirling in October 2016 when it looked like he was going to fall short against Hillary .
Starting his own network would be a logical next act for him after the presidency for all sorts of reasons .
If he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now and then blames them for his defeat later , it ’ ll help convince outraged Fox fans to make the switch from ersatz Trump TV to the real deal in 2021 .

Early this morning, before Trump’s latest tweets about Fox, Robert Tracinski made a provocative comparison about how progressives and Trump view loyalty to their respective causes: “It turns out that, just as you will never be woke enough, you will never be #MAGA enough.”
What he meant was that there are new litmus tests for wokeness all the time and failing any one of them is apt to call your woke cred into question even if you’ve passed all previous tests. Your good standing as a soldier in the cause depends on your answer to the next test, not the ones you’ve already taken and aced. You’re liable to be cast out for a wrong answer at any moment.
Same with Trumpism, said Tracinski, except there’s really only one litmus test there — doing and saying whatever Trump wants you to do and say at a given moment to back him up. No matter how often you’ve complied previously, any refusal will call your MAGA bona fides into question. Trump-style political correctness can involve matters as weighty as supporting his actions to pressure Ukraine over Biden and Burisma or as trivial as defending his off-label use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 even though there are still no solid clinical trials proving its efficacy. Whether the drug works or not is beside the point. You don’t defend HCQ because you have reason to believe it works, you defend it because Trump wants you to, because it would make him look bad to be out on that limb all alone.
This afternoon he went after Fox News again, part of a pattern lately. Tracinski cited his recent weird bout of Fox-bashing as Exhibit A in how one can never quite be loyal enough to satisfy Trump. As if to prove Tracinski’s point, he dropped this out of the blue:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1263537560829255686
Running three hours of pro-Trump propaganda in primetime every day with the biggest cable-news audience in America isn’t enough to spare you from nasty criticism about some of your employees being “garbage.” Fox failed the new litmus test after passing the previous 50,000, even though it’s not quite clear what the litmus test was in this case. What’s he mad about? Was it Cavuto scolding him a few days ago for taking hydroxychloroquine? Did some rando Democrat dare to say a critical word in an interview? Who knows?
I had to google Chris Hahn and Richard Goodstein to find out who they were. As for poor Juan Williams, imagine having an ego so fragile that the combined firepower in your favor of Tucker and Hannity and Ingraham and most of “The Five” plus an endless array of hardcore MAGA contributors like Dan Bongino isn’t enough to soothe you from the slings and arrows of the one liberal on the network who gets extended speaking time after 5 p.m. each day.
He really does want an out-and-out state media outlet, and made no bones about it by admitting in his tweet that he expects the network to work for his reelection. No matter how close Fox gets to that model — and it’s a lot closer to unquestioning Trumpism now than it was circa 2015 under Ailes, when it was still nominally neutral in the GOP primary — it’s not close enough to suit him. Just as you’ll never be woke enough, you’ll never be MAGA enough.
My pal and Townhall cousin (and Fox contributor) Guy Benson gently pushed back in a tweet today:
Quick thought: It is not the job of a news network to help a politician win an election, even if many of its opinion personalities favor that outcome. It is the job of a news organization to include a wide array of perspectives. People with alternative opinions are not “garbage.” — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) May 21, 2020
That’s a noble thought, and it should be true, but I say we poll Fox viewers and let them say what they think job one for the network should be. Debates over Fox’s programming always devolve into comparisons between the “news side” and the “opinion side” but Trump’s making the straightforward point that sometimes the goals of those sides conflict. When they do, which goal should take precedence? That’s a tension that exists in all partisan media — when the truth and the cause conflict, which should come first? — and different people answer it differently. How do Fox’s audience prioritize between the two?
I know which way I’d bet. I’m pretty sure Fox management would bet the same way. So in a sense, Trump is right: If the audience wants a state-media outlet that works to reelect the president, why shouldn’t they get one? Fox is already 80 percent of the way there. Why keep the 20-percent fig leaf of Juan Williams and Chris Goodstein or whoever? Be who you are.
Here’s Mark Cuban smuggling a truthbomb onto Hannity’s show last night and detonating it, which may be why Trump is grumpy today. My tinfoil-hat theory based on (almost) nothing is that Trump is going after Fox lately not just because he fears losing in the fall and needs a scapegoat but because he might be thinking of launching a competitor to Fox next year if he ends up unemployed. Remember that rumors of a “Trump TV” were swirling in October 2016 when it looked like he was going to fall short against Hillary. Starting his own network would be a logical next act for him after the presidency for all sorts of reasons. If he starts building a stabbed-in-the-back narrative about Fox now and then blames them for his defeat later, it’ll help convince outraged Fox fans to make the switch from ersatz Trump TV to the real deal in 2021.


hotair--2020-05-21--Julia Roberts passes the mic to Dr. Fauci on social media

Celebrities are teaming up with scientists and other experts around the world to get out information about the coronavirus pandemic .
The celebrities relinquish their social media accounts for a day and allow experts to spread their knowledge with the help of their followers .
At least that ’ s the idea behind # PassTheMic .
The central focus is to be on the need for a unified global response to the pandemic .
The celebrity that is launching the project is Julia Roberts and she ’ s offering up her followers as an audience for Dr. Fauci on Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks .
“ Creates a more just and equal world ” ?
Excuse me , but the pandemic is a public health crisis that enabled world leaders to shut down their countries to mitigate its spread which created an economic collapse .
That domino effect has created untold hardships on everyone , not just those that social justice warriors usually focus on .
This sounds more like a vehicle for globalists to push their fever dreams , which almost always means the United States will be called upon to bear the burden of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not hold my breath for everyone to point a finger at the country of origin for the coronavirus pandemic , China , and call on its evil dictator to make the world whole again .
It sounds like a 2020 version of We Are The World , doesn ’ t it ?
That was a benefit corroboration of American musicians and performers who recorded a single song to raise money during a famine in Africa in 1985 .
Will a virtual information dissemination campaign play as well ?
Probably not .
From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Julia Roberts ( 8.7 million followers ) or maybe Hugh Jackman ( 14.2 million followers ) are the biggest names involved .
Shailene Woodley , Rainn Wilson , Penelope Cruz , Yemi Alade , Connie Britton , Millie Bobby Brown , Danai Gurira , Hugh Jackman , David Oyelowo , Sarah Jessica Parker , Busy Philipps , Rita Wilson , Robin Wright and more .
For reference , President Trump has 30 million followers on Twitter alone .
Instagram , Facebook , and Twitter will all be used , though I imagine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take advantage of its ‘ stories ’ feature .
You may have noticed at the end of Julia ’ s Instagram post with Fauci , she uses the hashtag # dontdrinkbleach .
She sounds like Joe Biden when he tells people not to inject Clorox bleach .
It ’ s not surprising that Dr. Fauci will help kick off this initiative .
He ’ s been promoted to rock-star status for his part in the White House coronavirus task force , though Dr. Birx is the lead .
Fauci is a frequent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as taking advantage of less conventional media , like podcasts .
The left loves him when he contradicts something Trump says during a task force press briefing .
Fauci has had to change positions on some of his advice .
The coronavirus is a virus not seen before and uncertainties about mitigation have played a part in why consistent , reliable information is needed .
Remember , Fauci was against the masses wearing masks before he was for it .
More recently he has switched to being a cloud of doom and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .
There is plenty of misinformation to be found on social media .
The experts have had things wrong along the way , too .

Celebrities are teaming up with scientists and other experts around the world to get out information about the coronavirus pandemic. The celebrities relinquish their social media accounts for a day and allow experts to spread their knowledge with the help of their followers.
At least that’s the idea behind #PassTheMic. The central focus is to be on the need for a unified global response to the pandemic. The celebrity that is launching the project is Julia Roberts and she’s offering up her followers as an audience for Dr. Fauci on Thursday. This project will last for three weeks.
The #PassTheMic campaign, announced Wednesday, is part of the ONE World Campaign and calls “for a global response to COVID-19 that protects the most vulnerable, supports people worst hit economically, strengthens health systems and creates a more just and equal world.” It’s run by ONE, a global campaign to end extreme poverty and preventable disease by 2030.
“Creates a more just and equal world”? Excuse me, but the pandemic is a public health crisis that enabled world leaders to shut down their countries to mitigate its spread which created an economic collapse. That domino effect has created untold hardships on everyone, not just those that social justice warriors usually focus on. This sounds more like a vehicle for globalists to push their fever dreams, which almost always means the United States will be called upon to bear the burden of saving the world. I’ll not hold my breath for everyone to point a finger at the country of origin for the coronavirus pandemic, China, and call on its evil dictator to make the world whole again.
It sounds like a 2020 version of We Are The World, doesn’t it? That was a benefit corroboration of American musicians and performers who recorded a single song to raise money during a famine in Africa in 1985. Will a virtual information dissemination campaign play as well? Probably not. From the names listed, it looks as though Julia Roberts (8.7 million followers) or maybe Hugh Jackman (14.2 million followers) are the biggest names involved. Shailene Woodley, Rainn Wilson, Penelope Cruz, Yemi Alade, Connie Britton, Millie Bobby Brown, Danai Gurira, Hugh Jackman, David Oyelowo, Sarah Jessica Parker, Busy Philipps, Rita Wilson, Robin Wright and more. For reference, President Trump has 30 million followers on Twitter alone. Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter will all be used, though I imagine that Instagram will be the most popular platform to take advantage of its ‘stories’ feature.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAdEZzBAvzf/
You may have noticed at the end of Julia’s Instagram post with Fauci, she uses the hashtag #dontdrinkbleach. She sounds like Joe Biden when he tells people not to inject Clorox bleach.
It’s not surprising that Dr. Fauci will help kick off this initiative. He’s been promoted to rock-star status for his part in the White House coronavirus task force, though Dr. Birx is the lead. Fauci is a frequent guest on network and cable networks as well as taking advantage of less conventional media, like podcasts. The left loves him when he contradicts something Trump says during a task force press briefing.
Fauci has had to change positions on some of his advice. The coronavirus is a virus not seen before and uncertainties about mitigation have played a part in why consistent, reliable information is needed. Remember, Fauci was against the masses wearing masks before he was for it. More recently he has switched to being a cloud of doom and gloom in response to plans to reopen America. There is plenty of misinformation to be found on social media. The experts have had things wrong along the way, too.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CAZh43enjRA/?utm_source=ig_embed


hotair--2020-05-22--Kelly Loeffler: Not dropping out of Senate race, in it to win it

Don ’ t count out Senator Kelly Loeffler in the Senate race , at least not yet .
The question was asked of her during an interview with Politico Thursday .
As mentioned earlier this week , tongues are wagging that perhaps the time has come for Loeffler to gracefully end her campaign , given her recent troubles as they are related to possible insider trading trouble .
Senators Burr , Feinstein , and Loeffler have come under investigation for stock transactions after COVID-19 briefings earlier this year .
Loeffler was also interviewed by the FEC .
It should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are innocent .
Feinstein says her investment banker husband ’ s financial dealings are completely separate from hers .
Loeffler , married to Jeffrey Sprecher , chairman of the New York Stock Exchange , says her holdings are in a blind trust , managed by a third party .
Senator Burr ’ s brother-in-law is a target in the FBI ’ s investigations .
None of this is good if a politician is running for re-election , or in the case of Loeffler , running to be elected to a full term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Senate Intelligence Committee .
It ’ s been a bumpy ride for Senator Loeffler from the start of her time in the Senate .
At the time that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp appointed her to fill the vacancy that Senator Isakson ’ s resignation due to health reasons caused , she faced strong competition for the appointment from Rep. Doug Collins .
Collins is a Trump loyalist and was a fierce voice of support when the Impeachmentpoolza circus came to town .
Loeffler was favored by Gov .
Kemp as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring along Independent and women voters in the 2020 election .
Though Trump personally lobbied Kemp for Collins , he chose Loeffler .
Kemp immediately declared he would challenge her for the seat in 2020 .
Senator Loeffler has tried to do all she can to beat back the bad publicity caused by the questionable financial transactions .
Seizing the opportunity to firm up his lead over her in the polls , Collins has pounced , to use a popular phrase coming from the left these days .
Since news of her stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erase the cloud hanging over her .
She insists her financial transactions were done through a third-party adviser , vowed to divest from her individual stocks and recused herself from a Senate agriculture subcommittee .
She ’ s also donated $ 1 million to provide food for hungry Georgians during the economic crisis .
But Loeffler ’ s portfolio threatens to overshadow everything else .
And Collins knows it .
“ Instead of working for the people of Georgia for the past five months in D.C. , she seems to have been working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview Thursday .
“ Because all she ’ s been able to do is have to explain her stock scandal and left her doing nothing else more than that.
” Loeffler blames the liberal media and says she is just a supporter of free enterprise .
She hasn ’ t answered the question of if the FBI has contacted her for an interview or whether she ’ s requested an Ethics Committee investigation into her own finances , as Burr did .
So far , all she admits to is that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she says she ’ ll cooperate with any SEC or Ethics Committee investigations that may come .
None of the interparty fightings between Loeffler and Collins is good for the party and its chances of victory in the November election .
Senator Perdue , the other Republican in the U.S. Senate , is also up for re-election .
Perdue hasn ’ t weighed in if he ’ ll campaign for Loeffler or not , especially given restrictions in place now due to the coronavirus pandemic .
Campaigning in 2020 is different than in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hesitant , can simply point to not wanting to appear together with Loeffler due to the virus .
It ’ s getting ugly between Loeffler and Collins .
Georgia has a jungle primary and Collins has led Loeffler in polling .
Neither is taking any criticism without responding in like .
Loeffler notes her surprise that she is not only being attacked from the left , which she expected , but also from the right .
I hope Kelly Loeffler hangs in there and continues to run for a full term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Georgia so far .
She voted to acquit Trump in the Senate impeachment trial .
She has worked to secure relief for Georgia during the coronavirus pandemic through the CARES Act and she has introduced proposals for economic recovery .
The senator has the backing of many of her Senate GOP colleagues as well as the National Republican Senatorial Committee .
One thing that both candidates are keeping hope alive for , no doubt – an endorsement from Trump .
That would be a game-changer .

Don’t count out Senator Kelly Loeffler in the Senate race, at least not yet. The question was asked of her during an interview with Politico Thursday. As mentioned earlier this week, tongues are wagging that perhaps the time has come for Loeffler to gracefully end her campaign, given her recent troubles as they are related to possible insider trading trouble.
“Not only am I not dropping out, but I’m gonna win,” Loeffler said Thursday. “And no one’s going to intimidate me into thinking that that’s the right course for our party, for our state, for our country. I’m working hard to help reelect the president. I’m working hard to win my seat and keep the Senate in Republican hands.”
Senators Burr, Feinstein, and Loeffler have come under investigation for stock transactions after COVID-19 briefings earlier this year. Loeffler was also interviewed by the FEC. It should be noted that both Feinstein and Loeffler say they are innocent. Feinstein says her investment banker husband’s financial dealings are completely separate from hers. Loeffler, married to Jeffrey Sprecher, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, says her holdings are in a blind trust, managed by a third party. Senator Burr’s brother-in-law is a target in the FBI’s investigations. None of this is good if a politician is running for re-election, or in the case of Loeffler, running to be elected to a full term. Burr has stepped down as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
It’s been a bumpy ride for Senator Loeffler from the start of her time in the Senate. At the time that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp appointed her to fill the vacancy that Senator Isakson’s resignation due to health reasons caused, she faced strong competition for the appointment from Rep. Doug Collins. Collins is a Trump loyalist and was a fierce voice of support when the Impeachmentpoolza circus came to town. Loeffler was favored by Gov. Kemp as a person who could fill the vacancy and bring along Independent and women voters in the 2020 election. Though Trump personally lobbied Kemp for Collins, he chose Loeffler. Collins immediately declared he would challenge her for the seat in 2020.
Senator Loeffler has tried to do all she can to beat back the bad publicity caused by the questionable financial transactions. Seizing the opportunity to firm up his lead over her in the polls, Collins has pounced, to use a popular phrase coming from the left these days.
Since news of her stock trades broke, Loeffler has tried to erase the cloud hanging over her. She insists her financial transactions were done through a third-party adviser, vowed to divest from her individual stocks and recused herself from a Senate agriculture subcommittee. She’s also donated $1 million to provide food for hungry Georgians during the economic crisis. But Loeffler’s portfolio threatens to overshadow everything else. And Collins knows it. “Instead of working for the people of Georgia for the past five months in D.C., she seems to have been working for herself,” he said in an interview Thursday. “Because all she’s been able to do is have to explain her stock scandal and left her doing nothing else more than that.”
Loeffler blames the liberal media and says she is just a supporter of free enterprise. She hasn’t answered the question of if the FBI has contacted her for an interview or whether she’s requested an Ethics Committee investigation into her own finances, as Burr did. So far, all she admits to is that she has turned over pertinent documents, though she says she’ll cooperate with any SEC or Ethics Committee investigations that may come.
None of the interparty fightings between Loeffler and Collins is good for the party and its chances of victory in the November election. Senator Perdue, the other Republican in the U.S. Senate, is also up for re-election. Perdue hasn’t weighed in if he’ll campaign for Loeffler or not, especially given restrictions in place now due to the coronavirus pandemic. Campaigning in 2020 is different than in traditional elections. Perdue, if he is hesitant, can simply point to not wanting to appear together with Loeffler due to the virus.
It’s getting ugly between Loeffler and Collins. Georgia has a jungle primary and Collins has led Loeffler in polling. Neither is taking any criticism without responding in like. Loeffler notes her surprise that she is not only being attacked from the left, which she expected, but also from the right.
Loeffler has indicated she’s ready to go on the offensive, describing Collins in the interview as a “do-nothing, career politician who has tax and spend as a strategy.” Collins retorted: “It’s amazing she can read a cue card from her consultants.”
I hope Kelly Loeffler hangs in there and continues to run for a full term. She’s been a good senator for Georgia so far. She voted to acquit Trump in the Senate impeachment trial. She has worked to secure relief for Georgia during the coronavirus pandemic through the CARES Act and she has introduced proposals for economic recovery. The senator has the backing of many of her Senate GOP colleagues as well as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. One thing that both candidates are keeping hope alive for, no doubt – an endorsement from Trump. That would be a game-changer.
Update: In one instance, the post named Kemp as the person challenging Loeffler; it has been corrected to read “Collins.” Our apology for the error.