hotair--2020-06-09--Joe Biden's caveat on not defunding the police

Yesterday , Allahpundit looked at the moment when Joe Biden answered the question many of us were itching to hear .
Would he go along with the most radical left-leaning portion of his base and suggest that we need to defund the police ?
To the great disappointment of the Trump campaign , Uncle Joe said that no , he wouldn ’ t support that .
It ’ s a pity because , as I ’ ve previously noted , that one quote would have made the only campaign advertisement that Trump would need to run for the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that comes with some risk to the enthusiasm of the progressive base in general and Black voters in particular .
But probably not that much .
Polling has shown that while there ’ s been a significant swing in how Americans feel about the question of whether or not the police treat African-Americans differently than whites , support for defunding our police forces remains in the low teens .
But let ’ s get back to Biden ’ s denial of his support for defunding .
While he said no initially , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caveat .
This was picked up at the Los Angeles Times yesterday .
( Emphasis added ) Biden supporters think it will be hard for Trump to portray him as a fringe radical .
In an interview Monday on CBS , Biden said , “ No , I don ’ t support defunding the police .
I support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain standards of decency and honorableness and , in fact , are able to demonstrate they can protect the community and everybody in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening here is one of those great inflection points in American history , for real , in terms of civil liberties , civil rights and just treating people with dignity , ” he said .
Notice how Biden cleverly says he supports “ conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain standards of decency.
” All police departments around the country rely on government funding from a combination of sources to keep the lights on .
They receive , local , municipal , state and federal funding through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve had to sit through local budget meetings covering the police budget and I can tell you that it ’ s frequently a hot mess . )
A lot of the possible federal funding comes in the form of grants that the municipalities can apply for if they qualify .
What Biden clearly seems to be stating here is that , under his administration , restrictions could be placed on those grants .
If the local police department doesn ’ t toe the line with federal mandates about how they do their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would become ineligible for the grant funds .
In other words , police departments not toeing the federal line on police reform would have their funding cut .
What Biden just proposed was a way to not defund all of the police , but just the ones that don ’ t structure their operational policies in accordance with federal wishes .
Does any of this sound familiar to you ?
If so , you might be thinking of Donald Trump ’ s attempts to condition federal law enforcement grant money to cities based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assist federal immigration enforcement efforts .
And weren ’ t we told that this was a bad thing repeatedly by the media and the Democrats ?
None of this makes for a great bumper sticker or 30-second campaign ad .
But the substance underlying the question is a legitimate one .
Joe Biden is obviously talking about at least partially defunding police departments and using a tool straight out of Donald Trump ’ s playbook to do it .
Will anyone be bringing this point to the attention of the broader public ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but Team Trump should be at work on this already for the debates .

Yesterday, Allahpundit looked at the moment when Joe Biden answered the question many of us were itching to hear. Would he go along with the most radical left-leaning portion of his base and suggest that we need to defund the police? To the great disappointment of the Trump campaign, Uncle Joe said that no, he wouldn’t support that. It’s a pity because, as I’ve previously noted, that one quote would have made the only campaign advertisement that Trump would need to run for the rest of the year. As AP noted, that comes with some risk to the enthusiasm of the progressive base in general and Black voters in particular. But probably not that much. Polling has shown that while there’s been a significant swing in how Americans feel about the question of whether or not the police treat African-Americans differently than whites, support for defunding our police forces remains in the low teens.
But let’s get back to Biden’s denial of his support for defunding. While he said no initially, he followed that up with a rather significant caveat. This was picked up at the Los Angeles Times yesterday. (Emphasis added)
Biden supporters think it will be hard for Trump to portray him as a fringe radical. In an interview Monday on CBS, Biden said, “No, I don’t support defunding the police. I support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain standards of decency and honorableness and, in fact, are able to demonstrate they can protect the community and everybody in the community. “What’s happening here is one of those great inflection points in American history, for real, in terms of civil liberties, civil rights and just treating people with dignity,” he said.
Notice how Biden cleverly says he supports “conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain standards of decency.”
All police departments around the country rely on government funding from a combination of sources to keep the lights on. They receive, local, municipal, state and federal funding through a variety of channels. (I’ve had to sit through local budget meetings covering the police budget and I can tell you that it’s frequently a hot mess.) A lot of the possible federal funding comes in the form of grants that the municipalities can apply for if they qualify.
What Biden clearly seems to be stating here is that, under his administration, restrictions could be placed on those grants. If the local police department doesn’t toe the line with federal mandates about how they do their jobs “decently and honorably” they would become ineligible for the grant funds. In other words, police departments not toeing the federal line on police reform would have their funding cut. What Biden just proposed was a way to not defund all of the police, but just the ones that don’t structure their operational policies in accordance with federal wishes.
Does any of this sound familiar to you? If so, you might be thinking of Donald Trump’s attempts to condition federal law enforcement grant money to cities based on whether or not they agreed to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts. And weren’t we told that this was a bad thing repeatedly by the media and the Democrats?
None of this makes for a great bumper sticker or 30-second campaign ad. But the substance underlying the question is a legitimate one. Joe Biden is obviously talking about at least partially defunding police departments and using a tool straight out of Donald Trump’s playbook to do it. Will anyone be bringing this point to the attention of the broader public? I won’t hold my breath, but Team Trump should be at work on this already for the debates.


hotair--2020-06-09--Report: Team Trump hoping that Dubya endorses Biden

This story reads more like an attempt to pre-spin an outcome Team Trump doesn ’ t want than to encourage an outcome that it does want .
Sort of a “ you can ’ t quit , you ’ re fired ” message to Bush in the expectation that he is indeed preparing to “ quit , ” so to speak .
The Times reported a few days ago that people familiar with Bush ’ s thinking say he won ’ t support Trump this fall .
Bush ’ s spokesman rushed out a statement insisting that that was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ retired from presidential politics.
” Why would Dubya be so reluctant to have Republicans think he was preparing to cross the aisle ?
For the same reason , I think , that Jeb Bush “ isn ’ t sure how he ’ ll vote , ” according to the Times .
Namely , they don ’ t want to sabotage the chances of Jeb ’ s son , George P. Bush , for higher office .
GPB is currently land commissioner in Texas and a potential future gubernatorial nominee .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsing Biden , Republican leaders in Texas and beyond may hold it against GPB .
And he knows it : He told the Dallas Morning News today that he plans to vote for the president this fall because “ President Trump is the only thing standing between America and socialism.
” So , no , I don ’ t think George W. or Jeb will be advertising their support for Biden if they end up ultimately voting for him .
But I don ’ t think Team Trump sincerely hopes Dubya crosses the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idiotic under the circumstances .
To Team Trump , a Bush endorsement of Biden would allow them to hitch a formerly unpopular GOP president and the personification of dynastic politics to the Democratic Party ’ s 2020 ticket .
They believe that Bush ’ s backing would drive the progressive wing of the party into a tizzy , especially if the Democratic nominee were to accept and promote it , creating internal strife for Biden at a time when he needs unity .
According to two people familiar with his private remarks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be “ fun ” if he could effectively run against both Bush and Biden .
These sources with knowledge of the president ’ s thinking say he views both Biden and Bush as emblematic of the political establishment that he successfully ran against in the last election , and that Trump continues to harbor a visceral distaste for members of the Bush family and administration .
“ We would LOVE him to officially endorse Biden , ” messaged a source close to the White House adding it “ would be such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s legacy on trade , big government policies , and “ constant war.
” One senior Trump campaign official even said that some on the team “ desperately ” wanted the 43rd president of the United States to come out for Biden 2020 , as it would make for easy messaging fodder .
“ I imagine we want it about as much as a lot of Biden people would not want it , ” the official said .
Why would it be idiotic ?
For starters , the strategy described in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so than a 2020 one .
Trump already squashed dynastic politics by defeating Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton four years ago .
The closest thing to a dynasty in America right now is the Trump family , as Don Jr clearly has aspirations to run for something going forward .
“ The establishment sucks ” is a good message when you ’ re an outsider running against the queen of America ’ s establishment .
“ The establishment sucks ” isn ’ t such a hot message when you ’ re president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic catastrophe , and riots happening .
Joe Biden ’ s as establishment a politician as there is in the U.S. and he ’ s currently eating Trump ’ s lunch in national polling .
In fact , his core campaign message — “ let ’ s get back to normal ” — essentially embraces the good old days of establishment rule .
Being endorsed by the guy who invaded Iraq wouldn ’ t help with that “ good old days ” message but it might not hurt as much Team Trump thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long way since he left office in 2008 : His likability , personal decency , and gracious silence during the Obama era as his policies were undone has earned him goodwill , and I ’ m sure some of those reluctant Trump voters in the suburbs still think of him fondly notwithstanding his foreign policy .
He wouldn ’ t drive many votes to Biden if he endorsed him but there ’ s no reason to think he ’ d cost more votes than he ’ d earn by doing so .
Someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president might be susceptible to persuasion by a politician they respect .
Bush could matter marginally .
I don ’ t think progressives would care either .
The Daily Beast interviewed several Dems for their story , asking them how they ’ d feel about Bush backing Biden , and no one said they ’ d balk over it .
Fine by me , said James Carville .
Fine by me too , said Jim Manley , former right-hand man to Harry Reid .
Most surprising was Rep. Ro Khanna , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as far left as AOC is .
( He co-chaired Bernie ’ s campaign . )
“ Our task is to build the broadest coalition possible , ” he told the Beast .
“ I began my career in public service running against Bush ’ s war in Iraq in 2004 .
But no one doubts his commitment to tolerance and inclusiveness.
” Progressives are well aware of Biden ’ s record on foreign policy , including his vote to invade Iraq , so having Bush endorse him wouldn ’ t tell them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If they ’ re willing to lay aside their grievances about Grandpa Joe in order to send Trump packing and propel their party to power , they ’ re willing to lay aside their grievances with Dubya for the same reason .
There ’ s one more reason why Team Trump would be nutty to want Bush on the other side : That ’ s the latest data from Texas , land of the Bushes .
Is Trump going to win there this fall ?
Probably .
Would making an enemy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause ?
Probably not .
He ’ s already in deep trouble in Arizona this year , having repeatedly antagonized the McCain family by dumping on John .
It ’ d be nutty for him to want to replicate that dynamic with another powerful political family in another crucially important state .
I think the whole “ please endorse Biden , Dubya !
” message is Team Trump preparing for that eventuality , and trying to frame it early as something they ’ d welcome , just in case it happens .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president himself .
Last night I mentioned that his campaign had reportedly conducted and then leaked an internal poll that showed him gaining on Biden even though other internal Republican polling looked flat for him .
The point of the leak was for Trump to boost Trump ’ s spirits , according to the Times — to “ calm his frustration ” about his political fortunes lately .
The Beast published another story this morning reporting a second psy op aimed at the president by his own aides , one that reportedly cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ] ver the past month , the Trump campaign has spent slightly more than $ 400,000 on cable news ads in the Washington , D.C. , area , buying time largely on Fox News but with some smaller buys on CNN and MSNBC as well , according to filings with the Federal Communications Commission .
The ads began running in late May and are scheduled through June 23 .
It is , on a purely electoral level , a remarkably quixotic use of campaign cash .
The purchases have no real shot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia into the Trump column… [ T ] wo knowledgeable sources—one a Trump campaign adviser , the other an individual close to the president—said the D.C.-area ads had another purpose as well : to put the president himself at ease .
In recent weeks , Trump has grown visibly distraught at his prospects for re-election , with recent polling showing his standing in the race declining dramatically in the wake of a sustained coronavirus outbreak and resulting recession , and as demonstrators flood major cities to protest the police killing of an unarmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Team Trump running ads in D.C. would be like Team Biden running ads in Wyoming .
The odds of moving votes locally in a meaningful way are so remote that you might as well light the money on fire .
In this case , though , the campaign wasn ’ t trying to persuade voters .
They were trying to persuade their own candidate that they ’ re working hard for him and doing battle with George Conway ’ s Never Trump outfit , the Lincoln Project , which had also run an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump might see it .
It ’ s bad enough that Never Trumpers would pay for airtime in Washington instead of , say , Michigan , but for Trump ’ s own campaign to waste its money is a sign of either absurd profligacy *or* a sign that Trump ’ s mood has deteriorated to the point that his political shop has to devote resources to actively managing it .
The “ we ’ d love Bush to endorse Biden ” stuff may be part of the same mood management .

This story reads more like an attempt to pre-spin an outcome Team Trump doesn’t want than to encourage an outcome that it does want.
Sort of a “you can’t quit, you’re fired” message to Bush in the expectation that he is indeed preparing to “quit,” so to speak.
The Times reported a few days ago that people familiar with Bush’s thinking say he won’t support Trump this fall. Bush’s spokesman rushed out a statement insisting that that was “completely made up” and that Bush is “retired from presidential politics.” Why would Dubya be so reluctant to have Republicans think he was preparing to cross the aisle? For the same reason, I think, that Jeb Bush “isn’t sure how he’ll vote,” according to the Times. Namely, they don’t want to sabotage the chances of Jeb’s son, George P. Bush, for higher office. GPB is currently land commissioner in Texas and a potential future gubernatorial nominee. If the Bushes make enemies of Trump by endorsing Biden, Republican leaders in Texas and beyond may hold it against GPB. And he knows it: He told the Dallas Morning News today that he plans to vote for the president this fall because “President Trump is the only thing standing between America and socialism.”
So, no, I don’t think George W. or Jeb will be advertising their support for Biden if they end up ultimately voting for him. But I don’t think Team Trump sincerely hopes Dubya crosses the aisle either. It’d be idiotic under the circumstances.
To Team Trump, a Bush endorsement of Biden would allow them to hitch a formerly unpopular GOP president and the personification of dynastic politics to the Democratic Party’s 2020 ticket. They believe that Bush’s backing would drive the progressive wing of the party into a tizzy, especially if the Democratic nominee were to accept and promote it, creating internal strife for Biden at a time when he needs unity. According to two people familiar with his private remarks on the matter, Trump has said it would be “fun” if he could effectively run against both Bush and Biden. These sources with knowledge of the president’s thinking say he views both Biden and Bush as emblematic of the political establishment that he successfully ran against in the last election, and that Trump continues to harbor a visceral distaste for members of the Bush family and administration. “We would LOVE him to officially endorse Biden,” messaged a source close to the White House adding it “would be such a gift to us” citing the 43rd president’s legacy on trade, big government policies, and “constant war.” One senior Trump campaign official even said that some on the team “desperately” wanted the 43rd president of the United States to come out for Biden 2020, as it would make for easy messaging fodder. “I imagine we want it about as much as a lot of Biden people would not want it,” the official said.
Why would it be idiotic? For starters, the strategy described in the excerpt reflects a 2016 mentality more so than a 2020 one. Trump already squashed dynastic politics by defeating Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton four years ago. The closest thing to a dynasty in America right now is the Trump family, as Don Jr clearly has aspirations to run for something going forward. “The establishment sucks” is a good message when you’re an outsider running against the queen of America’s establishment. “The establishment sucks” isn’t such a hot message when you’re president and there’s a pandemic, an economic catastrophe, and riots happening. Joe Biden’s as establishment a politician as there is in the U.S. and he’s currently eating Trump’s lunch in national polling. In fact, his core campaign message — “let’s get back to normal” — essentially embraces the good old days of establishment rule.
Being endorsed by the guy who invaded Iraq wouldn’t help with that “good old days” message but it might not hurt as much Team Trump thinks. Perceptions of Dubya have come a long way since he left office in 2008:
His likability, personal decency, and gracious silence during the Obama era as his policies were undone has earned him goodwill, and I’m sure some of those reluctant Trump voters in the suburbs still think of him fondly notwithstanding his foreign policy. He wouldn’t drive many votes to Biden if he endorsed him but there’s no reason to think he’d cost more votes than he’d earn by doing so. Someone who leans right but has misgivings about the president might be susceptible to persuasion by a politician they respect. Bush could matter marginally.
I don’t think progressives would care either. The Daily Beast interviewed several Dems for their story, asking them how they’d feel about Bush backing Biden, and no one said they’d balk over it. Fine by me, said James Carville. Fine by me too, said Jim Manley, former right-hand man to Harry Reid. Most surprising was Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California who’s about as far left as AOC is. (He co-chaired Bernie’s campaign.) “Our task is to build the broadest coalition possible,” he told the Beast. “I began my career in public service running against Bush’s war in Iraq in 2004. But no one doubts his commitment to tolerance and inclusiveness.” Progressives are well aware of Biden’s record on foreign policy, including his vote to invade Iraq, so having Bush endorse him wouldn’t tell them anything they don’t already know. If they’re willing to lay aside their grievances about Grandpa Joe in order to send Trump packing and propel their party to power, they’re willing to lay aside their grievances with Dubya for the same reason.
There’s one more reason why Team Trump would be nutty to want Bush on the other side:
That’s the latest data from Texas, land of the Bushes. Is Trump going to win there this fall? Probably. Would making an enemy of the Bush clan help him in that cause? Probably not. He’s already in deep trouble in Arizona this year, having repeatedly antagonized the McCain family by dumping on John. It’d be nutty for him to want to replicate that dynamic with another powerful political family in another crucially important state.
I think the whole “please endorse Biden, Dubya!” message is Team Trump preparing for that eventuality, and trying to frame it early as something they’d welcome, just in case it happens. The spin may even be aimed at the president himself. Last night I mentioned that his campaign had reportedly conducted and then leaked an internal poll that showed him gaining on Biden even though other internal Republican polling looked flat for him. The point of the leak was for Trump to boost Trump’s spirits, according to the Times — to “calm his frustration” about his political fortunes lately. The Beast published another story this morning reporting a second psy op aimed at the president by his own aides, one that reportedly cost $400,000 of donor money.
[O]ver the past month, the Trump campaign has spent slightly more than $400,000 on cable news ads in the Washington, D.C., area, buying time largely on Fox News but with some smaller buys on CNN and MSNBC as well, according to filings with the Federal Communications Commission. The ads began running in late May and are scheduled through June 23. It is, on a purely electoral level, a remarkably quixotic use of campaign cash. The purchases have no real shot of moving D.C., Maryland, or Virginia into the Trump column… [T]wo knowledgeable sources—one a Trump campaign adviser, the other an individual close to the president—said the D.C.-area ads had another purpose as well: to put the president himself at ease. In recent weeks, Trump has grown visibly distraught at his prospects for re-election, with recent polling showing his standing in the race declining dramatically in the wake of a sustained coronavirus outbreak and resulting recession, and as demonstrators flood major cities to protest the police killing of an unarmed black man in Minneapolis last month.
Team Trump running ads in D.C. would be like Team Biden running ads in Wyoming. The odds of moving votes locally in a meaningful way are so remote that you might as well light the money on fire. In this case, though, the campaign wasn’t trying to persuade voters. They were trying to persuade their own candidate that they’re working hard for him and doing battle with George Conway’s Never Trump outfit, the Lincoln Project, which had also run an ad on D.C. television recently in hopes that Trump might see it. It’s bad enough that Never Trumpers would pay for airtime in Washington instead of, say, Michigan, but for Trump’s own campaign to waste its money is a sign of either absurd profligacy *or* a sign that Trump’s mood has deteriorated to the point that his political shop has to devote resources to actively managing it. The “we’d love Bush to endorse Biden” stuff may be part of the same mood management.


hotair--2020-06-09--WHO's on last: Pay no attention to report of "very rare" asymptomatic COVID-19 spread from, er ... u

WHO's on last: Pay no attention to report of "very rare" asymptomatic COVID-19 spread from, er ... us

Old and busted : Defund the World Health Organization over its ties to China !
New hotness : Defund WHO because they ’ re incompetent nincompoops .
A day after stunning the world and raising hopes by claiming asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 might be “ very rare , ” WHO walked it back today , leaving everyone even more confused about what the agency ’ s processes might be : Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove , who made the original comment at a W.H.O .
briefing on Monday , said that it was based on just two or three studies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say asymptomatic transmission is rare globally .
“ I was just responding to a question , I wasn ’ t stating a policy of W.H.O .
or anything like that , ” she said .
Dr. Van Kerkhove said that the estimates of transmission from people without symptoms come primarily from models , which may not provide an accurate representation .
“ That ’ s a big open question , and that remains an open question , ” she said .
If you missed it yesterday , read Allahpundit ’ s post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists scratching their heads .
It contradicted findings released just a few days earlier that showed a high risk for exponential transmission still remained .
If WHO ’ s announcement yesterday was correct , then social-distancing protocols could be simplified and a lot of businesses fully reopened .
The epidemiologist appears not to have thought much about those implications and the need for accuracy when answering questions .
Today ’ s walkback returns us to the status quo ante , albeit with a significant reduction in trust and credibility .
Rather than being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested that 40 % of cases might have gotten transmitted through asymptomatic carriers .
That , however , hasn ’ t been entirely settled yet either : Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove , head of WHO ’ s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit , said Tuesday that asymptomatic spread is a “ really complex question ” and much is still unknown .
“ I was responding to a question at the press conference .
I wasn ’ t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that .
I was just trying to articulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a live Q & A streamed across multiple social media platforms .
“ And in that , I used the phrase ‘ very rare , ’ and I think that that ’ s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare .
I was referring to a small subset of studies.
” Studies show that about 16 % of the population may be asymptomatic , she said .
Some models developed by other scientists suggest as much as 40 % of global transmission may be due to asymptomatic individuals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We don ’ t actually have that answer yet , ” she said .
Then why did they act as if they did ?
Andy Slavitt , a former Obama administration public health advisor , wonders about that too .
From now own , Slavitt says , the proper treatment for WHO ’ s statements will be the Ronald Reagan proviso of trust but verify .
Minus the trust part , natch : Actually , that ’ s similar to how humans understand “ defund ” as “ remove all funds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t trust WHO to grasp what “ very rare ” means and the impact of using that term in public pronouncements , how are we supposed to trust anything they say ?
Short answer is … we can ’ t : So basically , we ’ re at status quo ante and WHO can ’ t offer any disciplined insight into the COVID-19 pandemic .
Perhaps we should put our money into a multilateral group that can .
In the meantime , maybe we should take The Who ’ s advice and not @ @ @ @

Old and busted: Defund the World Health Organization over its ties to China! New hotness: Defund WHO because they’re incompetent nincompoops. A day after stunning the world and raising hopes by claiming asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 might be “very rare,” WHO walked it back today, leaving everyone even more confused about what the agency’s processes might be:
Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, who made the original comment at a W.H.O. briefing on Monday, said that it was based on just two or three studies and that it was a “misunderstanding” to say asymptomatic transmission is rare globally. “I was just responding to a question, I wasn’t stating a policy of W.H.O. or anything like that,” she said. Dr. Van Kerkhove said that the estimates of transmission from people without symptoms come primarily from models, which may not provide an accurate representation. “That’s a big open question, and that remains an open question,” she said.
If you missed it yesterday, read Allahpundit’s post on the announcement yesterday, which had scientists scratching their heads. It contradicted findings released just a few days earlier that showed a high risk for exponential transmission still remained. If WHO’s announcement yesterday was correct, then social-distancing protocols could be simplified and a lot of businesses fully reopened.
Psyche!
The epidemiologist appears not to have thought much about those implications and the need for accuracy when answering questions. Today’s walkback returns us to the status quo ante, albeit with a significant reduction in trust and credibility. Rather than being “very rare,” van Kerkhove suggested that 40% of cases might have gotten transmitted through asymptomatic carriers. That, however, hasn’t been entirely settled yet either:
Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said Tuesday that asymptomatic spread is a “really complex question” and much is still unknown. “I was responding to a question at the press conference. I wasn’t stating a policy of WHO or anything like that. I was just trying to articulate what we know,” she said on a live Q&A streamed across multiple social media platforms. “And in that, I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.” Studies show that about 16% of the population may be asymptomatic, she said. Some models developed by other scientists suggest as much as 40% of global transmission may be due to asymptomatic individuals, she said, clarifying her comments. “We don’t actually have that answer yet,” she said.
Then why did they act as if they did? Andy Slavitt, a former Obama administration public health advisor, wonders about that too. From now own, Slavitt says, the proper treatment for WHO’s statements will be the Ronald Reagan proviso of trust but verify. Minus the trust part, natch:
So why did the WHO express such certainty? Today we heard the following:
-that wasn’t a WHO opinion
-they had contradictory studies
-they have only one small non-peer reviewed set of observations — Andy Slavitt @ 🏡🇺🇸 (@ASlavitt) June 9, 2020
-pre symptomatic is when a lot of virus shedding happens (as they said)
-can’t tell pre symptomatic from asymptomatic ppl
-they refined the use of “very rare” to mean they were just talking about one set of non reviewed data
-meanwhile humans interpret very rare to mean VERY RARE — Andy Slavitt @ 🏡🇺🇸 (@ASlavitt) June 9, 2020
Actually, that’s similar to how humans understand “defund” as “remove all funds,” too. If one can’t trust WHO to grasp what “very rare” means and the impact of using that term in public pronouncements, how are we supposed to trust anything they say? Short answer is … we can’t:
But much much more humility & care should be expected from WHO. In the meantime if I were a reporter I would never source them until I fact check them. — Andy Slavitt @ 🏡🇺🇸 (@ASlavitt) June 9, 2020
So basically, we’re at status quo ante and WHO can’t offer any disciplined insight into the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps we should put our money into a multilateral group that can. In the meantime, maybe we should take The Who’s advice and not get fooled again …


hotair--2020-06-09--Moscow lifts lock down in advance of vote on Putin becoming President for life

On Sunday Russia reported nearly 9,000 new coronavirus cases and 134 additional deaths .
On Monday the Mayor of Moscow , who is also the leader of Russia ’ s coronavirus task force , announced that the lock down which had prevented people from going outside except for brief daily exercise or shopping , was being lifted .
The Moscow Times points out that while this seems like an odd moment to end the lock down , it makes perfect sense for President Putin : While Russia isn ’ t the only country easing coronavirus restrictions as the pandemic begins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it early on , it is doing so at a time when its caseload is significantly higher than in others… “ This appears to be a politically motivated decision to create an illusion that everything is safe , ” said Vasily Vlassov , an epidemiologist with Moscow ’ s Higher School of Economics .
The Mayor ’ s decision to reopen the city wasn ’ t made without prompting from Putin .
On June 1 , Russia ’ s Prime Minister , “ ordered an investigation into whether Moscow ’ s quarantine had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And suddenly , the mayor had a whole new attitude toward reopening the city .
There ’ s a clear reason why Putin is pushing for this now despite the large number of new cases still being reported .
Back in March , just before the United States began to shut down because of the virus , President Putin introduced plans for a series of changes to the constitution which would allow him to remain in power for life .
Now we ’ ve reached the point where he needs to open things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : On June 24 , Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to hold an annual Victory Day military parade on Moscow ’ s Red Square marking the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany , having had to postpone it from May 9 due to the coronavirus .
The event holds deep significance in Russia and Mr. Putin has frequently used it to extol Russia ’ s special place in history .
The Kremlin has said that it has invited several foreign dignitaries to the event , which will mark the 75th anniversary of the victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 1 by a national vote on constitutional changes that could allow Mr. Putin to remain in power until 2036 .
Originally scheduled for April 22 , the poll also was pushed back due to the pandemic .
“ It means there is a great need to demonstrate that we ’ re leading a normal life , that we are ready to support Putin ’ s ideas , and for that we must have a life that is much closer to normality than if you compare it to recent months , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carnegie Moscow Center .
Putin can ’ t hold a vote that will make him president for life while people are still trapped in their homes .
He needs to build up to the vote with a sense of national triumph : “ Everything currently happening has to be looked at through the prism of this vote , ” said Konstantin Kalachev , head of the Political Expert Group think tank .
“ This is all part of the orchestrated drama .
First the victory over the coronavirus , then the celebration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the culmination.
” The culmination is the vote to end any limits to Putin remaining in office until he is 83 years old .
Officially he will still need to run for office and win elections but no one doubts this will be a problem in a country where journalists who are critical of Putin have a habit of dying mysteriously .

On Sunday Russia reported nearly 9,000 new coronavirus cases and 134 additional deaths. On Monday the Mayor of Moscow, who is also the leader of Russia’s coronavirus task force, announced that the lock down which had prevented people from going outside except for brief daily exercise or shopping, was being lifted. The Moscow Times points out that while this seems like an odd moment to end the lock down, it makes perfect sense for President Putin:
While Russia isn’t the only country easing coronavirus restrictions as the pandemic begins to ebb among those countries gripped by it early on, it is doing so at a time when its caseload is significantly higher than in others… “This appears to be a politically motivated decision to create an illusion that everything is safe,” said Vasily Vlassov, an epidemiologist with Moscow’s Higher School of Economics.
The Mayor’s decision to reopen the city wasn’t made without prompting from Putin. On June 1, Russia’s Prime Minister, “ordered an investigation into whether Moscow’s quarantine had violated the rights of its residents.” And suddenly, the mayor had a whole new attitude toward reopening the city.
There’s a clear reason why Putin is pushing for this now despite the large number of new cases still being reported. Back in March, just before the United States began to shut down because of the virus, President Putin introduced plans for a series of changes to the constitution which would allow him to remain in power for life . Now we’ve reached the point where he needs to open things up in order to complete that plan:
On June 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to hold an annual Victory Day military parade on Moscow’s Red Square marking the Soviet defeat of Nazi Germany, having had to postpone it from May 9 due to the coronavirus. The event holds deep significance in Russia and Mr. Putin has frequently used it to extol Russia’s special place in history. The Kremlin has said that it has invited several foreign dignitaries to the event, which will mark the 75th anniversary of the victory. The parade will be followed on July 1 by a national vote on constitutional changes that could allow Mr. Putin to remain in power until 2036. Originally scheduled for April 22, the poll also was pushed back due to the pandemic. “It means there is a great need to demonstrate that we’re leading a normal life, that we are ready to support Putin’s ideas, and for that we must have a life that is much closer to normality than if you compare it to recent months,” said Andrei Kolesnikov, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center.
Putin can’t hold a vote that will make him president for life while people are still trapped in their homes. He needs to build up to the vote with a sense of national triumph:
“Everything currently happening has to be looked at through the prism of this vote,” said Konstantin Kalachev, head of the Political Expert Group think tank. “This is all part of the orchestrated drama. First the victory over the coronavirus, then the celebration of the victory over the Nazis, then the culmination.”
The culmination is the vote to end any limits to Putin remaining in office until he is 83 years old. Officially he will still need to run for office and win elections but no one doubts this will be a problem in a country where journalists who are critical of Putin have a habit of dying mysteriously.


hotair--2020-06-09--CNN: Here are some cities that scrapped their police and they're just fine!

Is CNN trying to pave the way for the abolishment of the Minneapolis Police Department ?
One might get that idea looking at a story that they tossed out today .
In it , they discuss whether or not such a plan is feasible and dig up a couple of examples of “ cities ” that have done the same thing in the past , with an eye toward how things worked out in the aftermath .
I found this story to be particularly ripe for a closer look by yours truly because I ’ ve lived quite close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worked at an office based in one of them for a few years .
And I ’ m here to tell you that there ’ s more to each of these stories than meets the eye from CNN ’ s descriptions .
The first one is Camden , New Jersey .
I lived about ten miles from there for a few years back in the eighties and it ’ s an experience I would prefer to be able to forget .
Camden is far smaller than Minneapolis , but at roughly 75,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a city .
And as CNN notes , it ’ s true that they did , in fact , break up their entire police department in 2012 .
Last week , Minneapolis officials confirmed they were considering a fairly rare course of action : disbanding the city police department .
It ’ s not the first locale to break up a department , but no cities as populous have ever attempted it .
Minneapolis City Council members haven ’ t specified what or who will replace it if the department disband .
Camden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closest thing to a case study they can get .
The city , home to a population about 17 % of Minneapolis ’ size , dissolved its police department in 2012 and replaced it with an entirely new one after corruption rendered the existing agency unfixable .
Back when I lived and worked in the area , Camden was , paraphrasing a description our President might choose , nothing short of a craphole .
It was a war zone .
Getting out of your car anywhere in the city at night was something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tired of life .
It was divided into a large number of sections of gang turf , roughly broken up by gangs of various nationalities .
The police were generally afraid to go out on foot there at night .
Yes , in 2012 , Camden ’ s totally dysfunctional police department was dismissed .
But unlike what Minneapolis is considering , it was only done so it could be immediately replaced by a new police department under new leadership .
( They did hire back roughly 100 of their old officers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Camden was actually “ without ” a police department was the period of time it took to sign a few papers .
Under new leadership , they have managed to decrease the crime rate by more than half , so God bless them .
Of course , considering where that rate started , it ’ s still a pretty dangerous place to go for a stroll .
The second “ city ” that ’ s mentioned in the article is Deposit , New York .
That ’ s less than an hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive past it regularly and have even found the occasional reason to go there .
And as CNN correctly notes , they “ dissolved ” their police department just this year .
Here ’ s the thing to know about Deposit , New York .
It has a total population of 250 .
No , I don ’ t mean 250 thousand .
I mean 250 men women and children , give or take a few .
The number of both horses and cows there is considerably larger .
If you click on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Google Maps aerial photo of the village .
I will warn you in advance that the picture is zoomed in to the point where the entire area displayed is roughly two miles across .
The street light ( singular ) in the center of town functions adequately and you ’ ll rarely be tied up in traffic unless some of the horses managed to get loose from the stables on the north side of town .
So , yes .
Deposit was spending roughly $ 200K per year on maintaining a functional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afford it .
But given that you can walk that entire area in roughly half an hour at a leisurely pace , one sheriff with the backup of the nearby State Police barracks is pretty much all they need .
Do you suppose the Sheriff is very busy ?
A quick glance at City Data will show you that the listed average crime rate for Deposit , New York is… zero .
Going back the past ten years on that chart you will see that there have been zero murders , zero rapes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( But to be fair to the suspect , Bob had downed a couple of beers first and Herb did say something about the size of Bob ’ s wife ’ s posterior . )
There were , admittedly , six burglaries in 2013 , a virtual crime wave by Deposit standards .
Oh , just in case you ’ re considering visiting this unprotected hamlet to commit some crimes of your own , I should probably warn you about one thing .
Everyone in Deposit has guns .
The children have guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of the dogs are armed .
Finding a stranger prowling around on their property uninvited probably won ’ t end well .
So anyway , neither of these stories offer us any insight into what would happen if you suddenly pulled the plug on the police in a city of 425,000 souls like Minneapolis , which already has a history of violence and crime .
Neither the experiences of the people of Camden or Deposit are remotely similar .

Is CNN trying to pave the way for the abolishment of the Minneapolis Police Department? One might get that idea looking at a story that they tossed out today. In it, they discuss whether or not such a plan is feasible and dig up a couple of examples of “cities” that have done the same thing in the past, with an eye toward how things worked out in the aftermath. I found this story to be particularly ripe for a closer look by yours truly because I’ve lived quite close to and visited both of them. I even worked at an office based in one of them for a few years. And I’m here to tell you that there’s more to each of these stories than meets the eye from CNN’s descriptions.
The first one is Camden, New Jersey. I lived about ten miles from there for a few years back in the eighties and it’s an experience I would prefer to be able to forget. Camden is far smaller than Minneapolis, but at roughly 75,000 people I suppose it still qualifies as a city. And as CNN notes, it’s true that they did, in fact, break up their entire police department in 2012.
Last week, Minneapolis officials confirmed they were considering a fairly rare course of action: disbanding the city police department. It’s not the first locale to break up a department, but no cities as populous have ever attempted it. Minneapolis City Council members haven’t specified what or who will replace it if the department disband. Camden, New Jersey, may be the closest thing to a case study they can get. The city, home to a population about 17% of Minneapolis’ size, dissolved its police department in 2012 and replaced it with an entirely new one after corruption rendered the existing agency unfixable.
Back when I lived and worked in the area, Camden was, paraphrasing a description our President might choose, nothing short of a craphole. It was a war zone. Getting out of your car anywhere in the city at night was something only undertaken by people who had grown tired of life. It was divided into a large number of sections of gang turf, roughly broken up by gangs of various nationalities. The police were generally afraid to go out on foot there at night.
Yes, in 2012, Camden’s totally dysfunctional police department was dismissed. But unlike what Minneapolis is considering, it was only done so it could be immediately replaced by a new police department under new leadership. (They did hire back roughly 100 of their old officers, though.) So the total time that Camden was actually “without” a police department was the period of time it took to sign a few papers. Under new leadership, they have managed to decrease the crime rate by more than half, so God bless them. Of course, considering where that rate started, it’s still a pretty dangerous place to go for a stroll.
The second “city” that’s mentioned in the article is Deposit, New York. That’s less than an hour from where I live now. We drive past it regularly and have even found the occasional reason to go there. And as CNN correctly notes, they “dissolved” their police department just this year.
Earlier this year, the village of Deposit, New York, dissolved its department because it cost $200,000 per year. Now, a single sheriff’s deputy is assigned to the village, CNN affiliate WICZ reported.
Here’s the thing to know about Deposit, New York. It has a total population of 250. No, I don’t mean 250 thousand. I mean 250 men women and children, give or take a few. The number of both horses and cows there is considerably larger. If you click on this link it will take you to a Google Maps aerial photo of the village. I will warn you in advance that the picture is zoomed in to the point where the entire area displayed is roughly two miles across. The street light (singular) in the center of town functions adequately and you’ll rarely be tied up in traffic unless some of the horses managed to get loose from the stables on the north side of town.
So, yes. Deposit was spending roughly $200K per year on maintaining a functional police force and they couldn’t afford it. But given that you can walk that entire area in roughly half an hour at a leisurely pace, one sheriff with the backup of the nearby State Police barracks is pretty much all they need. Do you suppose the Sheriff is very busy? A quick glance at City Data will show you that the listed average crime rate for Deposit, New York is… zero. Going back the past ten years on that chart you will see that there have been zero murders, zero rapes, zero robberies and one assault. (But to be fair to the suspect, Bob had downed a couple of beers first and Herb did say something about the size of Bob’s wife’s posterior.) There were, admittedly, six burglaries in 2013, a virtual crime wave by Deposit standards.
Oh, just in case you’re considering visiting this unprotected hamlet to commit some crimes of your own, I should probably warn you about one thing. Everyone in Deposit has guns. The children have guns. I’m pretty sure a couple of the dogs are armed. Finding a stranger prowling around on their property uninvited probably won’t end well.
So anyway, neither of these stories offer us any insight into what would happen if you suddenly pulled the plug on the police in a city of 425,000 souls like Minneapolis, which already has a history of violence and crime. Neither the experiences of the people of Camden or Deposit are remotely similar.


hotair--2020-06-09--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Defund sophistries, convention mysteries, Twin Cities appease, Christia

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Defund sophistries, convention mysteries, Twin Cities appease, Christianity's "secret" histories, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
Should we expect the unconventional from this year ’ s conventions ?
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twin Cities and from the fallout around the # DefundthePolice movement , including senior Democrats trying to backpedal .
Plus , we ’ ll also do a little Lightning Round , so get your questions ready !
• “ Christianity is the least-known religion in the Western world , ” writes Dr. Manfred Lütz in his new book The Scandal of the Scandals : The Secret History of Christianity .
It ’ s not because of a lack of information , Dr. Lütz explains , but because of a flood of misinformation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight on the backbone of Western civilization !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. Should we expect the unconventional from this year’s conventions? We’ll talk about the latest from the Twin Cities and from the fallout around the #DefundthePolice movement, including senior Democrats trying to backpedal. Plus, we’ll also do a little Lightning Round, so get your questions ready!
“Christianity is the least-known religion in the Western world,” writes Dr. Manfred Lütz in his new book The Scandal of the Scandals: The Secret History of Christianity. It’s not because of a lack of information, Dr. Lütz explains, but because of a flood of misinformation. Join us as he sets the record straight on the backbone of Western civilization!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-06-09--Senior Dems: Stop talking about defunding the police, please

Gee , why might senior Democrats on Capitol Hill get nervous about # DefundthePolice ?
Could it be that the slogan might not sound so catchy in the suburbs that gave them a House majority ?
Or could it be , as Sen. Joe Manchin ( D-WV ) put it , that the idea is “ stupid , it ’ s crazy and anyone who talks about that is nuts ” ?
Six of one , half-dozen of the other , I ’ d say .
Democrats want to distance themselves from the nihilism while pursuing their policing reform package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as easy as it looks : Top Democrats on Monday unveiled a sweeping reform bill for police forces .
But many are afraid their party will get dragged into a different story — activists ’ calls to “ defund the police.
” So senior Democrats are carefully — but forcefully — speaking out against the idea , hoping to stifle momentum before it overshadows their broader reform effort .
What Democratic leaders are saying : “ Don ’ t let yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police forces , ” House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned the caucus on a private call Monday night .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi , meanwhile , brushed aside questions about the idea , saying it was a “ local decision.
” And moderate Sen. Joe Manchin ( D-W.Va. ) delivered this blunt assessment : “ You can ’ t defund the police , that ’ s stupid , it ’ s crazy and anyone who talks about that is nuts.
” In a longer look at this , Politico notes that Democrats are starting to worry about all the pouncing that will take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it can be used as a distraction and that ’ s my concern , ” Rep. Karen Bass , chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus , told reporters on Monday .
“ I think the intent behind it is something that I support — the idea that communities need investments.
” With the GOP eagerly drawing up its attack ads , senior Democrats are hoping to stifle momentum for the idea before it overshadows their broader reform effort .
… Any misstep by Democrats could deliver Republicans a powerful political weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seizing on calls to “ defund the police ” to paint Democrats as radical leftists , just as they did with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s “ Green New Deal ” or demands to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
To illustrate how seriously Democratic leaders are taking the potential problem , several senior Democrats spoke out about it on a private caucus call Monday .
“ This movement today , some people tried to hijack it , ” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn ( D-S.C. ) told Democrats on the call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t let yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police forces.
” However , not everyone ’ s interested in the long game : Important reminder : The “ grassroots leaders ” that Ocasio-Cortez doesn ’ t want to “ demoralize ” are the same that elected the people who run the police departments now .
It ’ s this point , which Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen raises today , that might explain why more senior Democrats might have some reluctance to immerse themselves in nihilism .
Why aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defund ” the police taking responsibility for the way they have run those departments for decades instead ?
Oh , let ’ s not always see the same hands : Control and funding of police departments are entirely local affairs .
There is no federal or state constitutional requirement for any city to have a police department , and many smaller cities across the country do not .
Professional police forces did not even exist in the United States until 1844 , when New York City created the first department .
Minneapolis ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and its voters ’ — purview .
Police are far from the only important institution under primarily local control .
Public K-12 schools are still largely managed by locally elected school boards .
Local governments employ hundreds of thousands of people nationwide , and they contract with private firms to provide services that employ millions more .
The power of the local purse to impact employment decisions within a city or county ’ s boundaries is immense .
This power is largely held by Democrats in most of the city and county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For every Rudolph W. Giuliani who rises to power in a big city as a Republican , there are tenfold Democrats running local governments .
… None of this means that improving race relations and equality isn ’ t a matter for all Americans , including conservatives .
It is , and we should all work to treat everyone as a person equal in their humanity and dignity .
Anything less than that is a violation of our moral obligations and our national political creed .
It does , however , mean that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or state legislation can happen right now .
Hollywood doesn ’ t need a federal edict to hire more black directors and actors .
Colleges and universities don ’ t need a new Civil Rights Act to ensure that black candidates are preferred for leadership positions .
Cities and counties don ’ t need to wait for the repeal of the qualified-immunity doctrine to change the way their police forces operate .
They just need to align their deeds with their words .
So why don ’ t they align their deeds with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find scapegoats than to govern responsibly , that ’ s why .
Advocates demand more “ community policing , ” which would actually help — but would take more officers , better training , and therefore larger budgets .
Progressives in the Twin Cities have talked about “ community policing ” for years if not decades , but they haven ’ t invested in it .
And now they want to divest themselves from the police department they actually control in order to reduce or eliminate law enforcement and crime prevention altogether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to talk about this .
This is their party ’ s problem , and their party doesn ’ t have a solution to it .

Gee, why might senior Democrats on Capitol Hill get nervous about #DefundthePolice? Could it be that the slogan might not sound so catchy in the suburbs that gave them a House majority? Or could it be, as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) put it, that the idea is “stupid, it’s crazy and anyone who talks about that is nuts”?
Six of one, half-dozen of the other, I’d say. Democrats want to distance themselves from the nihilism while pursuing their policing reform package, but it won’t be as easy as it looks:
Top Democrats on Monday unveiled a sweeping reform bill for police forces. But many are afraid their party will get dragged into a different story — activists’ calls to “defund the police.” So senior Democrats are carefully — but forcefully — speaking out against the idea, hoping to stifle momentum before it overshadows their broader reform effort. What Democratic leaders are saying: “Don’t let yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police forces,” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned the caucus on a private call Monday night. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, brushed aside questions about the idea, saying it was a “local decision.” And moderate Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) delivered this blunt assessment: “You can’t defund the police, that’s stupid, it’s crazy and anyone who talks about that is nuts.”
In a longer look at this, Politico notes that Democrats are starting to worry about all the pouncing that will take place by you know who:
“I think it can be used as a distraction and that’s my concern,” Rep. Karen Bass, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told reporters on Monday. “I think the intent behind it is something that I support — the idea that communities need investments.” With the GOP eagerly drawing up its attack ads, senior Democrats are hoping to stifle momentum for the idea before it overshadows their broader reform effort. … Any misstep by Democrats could deliver Republicans a powerful political weapon ahead of November. GOP campaign operatives are seizing on calls to “defund the police” to paint Democrats as radical leftists, just as they did with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” or demands to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. To illustrate how seriously Democratic leaders are taking the potential problem, several senior Democrats spoke out about it on a private caucus call Monday. “This movement today, some people tried to hijack it,” House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) told Democrats on the call, according to multiple sources. “Don’t let yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police forces.”
However, not everyone’s interested in the long game:
Not everyone in the caucus agrees. Liberal Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most prominent supporters of the idea, spoke up on the call to say she understands the “profound discomfort” around the defunding discussion. But she also implored her colleagues “not to dismiss or mock” activists’ calls for shifting resources away from police departments, saying it’s important they don’t “demoralize or undercut” grassroots leaders.
Important reminder: The “grassroots leaders” that Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t want to “demoralize” are the same that elected the people who run the police departments now. It’s this point, which Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen raises today, that might explain why more senior Democrats might have some reluctance to immerse themselves in nihilism. Why aren’t the progressives pushing to “defund” the police taking responsibility for the way they have run those departments for decades instead?
Oh, let’s not always see the same hands:
Control and funding of police departments are entirely local affairs. There is no federal or state constitutional requirement for any city to have a police department, and many smaller cities across the country do not. Professional police forces did not even exist in the United States until 1844, when New York City created the first department. Minneapolis’s tentative decision is entirely within its — and its voters’ — purview. Police are far from the only important institution under primarily local control. Public K-12 schools are still largely managed by locally elected school boards. Local governments employ hundreds of thousands of people nationwide, and they contract with private firms to provide services that employ millions more. The power of the local purse to impact employment decisions within a city or county’s boundaries is immense. This power is largely held by Democrats in most of the city and county governments where black people disproportionately live. For every Rudolph W. Giuliani who rises to power in a big city as a Republican, there are tenfold Democrats running local governments. … None of this means that improving race relations and equality isn’t a matter for all Americans, including conservatives. It is, and we should all work to treat everyone as a person equal in their humanity and dignity. Anything less than that is a violation of our moral obligations and our national political creed. It does, however, mean that changes that don’t require national or state legislation can happen right now. Hollywood doesn’t need a federal edict to hire more black directors and actors. Colleges and universities don’t need a new Civil Rights Act to ensure that black candidates are preferred for leadership positions. Cities and counties don’t need to wait for the repeal of the qualified-immunity doctrine to change the way their police forces operate. They just need to align their deeds with their words.
So why don’t they align their deeds with their words? It’s easier to find scapegoats than to govern responsibly, that’s why. Advocates demand more “community policing,” which would actually help — but would take more officers, better training, and therefore larger budgets. Progressives in the Twin Cities have talked about “community policing” for years if not decades, but they haven’t invested in it. And now they want to divest themselves from the police department they actually control in order to reduce or eliminate law enforcement and crime prevention altogether.
No wonder senior Democrats don’t want to talk about this. This is their party’s problem, and their party doesn’t have a solution to it.


hotair--2020-06-09--Suspected killer of Santa Cruz sheriff's deputy posted anti-fascism, anti-police messages online

A man named Steven Carrillo is suspected of shooting and killing a Santa Cruz Sheriff ’ s Deputy in an ambush attack this past Saturday .
A second deputy was shot but survived because the bullet was stopped by his vest .
Deputies had been called out to investigate a suspicious white van .
They followed the van to a home and that ’ s when Carrillo ( allegedly ) started shooting and throwing pipe bombs .
Today the San Francisco Chronicle reports on a possible , but still unconfirmed , motive for the attack .
In the days prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-police memes online .
In the 48 hours before Steven Carrillo allegedly shot a Santa Cruz County sheriff ’ s deputy to death in an ambush , the Air Force staff sergeant who led an elite protection unit posted a flurry of Facebook posts that were critical of police brutality and law enforcement ’ s responses to the Black Lives Matter protests .
“ Who needs antifa to start riots when you have the police to do it for you , ” Carrillo wrote Friday , sharing a post about tear gas fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend of Cardillo ’ s said that his Facebook posts had recently become more political , though he says he never saw him endorse violence .
Posts about reforming police and holding law enforcement officials accountable were typical for Carrillo , but he never condoned violence — on social media or in person , Ehrhardt said .
He also shared an anti-fascism screed and gun rights article .
“ There was nothing ever to the extent of , ‘ They should die , ’ or doing anything like that , ” Ehrhardt said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us off.
” Ehrhardt took screenshots of about a dozen recent posts , which he shared with The Chronicle .
It appears Carrillo last posted at 1:22 p.m. Saturday , minutes before his alleged attack on the deputies .
That post shared an anti-fascism image .
After his attack on police officers Saturday , Carrillo went on the run and attempted to carjack several vehicles .
Eventually he wound up in someone ’ s back yard and after he demanded the homeowner ’ s car keys , the homeowner jumped him .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ This guy ( Carrillo ) went into the backyard of a local resident and the local resident confronted him and wanted to know what he was doing on his property , ” Hart said .
“ The suspect told him that — actually he had an AR-15 slung , he was carrying an AR .
He told the resident he wanted his car keys .
The resident very calmly went into his house , obtained a key and came back out and handed it to him.
” “ As the suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the AR-15 fell away and the resident took this guy to the ground .
At that time the suspect reached into his pocket and pulled out a pipe bomb and tried to ignite a pipe bomb while being held down.
” “ This resident was able to knock the pipe bomb out of his hand and then the suspect reached into his waistband and pulled out a pistol .
There was a wrestling match over the pistol .
The resident was able to knock the pistol out of his hand , detain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Ben Lomond jumped on this guy and held him until our deputies sheriffs were able to get there and take him into custody.
” The FBI has now taken over the investigation and is investigating a possible connection to an earlier shooting of law enforcement officers that happened in Oakland on May 29th .
The FBI said Sunday it was investigating a connection between Carrillo ’ s white van and a similar vehicle that may have been used in the fatal shooting of federal protective services officer David Underwood and the wounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a night of unrest last week when an Oakland protest over the death of George Floyd turned violent .
“ The investigation into the incident in Ben Lomond , Calif. is ongoing , ” the FBI said in a statement .
“ We are working with the Santa Cruz County Sheriff ’ s Department to determine a possible motive and/or links to other crimes committed in the Bay Area , to include the shooting of the FPS officers in Oakland.
” That also hasn ’ t been confirmed yet but there seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had some larger plan in mind for all of the pipe bombs he was making .
What became the ambush of officers on Saturday may have been an unexpected interruption of that larger plan .
Finally , Sheriff Sgt .
Damon Gutzwiller was the man killed in the ambush .
He was married with one child and a second child on the way .
As this ABC report points out , he had worked for the Sheriff ’ s office for 14 years and there had never been a complaint about him @

A man named Steven Carrillo is suspected of shooting and killing a Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Deputy in an ambush attack this past Saturday. A second deputy was shot but survived because the bullet was stopped by his vest. Deputies had been called out to investigate a suspicious white van. They followed the van to a home and that’s when Carrillo (allegedly) started shooting and throwing pipe bombs. Today the San Francisco Chronicle reports on a possible, but still unconfirmed, motive for the attack. In the days prior to the ambush, Carrillo was posting anti-police memes online.
In the 48 hours before Steven Carrillo allegedly shot a Santa Cruz County sheriff’s deputy to death in an ambush, the Air Force staff sergeant who led an elite protection unit posted a flurry of Facebook posts that were critical of police brutality and law enforcement’s responses to the Black Lives Matter protests. “Who needs antifa to start riots when you have the police to do it for you,” Carrillo wrote Friday, sharing a post about tear gas fired at protesters in Richmond, Va.
A friend of Cardillo’s said that his Facebook posts had recently become more political, though he says he never saw him endorse violence.
Posts about reforming police and holding law enforcement officials accountable were typical for Carrillo, but he never condoned violence — on social media or in person, Ehrhardt said. He also shared an anti-fascism screed and gun rights article. “There was nothing ever to the extent of, ‘They should die,’ or doing anything like that,” Ehrhardt said. “It threw a lot of us off.” Ehrhardt took screenshots of about a dozen recent posts, which he shared with The Chronicle. It appears Carrillo last posted at 1:22 p.m. Saturday, minutes before his alleged attack on the deputies. That post shared an anti-fascism image.
After his attack on police officers Saturday, Carrillo went on the run and attempted to carjack several vehicles. Eventually he wound up in someone’s back yard and after he demanded the homeowner’s car keys, the homeowner jumped him. Here’s how Sheriff Hart described it:
“This guy (Carrillo) went into the backyard of a local resident and the local resident confronted him and wanted to know what he was doing on his property,” Hart said. “The suspect told him that — actually he had an AR-15 slung, he was carrying an AR. He told the resident he wanted his car keys. The resident very calmly went into his house, obtained a key and came back out and handed it to him.” “As the suspect turned around, the resident tackled him and the AR-15 fell away and the resident took this guy to the ground. At that time the suspect reached into his pocket and pulled out a pipe bomb and tried to ignite a pipe bomb while being held down.” “This resident was able to knock the pipe bomb out of his hand and then the suspect reached into his waistband and pulled out a pistol. There was a wrestling match over the pistol. The resident was able to knock the pistol out of his hand, detain this guy. Multiple other community members from Ben Lomond jumped on this guy and held him until our deputies sheriffs were able to get there and take him into custody.”
The FBI has now taken over the investigation and is investigating a possible connection to an earlier shooting of law enforcement officers that happened in Oakland on May 29th.
The FBI said Sunday it was investigating a connection between Carrillo’s white van and a similar vehicle that may have been used in the fatal shooting of federal protective services officer David Underwood and the wounding of a second officer on May 29 during a night of unrest last week when an Oakland protest over the death of George Floyd turned violent. “The investigation into the incident in Ben Lomond, Calif. is ongoing,” the FBI said in a statement. “We are working with the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department to determine a possible motive and/or links to other crimes committed in the Bay Area, to include the shooting of the FPS officers in Oakland.”
That also hasn’t been confirmed yet but there seems to be a sense that Carrillo may have had some larger plan in mind for all of the pipe bombs he was making. What became the ambush of officers on Saturday may have been an unexpected interruption of that larger plan.
Finally, Sheriff Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller was the man killed in the ambush. He was married with one child and a second child on the way. As this ABC report points out, he had worked for the Sheriff’s office for 14 years and there had never been a complaint about him.


hotair--2020-06-09--The "cop-free world" that Black Lives Matter protesters are dreaming about

Since we all woke up one morning recently to find that we ’ d somehow been magically transported to a world where there were people seriously talking about abolishing the police , I suppose we ’ d better prepare ourselves by figuring out what that world would look like .
Helping us out in the this effort is Joshua Rhett Miller at the New York Post .
He ’ s assembled some explanations and opinions from leaders in Black Lives Matter and other anti-cop , socialist coalitions to give them the opportunity to explain how that would work .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least .
This is the cop-free world that Black Lives Matter protesters are dreaming about .
Social workers and religious leaders would replace officers on the street — and there would be no crimes such as stealing because the community workers would do such a good job helping everyone , fueled by money redirected from local police departments , advocates claim .
“ Right now , cops don ’ t just respond to violent crimes ; they make needless traffic stops , arrest petty drug users , and engage in a wide range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only serve to keep more people under the thumb of the criminal-justice system , ” reads the Web site for the Minneapolis community coalition MPD150 .
There ’ s just so much to unpack in this article that it ’ s hard to know where to begin .
First of all , if you ’ re going to send out “ social workers and religious leaders ” to deal with crime , they ’ re going to need some sort of way for people to identify them and recognize the role they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll probably need some sort of… uniform ?
And because there will still be dangerous , armed criminals in the streets , you ’ ll want to make sure they have some body armor .
Unfortunately , they ’ ll also need weapons in case a worst-case scenario unfolds .
And , of course , they ’ ll need a lot of training in how to use all those things and how to deal with potentially lethal scenarios .
And now you ’ ve turned them into… police officers .
How about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that police currently do ?
They list traffic stops and arresting people for “ petty crimes ” like theft as work that police don ’ t need to do .
So everyone can just drive as fast or unsafely as they like , and stealing is okay now ?
Sounds like a wonderful society .
Yet another rationalization being put forward is that we got along just fine without cops in America until 1838 so we could obviously do so again .
Do they have any idea what things were like back then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we had vigilante justice .
And they didn ’ t call it the “ wild west ” for no reason .
If you want to go back to a kill or be killed kind of world , be my guest , but I ’ m not interested .
A second argument claims that we could simply take all the money we spend on the police and pump it back into the community and then nobody would have a reason or a need to steal things .
Apparently someone fell asleep in math class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that money to everyone in the country and it might save them a few months ’ rent , but that ’ s about it .
And people would still be out there taking whatever they please .
We ’ ve already had a great demonstration in recent weeks of what our cities look like when the police are overwhelmed and outnumbered .
It turned into The Purge pretty quickly .
If you eliminate them entirely it would be a horror show .
And yet this has somehow become a serious topic of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mercy on us all .

Since we all woke up one morning recently to find that we’d somehow been magically transported to a world where there were people seriously talking about abolishing the police, I suppose we’d better prepare ourselves by figuring out what that world would look like. Helping us out in the this effort is Joshua Rhett Miller at the New York Post. He’s assembled some explanations and opinions from leaders in Black Lives Matter and other anti-cop, socialist coalitions to give them the opportunity to explain how that would work. The answers are… interesting, to say the least.
This is the cop-free world that Black Lives Matter protesters are dreaming about. Social workers and religious leaders would replace officers on the street — and there would be no crimes such as stealing because the community workers would do such a good job helping everyone, fueled by money redirected from local police departments, advocates claim. “Right now, cops don’t just respond to violent crimes; they make needless traffic stops, arrest petty drug users, and engage in a wide range of ‘broken windows policing’ behaviors that only serve to keep more people under the thumb of the criminal-justice system,” reads the Web site for the Minneapolis community coalition MPD150.
There’s just so much to unpack in this article that it’s hard to know where to begin. First of all, if you’re going to send out “social workers and religious leaders” to deal with crime, they’re going to need some sort of way for people to identify them and recognize the role they’re playing. That means they’ll probably need some sort of… uniform? And because there will still be dangerous, armed criminals in the streets, you’ll want to make sure they have some body armor. Unfortunately, they’ll also need weapons in case a worst-case scenario unfolds. And, of course, they’ll need a lot of training in how to use all those things and how to deal with potentially lethal scenarios. And now you’ve turned them into… police officers.
How about all of the “useless” things that police currently do? They list traffic stops and arresting people for “petty crimes” like theft as work that police don’t need to do. So everyone can just drive as fast or unsafely as they like, and stealing is okay now? Sounds like a wonderful society.
Yet another rationalization being put forward is that we got along just fine without cops in America until 1838 so we could obviously do so again. Do they have any idea what things were like back then? The lack of cops is why we had vigilante justice. And they didn’t call it the “wild west” for no reason. If you want to go back to a kill or be killed kind of world, be my guest, but I’m not interested.
A second argument claims that we could simply take all the money we spend on the police and pump it back into the community and then nobody would have a reason or a need to steal things. Apparently someone fell asleep in math class quite a bit. You could distribute that money to everyone in the country and it might save them a few months’ rent, but that’s about it. And people would still be out there taking whatever they please. We’ve already had a great demonstration in recent weeks of what our cities look like when the police are overwhelmed and outnumbered. It turned into The Purge pretty quickly. If you eliminate them entirely it would be a horror show.
And yet this has somehow become a serious topic of political debate in our lifetimes. God have mercy on us all.


hotair--2020-06-09--Irony or hypocrisy? LA city council president demands Defund the Police cuts -- while getting round-

Irony or hypocrisy? LA city council president demands Defund the Police cuts -- while getting round-the-clock LAPD protection

One would think that a politician getting 24/7 police protection for her and her whole family might see police as an asset .
At the very least , perhaps she would vote to supply police with a little more resources to offset those dedicated to her welfare .
Not Los Angeles city council president Nury Martinez , however — she ’ s more pure than that , or something : While LA City Council President Nury Martinez was filing a motion last week seeking to cut $ 150 million from the LAPD budget , she had an LAPD unit standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a private security detail since April .
The round-the-clock protection unit , often staffed by two officers , infuriated some members of the police force when Martinez introduced the motion , which reads in part : “ We need a vision for our city that says ‘ there is going to be justice.
’ American society is founded on a racial hierarchy , one that is born out of slavery , followed by Jim Crow segregation and corporate abuse of labor .
As such , police departments are asked to enforce a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinforce and maintain economic and racial inequality.
” “ It ’ s kind of ironic .
Here she is demanding $ 150 million be reallocated from the police budget , but yet she has security at her house by the Los Angeles Police Department , ” said Det .
Jamie McBride , who serves as director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League , the LAPD ’ s union .
Late yesterday , Spectrum News got a tip about the two-month personal security service provided to Martinez by the LAPD .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tip originated , but the leak had one predictable effect .
This was the scene when Martinez apparently realized the gig was up , but it was a bit too late : Irony abounds , as it turns out .
Less than two weeks ago , Martinez wanted the resignation of LA councilman Jose Huizar , one subject of a federal corruption probe .
Huizar ’ s assistant pled guilty to bribery , which prompted this good-government declaration from Martinez : Huizar hasn ’ t been arrested or charged in the sweeping corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the “ Councilmember A ” whom George Esparza alleged took part in the scheme .
In his plea agreement , Esparza acknowledged that from 2013 to 2018 , he and a council member were involved in a scheme to sell influence to several developers , including the billionaire head of a Chinese company who wanted to build a 77-story skyscraper on downtown land .
Martinez said Huizar should step down because of “ his illegal , offensive and absolute abuse-of-power dealings.
” Abuse of power dealings , you say ?
Martinez says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of threats : The security detail began April 4 and was posted in front of Martinez ’ s home 24 hours a day , but the overnight security was cut back on May 6 .
The detail was canceled Thursday night when Spectrum News first reached out to Martinez ’ s office regarding the alleged hypocrisy .
A spokesperson for Martinez released a statement saying that the police were standing guard outside of her house because of death threats .
So … the threat ended when Spectrum News found out about it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter color the LAPD skeptical about it too : “ It ’ s disgusting , ” McBride said .
“ For two officers in front of a residence since April , you ’ re probably over $ 100,000 of the people ’ s money.
” Brunell reported that the protection detail was cancelled the night that she reached out to Martinez ’ s office for comment on the story .
A spokesperson for Martinez said that the reason the units were stationed at Martinez ’ s home was because of threats she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that notion , suggesting that if there was a real threat there that the units still would be stationed outside her home .
The real threat appears to be the exposure of Martinez ’ hypocrisy , and the LAPD ’ s ire over her demand to cut their budget .
It likely didn ’ t help that Martinez never bothered to let the LAPD or its union know about her budget-cut proposal .
The first they saw of it was when Martinez tweeted about it ; she apparently didn ’ t even bother @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her protection detail a heads-up .
Perhaps we should find out who else gets personal protection details from the LAPD .
Instead of cutting the budget , maybe those officers can be reassigned to community policing .

One would think that a politician getting 24/7 police protection for her and her whole family might see police as an asset. At the very least, perhaps she would vote to supply police with a little more resources to offset those dedicated to her welfare. Not Los Angeles city council president Nury Martinez, however — she’s more pure than that, or something:
While LA City Council President Nury Martinez was filing a motion last week seeking to cut $150 million from the LAPD budget, she had an LAPD unit standing watch outside her home providing her family with a private security detail since April. The round-the-clock protection unit, often staffed by two officers, infuriated some members of the police force when Martinez introduced the motion, which reads in part: “We need a vision for our city that says ‘there is going to be justice.’ American society is founded on a racial hierarchy, one that is born out of slavery, followed by Jim Crow segregation and corporate abuse of labor. As such, police departments are asked to enforce a system of laws that are designed to reinforce and maintain economic and racial inequality.” “It’s kind of ironic. Here she is demanding $150 million be reallocated from the police budget, but yet she has security at her house by the Los Angeles Police Department,” said Det. Jamie McBride, who serves as director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the LAPD’s union.
Late yesterday, Spectrum News got a tip about the two-month personal security service provided to Martinez by the LAPD. It’s probably not too difficult where that tip originated, but the leak had one predictable effect. This was the scene when Martinez apparently realized the gig was up, but it was a bit too late:
While one LA Councilmember was introducing a motion to cut $150 million in #LAPD funding, that official also had round-the-clock private security provided by the department at their home. @LAPPL calls it hypocrisy, adding it may have cost taxpayers around $100k. @SpecNews1SoCal pic.twitter.com/lrrRC65oj1 — Natalie Brunell (@natbrunell) June 8, 2020
Irony abounds, as it turns out. Less than two weeks ago, Martinez wanted the resignation of LA councilman Jose Huizar, one subject of a federal corruption probe. Huizar’s assistant pled guilty to bribery, which prompted this good-government declaration from Martinez:
Huizar hasn’t been arrested or charged in the sweeping corruption probe but information court filings indicate he is the “Councilmember A” whom George Esparza alleged took part in the scheme. In his plea agreement, Esparza acknowledged that from 2013 to 2018, he and a council member were involved in a scheme to sell influence to several developers, including the billionaire head of a Chinese company who wanted to build a 77-story skyscraper on downtown land. Martinez said Huizar should step down because of “his illegal, offensive and absolute abuse-of-power dealings.”
Abuse of power dealings, you say? Martinez says that the protection detail was necessitated because of threats:
The security detail began April 4 and was posted in front of Martinez’s home 24 hours a day, but the overnight security was cut back on May 6. The detail was canceled Thursday night when Spectrum News first reached out to Martinez’s office regarding the alleged hypocrisy. A spokesperson for Martinez released a statement saying that the police were standing guard outside of her house because of death threats.
So … the threat ended when Spectrum News found out about it? Color me skeptical, and for that matter color the LAPD skeptical about it too:
“It’s disgusting,” McBride said. “For two officers in front of a residence since April, you’re probably over $100,000 of the people’s money.” Brunell reported that the protection detail was cancelled the night that she reached out to Martinez’s office for comment on the story. A spokesperson for Martinez said that the reason the units were stationed at Martinez’s home was because of threats she had received, although McBride pushed back on that notion, suggesting that if there was a real threat there that the units still would be stationed outside her home.
The real threat appears to be the exposure of Martinez’ hypocrisy, and the LAPD’s ire over her demand to cut their budget. It likely didn’t help that Martinez never bothered to let the LAPD or its union know about her budget-cut proposal. The first they saw of it was when Martinez tweeted about it; she apparently didn’t even bother to walk to the curb to give her protection detail a heads-up.
Perhaps we should find out who else gets personal protection details from the LAPD. Instead of cutting the budget, maybe those officers can be reassigned to community policing.