hotair--2020-05-07--Here's why FEMA has ordered 100,000 body bags

As if the coronavirus pandemic and murder hornets weren ’ t enough to produce eye-opening headlines , we are just about to enter the annual hurricane season .
Given all of the demands being made on the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) at a time when all fifty states and territories have declared , simultaneously , a major disaster because of the pandemic , preparations are being made now for hurricane season .
Axios has a detailed piece about FEMA ’ s operational guide under development .
Its title is “ COVID-19 Pandemic Operational Guidance for the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Acting Administrator by President Donald Trump on March 8 , 2019 , and became Administrator on January 16 , 2020 .
His expertise is in emergency management .
Let ’ s hope that the prediction that this year ’ s hurricane season will be a harsh one doesn ’ t prove to be true .
He says that FEMA is ordering 100,000 “ human remains pouches ” ( body bags ) just in case they are needed .
“ We ’ re doing a lot of things that are not necessarily in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some cases , we write the playbook as we go.
” Hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30 .
The forecast is for 16 named storms with eight becoming hurricanes .
There is a 95 % chance — the average is 84 % — that at least one hurricane this year will make landfall in the US .
Experts at Colorado State University predict four of the hurricanes will become major storms of Category 3 to 5 .
Most of my life has been spent living on the Gulf coast .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some milder than others .
The top three on my list , during my adult years anyway , would be Hurricane Andrew in 1992 when we lived in Louisiana .
That storm devastated The Bahamas , then parts of Florida , and then it traveled to south Louisiana .
Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was devastating to parts of the Houston area .
The part of the city in which we live survived without as much damage as others , but the Medical Center , for example , experienced a historic flooding event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city was Hurricane Harvey in 2017 .
Houston and surrounding areas all the way to the coast were drowned by that beast of a storm .
So , for FEMA to be preparing for an active hurricane season this year while dealing with a pandemic , it does seem like the combination of events could easily overwhelm resources and manpower .
Think of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 .
So many people had to be relocated and so many died due to the sheer incompetence of state and local officials .
While the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of New Orleans to evacuate the city , they hesitated until it was too late .
President Bush even called the governor before the storm hit , yet there they sat .
Imagine if a pandemic was raging through the city of New Orleans , as it is now , and thousands of people were hospitalized , including those on ventilators , fighting the effects of the coronavirus .
How long would it take to evacuate all of them and where would they be transported to ?
During normal hurricane evacuations , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like social distancing is impossible .
Community centers , churches , civic centers , and stadiums all open up to take in those who must leave their homes .
FEMA , to put it kindly , hasn ’ t always been very prepared for these national emergencies .
From my own experience , though , I can say that the federal response in the build-up and during the storm event of Hurricane Harvey was the best I ’ ve ever seen .
FEMA was on the ground and ready for whatever happened .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit for that .
So , since FEMA is preparing for the worst , the agency is doing what it can to plan ahead , besides ordering an abundance of body bags .
The agency has taken over vacant office space in downtown Washington , D.C. , and set up an additional command center — called a “ surge ” National Response Coordination Center — for staff across the government to handle the non-COVID catastrophes threatening America this summer .
One nightmarish prospect : “ If we have to evacuate a hospital , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients , ” Gaynor said .
“ But now we ’ ve got to make sure they evacuate the patients , the medical equipment like ventilators , pharmaceuticals that allow ventilators to be used on patients in ICUs .
All those things now make it more difficult , there ’ s no doubt about it.
” Natural disasters like floods may mean hospitals have to transfer patients sick with COVID-19 to other facilities that will take them .
“ Locals and states really have to understand some of those challenges and plan for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that FEMA will try to help .
In other parts of the country , wildfire season will be a factor , as well as earthquakes and flooding , which will all require a federal response .
Gaynor sounds optimistic as he says that he is “ highly confident ” FEMA can manage an unprecedented summer .
Preparedness also means that governors are going to have to continue working with the federal government .
While some governors have tried to make accusations that the federal government is diverting their supplies of equipment like masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Politics filters into everything , even a public health emergency .
For example , Maryland ’ s Governor Hogan , who flirted with the notion of running against President Trump for the GOP nomination , made hay of the fact that his South Korean-born wife used her contacts to help him secure coronavirus tests from that country for Maryland residents when the federal government allegedly wasn ’ t able to help him out .
He ’ s been using Maryland National Guard to guard that shipment .
He now says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brother .
The same is true for any claims that the government is diverting personal protective equipment ( PPE ) .
The important takeaway from all this is that FEMA is preparing for any potential additional disasters that will require a federal response .
And , the agency is encouraging states and local communities to get ready , too , for whatever may be heading our way .

As if the coronavirus pandemic and murder hornets weren’t enough to produce eye-opening headlines, we are just about to enter the annual hurricane season. Given all of the demands being made on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at a time when all fifty states and territories have declared, simultaneously, a major disaster because of the pandemic, preparations are being made now for hurricane season.
Axios has a detailed piece about FEMA’s operational guide under development. Its title is “COVID-19 Pandemic Operational Guidance for the 2020 Hurricane Season.” Pete Gaynor was appointed as Acting Administrator by President Donald Trump on March 8, 2019, and became Administrator on January 16, 2020. His expertise is in emergency management. Let’s hope that the prediction that this year’s hurricane season will be a harsh one doesn’t prove to be true. He says that FEMA is ordering 100,000 “human remains pouches” (body bags) just in case they are needed.
“We’re doing a lot of things that are not necessarily in any playbook that has existed. In some cases, we write the playbook as we go.” Hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30. The forecast is for 16 named storms with eight becoming hurricanes. There is a 95% chance — the average is 84% — that at least one hurricane this year will make landfall in the US. Experts at Colorado State University predict four of the hurricanes will become major storms of Category 3 to 5.
Most of my life has been spent living on the Gulf coast. I’ve lived through hurricanes, some milder than others. The top three on my list, during my adult years anyway, would be Hurricane Andrew in 1992 when we lived in Louisiana. That storm devastated The Bahamas, then parts of Florida, and then it traveled to south Louisiana. Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was devastating to parts of the Houston area. The part of the city in which we live survived without as much damage as others, but the Medical Center, for example, experienced a historic flooding event. Last but most traumatic for my city was Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Houston and surrounding areas all the way to the coast were drowned by that beast of a storm. So, for FEMA to be preparing for an active hurricane season this year while dealing with a pandemic, it does seem like the combination of events could easily overwhelm resources and manpower.
Think of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. So many people had to be relocated and so many died due to the sheer incompetence of state and local officials. While the federal government was asking the governor and mayor of New Orleans to evacuate the city, they hesitated until it was too late. President Bush even called the governor before the storm hit, yet there they sat. Imagine if a pandemic was raging through the city of New Orleans, as it is now, and thousands of people were hospitalized, including those on ventilators, fighting the effects of the coronavirus. How long would it take to evacuate all of them and where would they be transported to?
During normal hurricane evacuations, people are sheltered in large facilities and something like social distancing is impossible. Community centers, churches, civic centers, and stadiums all open up to take in those who must leave their homes. FEMA, to put it kindly, hasn’t always been very prepared for these national emergencies. From my own experience, though, I can say that the federal response in the build-up and during the storm event of Hurricane Harvey was the best I’ve ever seen. FEMA was on the ground and ready for whatever happened. President Trump’s administration should get credit for that. So, since FEMA is preparing for the worst, the agency is doing what it can to plan ahead, besides ordering an abundance of body bags.
The agency has taken over vacant office space in downtown Washington, D.C., and set up an additional command center — called a “surge” National Response Coordination Center — for staff across the government to handle the non-COVID catastrophes threatening America this summer. One nightmarish prospect: “If we have to evacuate a hospital, that hospital typically would just evacuate the patients,” Gaynor said. “But now we’ve got to make sure they evacuate the patients, the medical equipment like ventilators, pharmaceuticals that allow ventilators to be used on patients in ICUs. All those things now make it more difficult, there’s no doubt about it.” Natural disasters like floods may mean hospitals have to transfer patients sick with COVID-19 to other facilities that will take them. “Locals and states really have to understand some of those challenges and plan for that,” Gaynor said, adding that FEMA will try to help.
In other parts of the country, wildfire season will be a factor, as well as earthquakes and flooding, which will all require a federal response. Gaynor sounds optimistic as he says that he is “highly confident” FEMA can manage an unprecedented summer.
Preparedness also means that governors are going to have to continue working with the federal government. While some governors have tried to make accusations that the federal government is diverting their supplies of equipment like masks and ventilators to others, Gaynor denied it. Politics filters into everything, even a public health emergency. For example, Maryland’s Governor Hogan, who flirted with the notion of running against President Trump for the GOP nomination, made hay of the fact that his South Korean-born wife used her contacts to help him secure coronavirus tests from that country for Maryland residents when the federal government allegedly wasn’t able to help him out. He’s been using Maryland National Guard to guard that shipment. He now says that may not be necessary. Oh, brother.
The same is true for any claims that the government is diverting personal protective equipment (PPE).
FEMA’s press secretary Lizzie Litzow added in a statement: “FEMA does not, has not and will not divert orders of personal protective equipment (PPE) from our federal, state and local partners, nor do we have the legal authority to do so. Reports of FEMA commandeering or re-routing such supplies are false.” “If a hospital believes this has happened to them, it should be reported to the governor. If a governor believes that this has happened to their supplies, it should be reported to the FEMA Region.”
The important takeaway from all this is that FEMA is preparing for any potential additional disasters that will require a federal response. And, the agency is encouraging states and local communities to get ready, too, for whatever may be heading our way.


hotair--2020-05-07--Report: Trump doesn't want to wear a mask because it'd signal that he's preoccupied with health inst

Report: Trump doesn't want to wear a mask because it'd signal that he's preoccupied with health instead of the economy

Can ’ t blame him for not wanting to send the wrong message .
Imagine if people got the idea that he prioritizes the lives of millions of frightened Americans over their employment status .
If voters start to believe that , next thing you know they might just want to reelect him .
He did wear a mask briefly during his visit to the Honeywell plant in Arizona ( where some smart aleck played “ Live and Let Die ” over the loudspeaker ) , or so he says .
He wore it backstage , he told reporters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AP is right , we probably won ’ t have many opportunities to see him sporting one : Trump has told advisers that he believes wearing one would “ send the wrong message , ” according to one administration and two campaign officials not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations .
The president said doing so would make it seem like he is preoccupied with health instead of focused on reopening the nation ’ s economy — which his aides believe is the key to his reelection chances .
Moreover , Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his appearance on television , has also told confidants that he fears he would look ridiculous in a mask and the image would appear in negative ads .
“ It ’ s a vanity thing , I guess , with him , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Trump on MSNBC .
“ You ’ d think , as the president of the United States , you would have the confidence to honor the guidance he ’ s giving the country.
” “ Some Republican allies have asked Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House if they were spotted wearing a mask , ” the AP continues , which is a spectacular insight into the Republican mindset in the Trump era .
Do I protect myself and the people around me by taking the most basic precautions against infection ?
Or do I go ahead and risk spreading this plague because the White House thinks basic precautions undermine its “ shop ’ til you die ” message ?
Trump is right that Democrats would use photos of him in a mask against him , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viciously on aspects of his coronavirus response whether or not that photo is available to them .
If he ’ s eschewing a mask for that reason , he might as well go ahead and cancel the “ MAGA masks ” his campaign is planning .
And he might , per the AP .
Apparently , those are still awaiting his approval .
A new poll from Change Research confirms that Republicans are far less likely than Democrats to wear masks , but maybe not as much as you think .
Nearly half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half support more aggressive forms of social distancing with bigger economic implications : On the other hand , Republicans ’ willingness to wear masks isn ’ t growing over time .
A Gallup poll from mid-April found 48 percent saying they wore a mask outside the home in the preceding seven days .
Now it ’ s 45 percent .
Could that be due to false impressions that the epidemic is slowing down ?
Maybe not : In the Gallup poll , just 75 percent of Democrats admitted to wearing a mask .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nate Silver flagged this fascinating graph from a YouGov poll published two weeks ago .
Most of the countries ahead of us on mask-wearing have had good outcomes lately in tamping down the contagion : It feels weird to cite Italy and Spain for encouraging news on COVID-19 but compare their numbers to ours recently in the first graph here .
Their curves look like New York ’ s ( where mask-wearing is surely also more common than it is in most U.S. states ) , with a distinct downward sloping right side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t look like that .
Are masks the secret to knocking the transmission rate below 1 ?
If so , and if we can get more people to use them , maybe reopening early will be less risky than experts fear .
Here ’ s one more graph for you , which would make Trump especially upset .
That ’ s bad in the abstract but it ’ s extra bad knowing that Obama ’ s VP will be on the ballot this fall .
I keep trying to understand Team Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic revival over a scrupulous focus on public safety is the key to electoral success , knowing how brutal Democrats will be this fall about highlighting the death toll .
A recent survey of experts found consensus estimates at this point of 250,000 Americans dead by the end of the year , which would slightly exceed the White House ’ s own worst-case scenario with more death to come early in 2021 .
It ’ s one thing to see losses like that as president when you ’ re perceived as moving heaven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s another to see them when your core message is “ get back to work.
” All I can think is that Trump ’ s campaign has concluded that they ’ re going to be hammered for the death toll no matter what it ends up being so they shouldn ’ t obsess about it .
Not another American life could be lost after today and Democrats will still excoriate them for 70,000+ casualties .
Slow-walking the economic part of the response to try to do more to prevent COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from an electoral standpoint .
Whereas if you go all-in on economic renewal as the death toll mounts , you can at least point to some improvement on jobs in November to counter the horror at how many have died .
Morality has little or nothing to do with that calculation , but the current approach arguably gives Trump a better chance at winning than focusing on public health would .

Can’t blame him for not wanting to send the wrong message. Imagine if people got the idea that he prioritizes the lives of millions of frightened Americans over their employment status.
If voters start to believe that, next thing you know they might just want to reelect him.
He did wear a mask briefly during his visit to the Honeywell plant in Arizona (where some smart aleck played “Live and Let Die” over the loudspeaker), or so he says. He wore it backstage, he told reporters, then took it off. If the AP is right, we probably won’t have many opportunities to see him sporting one:
Trump has told advisers that he believes wearing one would “send the wrong message,” according to one administration and two campaign officials not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. The president said doing so would make it seem like he is preoccupied with health instead of focused on reopening the nation’s economy — which his aides believe is the key to his reelection chances. Moreover, Trump, who is known to be especially cognizant of his appearance on television, has also told confidants that he fears he would look ridiculous in a mask and the image would appear in negative ads. “It’s a vanity thing, I guess, with him,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Trump on MSNBC. “You’d think, as the president of the United States, you would have the confidence to honor the guidance he’s giving the country.”
“Some Republican allies have asked Trump’s campaign how it would be viewed by the White House if they were spotted wearing a mask,” the AP continues, which is a spectacular insight into the Republican mindset in the Trump era. Do I protect myself and the people around me by taking the most basic precautions against infection? Or do I go ahead and risk spreading this plague because the White House thinks basic precautions undermine its “shop ’til you die” message?
Trump is right that Democrats would use photos of him in a mask against him, but they’re going to attack him viciously on aspects of his coronavirus response whether or not that photo is available to them. If he’s eschewing a mask for that reason, he might as well go ahead and cancel the “MAGA masks” his campaign is planning. And he might, per the AP. Apparently, those are still awaiting his approval.
A new poll from Change Research confirms that Republicans are far less likely than Democrats to wear masks, but maybe not as much as you think. Nearly half support the idea and much more than half support more aggressive forms of social distancing with bigger economic implications:
On the other hand, Republicans’ willingness to wear masks isn’t growing over time. A Gallup poll from mid-April found 48 percent saying they wore a mask outside the home in the preceding seven days. Now it’s 45 percent. Could that be due to false impressions that the epidemic is slowing down? Maybe not: In the Gallup poll, just 75 percent of Democrats admitted to wearing a mask. Their compliance has grown since then.
Nate Silver flagged this fascinating graph from a YouGov poll published two weeks ago. Most of the countries ahead of us on mask-wearing have had good outcomes lately in tamping down the contagion:
It feels weird to cite Italy and Spain for encouraging news on COVID-19 but compare their numbers to ours recently in the first graph here. Their curves look like New York’s (where mask-wearing is surely also more common than it is in most U.S. states), with a distinct downward sloping right side. America’s curve doesn’t look like that. Are masks the secret to knocking the transmission rate below 1? If so, and if we can get more people to use them, maybe reopening early will be less risky than experts fear.
Here’s one more graph for you, which would make Trump especially upset.
That’s bad in the abstract but it’s extra bad knowing that Obama’s VP will be on the ballot this fall.
I keep trying to understand Team Trump’s logic in believing that overtly prioritizing economic revival over a scrupulous focus on public safety is the key to electoral success, knowing how brutal Democrats will be this fall about highlighting the death toll. A recent survey of experts found consensus estimates at this point of 250,000 Americans dead by the end of the year, which would slightly exceed the White House’s own worst-case scenario with more death to come early in 2021. It’s one thing to see losses like that as president when you’re perceived as moving heaven and earth to try to prevent it, it’s another to see them when your core message is “get back to work.”
All I can think is that Trump’s campaign has concluded that they’re going to be hammered for the death toll no matter what it ends up being so they shouldn’t obsess about it. Not another American life could be lost after today and Democrats will still excoriate them for 70,000+ casualties. Slow-walking the economic part of the response to try to do more to prevent COVID deaths is thus a thankless task — from an electoral standpoint. Whereas if you go all-in on economic renewal as the death toll mounts, you can at least point to some improvement on jobs in November to counter the horror at how many have died. Morality has little or nothing to do with that calculation, but the current approach arguably gives Trump a better chance at winning than focusing on public health would.


hotair--2020-05-07--Sen. Feinstein dismisses Tara Reade: 'Why didn't she say something -- you know when he was Chairman

Sen. Feinstein dismisses Tara Reade: 'Why didn't she say something -- you know when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee'

As we await the full Megyn Kelly interview of Tara Reade , the collapse of the # MeToo movement continues .
Today , Senator Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Amy Klobuchar were both asked whether they believed Reade ’ s story by CNN ’ s Manu Raju : Needless to say , this is not at all how Sen. Feinstein felt about the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh .
In fact , Sen. Feinstein directly addressed this at the time saying , “ Victims must be able to come forward only when they are ready.
” Here she is less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ford , Ramirez and Swetnick to push for an FBI investigation .
No second-guessing here about why the women hadn ’ t come forward earlier .
For your own amusement , every time you see Ford ’ s name in the tweets below , substitute Reade ’ s name and every time you see Kavanaugh ’ s name , substitute Biden : “ …the dismissive treatment of Dr. Ford is insulting to all sexual assault survivors.
” That was a theme Feinstein returned to at the time , i.e .
this was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The response of Senators was sending a message to all sexual assault survivors .
Is Feinstein still worried about the message being sent to survivors ?
Is she still sending a message of support ?
Apparently not .
And Sen. Klobuchar ’ s about face on this isn ’ t much different .
Klobuchar even answered the question Feinstein is now raising about why someone like Tara Reade might hesitate to come forward : It ’ s just a little difficult to take these Senators seriously when they have done a 180 on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The fact that Feinstein is now playing the why-didn ’ t-she-come-forward-sooner-card after specifically ruling that out in writing makes me wonder if she ’ s even hearing herself at this point .

As we await the full Megyn Kelly interview of Tara Reade, the collapse of the #MeToo movement continues. Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Amy Klobuchar were both asked whether they believed Reade’s story by CNN’s Manu Raju:
Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democrat on Senate Judiciary, argued to us that the Kavanuagh situation is “totally different” than the Tara Reade allegations against Biden. "Kavanuagh was under the harshest inspection that we give people over a substantial period of time.” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 7, 2020
"Why didn't she say something — you know when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee or after that?" Feinstein rejected the notion of a Dem double standard and argued the situation isn’t “comparable” to Kavanaugh — Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 7, 2020
Here’s Sen. Klobuchar’s response:
Asked again if she believes Reade: "I think he’s answered all the questions and he’s made clear that he supports her right to come forward." Asked about criticism that Democrats have a double-standard on the topic, Klobuchar didn’t answer and walked into an awaiting car. — Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 7, 2020
Needless to say, this is not at all how Sen. Feinstein felt about the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, Sen. Feinstein directly addressed this at the time saying, “Victims must be able to come forward only when they are ready.”
President Trump, I've said many, many times that my actions were motivated by Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality. Victims must be able to come forward only when they are ready. — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 21, 2018
Here she is less than two years ago quoting the allegation of Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick to push for an FBI investigation. No second-guessing here about why the women hadn’t come forward earlier.
For your own amusement, every time you see Ford’s name in the tweets below, substitute Reade’s name and every time you see Kavanaugh’s name, substitute Biden:
I support Mrs. Ford's decision to tell her story. It's hers to tell and it must be taken seriously. I find her credible and the attacks on her must stop. https://t.co/KhK0EDE2RB — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 16, 2018
I hope that each and every one of us will immediately denounce the horrific treatment of Dr. Blasey Ford. That this brave woman is receiving death threats and has been forced to flee with her family is appalling and heartbreaking. This abuse must stop. We’re better than this. — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 19, 2018
During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable. She knew this would have a huge effect on her life and she was incredibly brave to come forward. — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 18, 2018
“…the dismissive treatment of Dr. Ford is insulting to all sexual assault survivors.”
The recalcitrance, stubbornness and lack of cooperation we’ve seen from Republicans is unprecedented. And candidly, the dismissive treatment of Dr. Ford is insulting to all sexual assault survivors. — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 22, 2018
That was a theme Feinstein returned to at the time, i.e. this was bigger than just this one allegation. The response of Senators was sending a message to all sexual assault survivors.
The National Sexual Assault Hotline has seen a 57 percent uptick in calls since Dr Ford went public. How the Senate handles allegations against Brett Kavanaugh sends a message to survivors about how their allegations will be received if they take the brave step of coming forward. — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 26, 2018
“We must send…a message of support.”
The terrible treatment of Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez by Senate Republicans tells every woman in this country to keep sexual assault to themselves. We must send a different message, a message of support. — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) October 3, 2018
Is Feinstein still worried about the message being sent to survivors? Is she still sending a message of support? Apparently not. And Sen. Klobuchar’s about face on this isn’t much different.
The chairman just thanked Dr. Ford for her bravery in coming forward…. — Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) September 27, 2018
We need Dr. Ford’s testimony and an investigation. Even Kellyanne Conway & several of our Republican colleagues agree. And we still need thousands of documents. Why would we ram this through on Thursday? We must have an investigation & get the documents https://t.co/IJzQ6HG8t4 — Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) September 17, 2018
Klobuchar even answered the question Feinstein is now raising about why someone like Tara Reade might hesitate to come forward:
It was good to hear Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she decided to send the letter in and why she waited before going public: because she was afraid of being “personally annihilated.” She went public after reporters came to her house. — Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) September 27, 2018
It’s just a little difficult to take these Senators seriously when they have done a 180 on #BelieveWomen in less than two years. The fact that Feinstein is now playing the why-didn’t-she-come-forward-sooner-card after specifically ruling that out in writing makes me wonder if she’s even hearing herself at this point.


hotair--2020-05-07--Pete Hegseth: It's time to show some courage and ... get infected?

He never uses the words “ get infected , ” but Daily Beast editor Justin Baragona is right to focus on the line “ Herd immunity is our friend.
” Does Hegseth have any idea what the death toll would be from a true herd immunity strategy ?
Maybe he ’ s just exaggerating for effect .
Let ’ s watch , then we ’ ll do some math .
I ’ ve ranted twice in the past few days about asking people to expose themselves and their families to infection without evidence that we ’ ve made meaningful progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t rant again .
A few points , though .
1 .
Hegseth sneers at the idea of experts insisting that hundreds of thousands of people could die .
Meanwhile , we ’ re creeping up on 75,000 dead after seven weeks of an almost coast-to-coast lockdown and are surely going to pass 100,000 dead soon , possibly this month .
Trump ’ s own experts place the upper bound of their estimate on the total death toll at 240,000 , and that assumes a degree of sustained social distancing that Hegseth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only reason he has to scoff at hundreds of thousands dying if we follow his plan is if ( a ) he believes in actual magic , that the next phase just won ’ t be that bad for whatever reason , or ( b ) he ’ ll say anything to convince people to take a risk .
2 .
When he refers to the courage being shown in Texas , I assume he means the Dallas salon owner who briefly went to prison for violating lockdown and has now been released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t just because her punishment was draconian , it ’ s because her defiance was rare .
As far as I ’ m aware , Texans have been overwhelmingly compliant with lockdown orders .
And now that those lockdown orders have been lifted , they ’ re avoiding local businesses out of an abundance of caution .
( For now . )
If Pete wants to get people excited to shop again , he ’ d do better to pressure Trump to get a test-and-trace system in place than pep-talking wary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitely would have gone to the mall .
3 .
Let ’ s talk herd immunity .
I ran these numbers a few days ago based on the latest data from NYC showing that just about 20 percent of the population has COVID-19 antibodies .
I sympathize with the “ reopen now ” crowd despite my policy disagreements with them .
We ’ re facing an historic economic crisis alongside an historic public health crisis .
Three million more people filed for unemployment last week .
Urgency is warranted .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all costs ” crowd .
And increasingly , listening to people like Hegseth , my impression is that ’ s the real message they ’ re pushing .
Not “ reopen now ” but reopen now and stay open no matter what .
Whatever happens to the case count and the death toll , keep shopping .
It ’ s a fantasy , and a weirdly self-defeating one .
Unless you ’ re going to march people down to Applebee ’ s at gunpoint , consumers will adjust their behavior and stop going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logical solution would be to put measures in place before reopening that ’ ll prevent the crisis from deepening to such a degree after we reopen that people will get spooked and give up .
That ’ s test-and-trace .
But the “ reopen now ” group doesn ’ t want to wait for that and the “ reopen at all costs ” group just … doesn ’ t care .
They ’ ve talked themselves into believing that the economy will somehow be in better shape as hundreds of thousands die and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for weeks at a time after getting infected than it would be if we held back now and focused on setting up a surveillance system .
As it is , we ’ re going to end up with a 50 percent economy , at least to start : By the way , was Hegseth broadcasting at home in the clip above ?
Why not at a crowded diner in a state that ’ s partially reopened ?
I think he ’ s smart to take precautions , not just for himself but for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact with and to whom he might pass the virus if he ’ s infected .
But it ’ s hard not to notice given the advice he ’ s passing out .

He never uses the words “get infected,” but Daily Beast editor Justin Baragona is right to focus on the line “Herd immunity is our friend.”
Does Hegseth have any idea what the death toll would be from a true herd immunity strategy?
Maybe he’s just exaggerating for effect. Let’s watch, then we’ll do some math.
Fox News' Pete Hegseth calls for people to go out and get infected by coronavirus: "Now that we are learning more, herd immunity is our friend. Healthy people getting out there — they are going to have to have some courage." pic.twitter.com/PCSHm9yUAW — Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) May 7, 2020
I’ve ranted twice in the past few days about asking people to expose themselves and their families to infection without evidence that we’ve made meaningful progress in containing the epidemic so I won’t rant again. A few points, though.
1. Hegseth sneers at the idea of experts insisting that hundreds of thousands of people could die. Meanwhile, we’re creeping up on 75,000 dead after seven weeks of an almost coast-to-coast lockdown and are surely going to pass 100,000 dead soon, possibly this month. Trump’s own experts place the upper bound of their estimate on the total death toll at 240,000, and that assumes a degree of sustained social distancing that Hegseth himself wouldn’t condone. The only reason he has to scoff at hundreds of thousands dying if we follow his plan is if (a) he believes in actual magic, that the next phase just won’t be that bad for whatever reason, or (b) he’ll say anything to convince people to take a risk.
2. When he refers to the courage being shown in Texas, I assume he means the Dallas salon owner who briefly went to prison for violating lockdown and has now been released. The reason her case became famous isn’t just because her punishment was draconian, it’s because her defiance was rare. As far as I’m aware, Texans have been overwhelmingly compliant with lockdown orders. And now that those lockdown orders have been lifted, they’re avoiding local businesses out of an abundance of caution. (For now.) If Pete wants to get people excited to shop again, he’d do better to pressure Trump to get a test-and-trace system in place than pep-talking wary consumers by assuring them that Davy Crockett definitely would have gone to the mall.
3. Let’s talk herd immunity. I ran these numbers a few days ago based on the latest data from NYC showing that just about 20 percent of the population has COVID-19 antibodies.
Nearly 20 percent have been infected and just about 19,000 have died. If that ratio continued, with a thousand people dying for roughly every percentage point in prevalence gained (or one death for every 84 people immunized), NYC alone would still have 40,000 deaths to go before herd immunity is achieved. If that ratio held for the entire country (and if my math is correct), we could reach 60 percent immunity at the cost of … 2.4 million dead.
I sympathize with the “reopen now” crowd despite my policy disagreements with them. We’re facing an historic economic crisis alongside an historic public health crisis. Three million more people filed for unemployment last week. Urgency is warranted. I don’t sympathize with the “reopen at all costs” crowd. And increasingly, listening to people like Hegseth, my impression is that’s the real message they’re pushing. Not “reopen now” but reopen now and stay open no matter what. Whatever happens to the case count and the death toll, keep shopping.
It’s a fantasy, and a weirdly self-defeating one. Unless you’re going to march people down to Applebee’s at gunpoint, consumers will adjust their behavior and stop going out as the situation worsens. The logical solution would be to put measures in place before reopening that’ll prevent the crisis from deepening to such a degree after we reopen that people will get spooked and give up. That’s test-and-trace. But the “reopen now” group doesn’t want to wait for that and the “reopen at all costs” group just … doesn’t care. They’ve talked themselves into believing that the economy will somehow be in better shape as hundreds of thousands die and millions have to leave the labor force for weeks at a time after getting infected than it would be if we held back now and focused on setting up a surveillance system.
As it is, we’re going to end up with a 50 percent economy, at least to start:
The partisan gap in the latest CNBC battleground state poll shows a divide between delusion and reality: Is it safe to go to a:
Nail salon: 77% R; 9% D
Dine-in restaurant: 70% R; 5% D
Bar: 52% R; 4% D
Large sporting event: 37% R; 2% D Is the economy in a recession?
50% R; 89% D — Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) May 6, 2020
By the way, was Hegseth broadcasting at home in the clip above? Why not at a crowded diner in a state that’s partially reopened? I think he’s smart to take precautions, not just for himself but for any vulnerable people he’s in contact with and to whom he might pass the virus if he’s infected. But it’s hard not to notice given the advice he’s passing out.


hotair--2020-05-07--Tara Reade to Megyn Kelly: 'You and I were there, Joe Biden. Please, step forward and be held accoun

Tara Reade to Megyn Kelly: 'You and I were there, Joe Biden. Please, step forward and be held accountable.' (Update: Biden should take the polygraph)

Last week Tara Reade canceled her scheduled interview with Fox News and CNN ’ s Don Lemon has claimed she also canceled an interview with his network .
In both cases , Reade cited death threats she was receiving as the reason .
But today , Megyn Kelly announced that she had completed an interview with Reade which would be released shortly : Rich McHugh , the person who wrote the Business Insider piece about Reade ’ s allegations , also tweeted about the interview : As I write this , the first clip from that interview has just been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Biden ’ s on-air denials at MSNBC : “ You and I were there , Joe Biden .
Please , step forward and be held accountable .
You should not be running on character for the President of the United States.
” Asked if she thinks Biden should withdraw from the race , Reade replied , “ I wish he would , but he won ’ t .
But I wish he would .
That ’ s how I feel emotionally.
” That ’ s all that has been published thus far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lining up to pick this apart : And to be fair , Reade is getting some support , though to be fair the people offering that support were never Joe Biden fans in the first place : I ’ m limiting myself to accounts with over 1,000 followers but there ’ s a lot more like this .
While we ’ re waiting for the rest of the interview to appear , lots of Tara Reade skeptics are pointing to this Vox piece published today as further reason not to believe her : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shared all of her corroborating sources with reporters , if those sources had told a consistent story , if the Union piece had shaken loose other cases like hers , or if there were “ smoking gun ” evidence in Biden ’ s papers , her account might have been reported on differently in mainstream media a year ago .
It is not fair to an individual survivor that their claims require an extraordinary level of confirmation , but it ’ s what reporters have found is necessary for their stories to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold powerful men accountable .
So we are here… All of this leaves me where no reporter wants to be : mired in the miasma of uncertainty .
I wanted to believe Reade when she first came to me , and I worked hard to find the evidence to make certain others would believe her , too .
I couldn ’ t find it .
None of that means Reade is lying , but it leaves us in the limbo of Me Too : a story that may be true but that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closes with a reference to the kind of “ utilitarian bargain ” which some Biden supporters are now urging voters to make , even if they believe Tara Reade is telling the truth [ emphasis added ] : Many liberals have said now and during the Franken saga that the Democratic Party has held itself to a ridiculous standard .
Donald Trump has admitted on tape to what Reade accuses Biden of doing and still denies the accounts of more than 20 women who have accused him of sexual misconduct .
And given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paramount this fall , some see dwelling on an accusation that has yet to be definitively proven as a damaging distraction .
To Reade , though , none of this is that complicated .
“ My story never changed .
I just didn ’ t come forward with all the details .
It ’ s really simple , ” she said to me .
“ I held back this story because I was afraid of a powerful man.
” To be clear , I don ’ t think the author is prescribing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s hard to tell .
The piece is titled “ The agonizing story of Tara Reade ” and the overall sense does seem to hover around the idea that maybe this is all more trouble than it ’ s worth .
Not definitely , but maybe .
I ’ ll update this story as new clips of the interview are released .
Megyn Kelly didn ’ t offer any sort of timeline so it ’ s not even clear if the rest of the interview is being released today .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ clip .
In this one , Reade is asked about testifying under oath and says she ’ s willing to do that .
When asked if she would take a polygraph she replied , “ I ’ m not a criminal .
Joe Biden should take the polygraph.
” She does add , “ I will take one if Joe Biden takes one.
” To be fair , Joe Biden isn ’ t a criminal either but it ’ s a clever response .
She ’ s trying to shift the burden of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think Biden has to prove his innocence , but you can ’ t escape the fact that many , many people on the left seemed to feel very differently about this issue when the accused was Judge Kavanaugh .

Last week Tara Reade canceled her scheduled interview with Fox News and CNN’s Don Lemon has claimed she also canceled an interview with his network. In both cases, Reade cited death threats she was receiving as the reason. But today, Megyn Kelly announced that she had completed an interview with Reade which would be released shortly:
MK EXCLUSIVE: Former Biden staffer #TaraReade, who accuses FMR VP #JoeBiden of sexually assaulting her in 1993, sits down w/me in her first on-camera interview since Mr. Biden denied her accusations. Her story & some tough Q’s in a riveting exchange. A ton of news coming … pic.twitter.com/8bvTntUIm8 — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) May 7, 2020
Rich McHugh, the person who wrote the Business Insider piece about Reade’s allegations, also tweeted about the interview:
Just wrapped an exclusive interview with Former Biden Staffer @ReadeAlexandra, who accuses FMR VP Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993. She sits down with @megynkelly for her first on-camera interview since Mr. Biden denied her accusations. Stay tuned… pic.twitter.com/ki8ZwrNCqg — Rich McHugh (@RichMcHugh) May 7, 2020
As I write this, the first clip from that interview has just been released. In it, Reade responds to Biden’s on-air denials at MSNBC: “You and I were there, Joe Biden. Please, step forward and be held accountable. You should not be running on character for the President of the United States.” Asked if she thinks Biden should withdraw from the race, Reade replied, “I wish he would, but he won’t. But I wish he would. That’s how I feel emotionally.”
MK EXCLUSIVE: #TaraReade responds to #JoeBiden; calls for him to drop out pic.twitter.com/jxHAUYaWVU — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) May 7, 2020
That’s all that has been published thus far, but already the Biden supporters are lining up to pick this apart:
So her motive IS political. Thanks for confirming that even further Megyn!!!!! We have known that all along, but she just said it out loud. — Jules – Forever Ridin' with Biden #46 (@jules1327) May 7, 2020
Because, sure. She doesn't want an admission – via an apology.
She just wants him to drop out. Did you ask her what day of the week it was, BTW? — random facts girl (@soychicka) May 7, 2020
https://twitter.com/TheHFWarrior/status/1258486663224987649
And to be fair, Reade is getting some support, though to be fair the people offering that support were never Joe Biden fans in the first place:
I’m limiting myself to accounts with over 1,000 followers but there’s a lot more like this.
While we’re waiting for the rest of the interview to appear, lots of Tara Reade skeptics are pointing to this Vox piece published today as further reason not to believe her:
If Reade had told a consistent story and shared all of her corroborating sources with reporters, if those sources had told a consistent story, if the Union piece had shaken loose other cases like hers, or if there were “smoking gun” evidence in Biden’s papers, her account might have been reported on differently in mainstream media a year ago. It is not fair to an individual survivor that their claims require an extraordinary level of confirmation, but it’s what reporters have found is necessary for their stories to hold up to public scrutiny and successfully hold powerful men accountable. So we are here… All of this leaves me where no reporter wants to be: mired in the miasma of uncertainty. I wanted to believe Reade when she first came to me, and I worked hard to find the evidence to make certain others would believe her, too. I couldn’t find it. None of that means Reade is lying, but it leaves us in the limbo of Me Too: a story that may be true but that we can’t prove.
The piece closes with a reference to the kind of “utilitarian bargain” which some Biden supporters are now urging voters to make, even if they believe Tara Reade is telling the truth [emphasis added]:
Many liberals have said now and during the Franken saga that the Democratic Party has held itself to a ridiculous standard. Donald Trump has admitted on tape to what Reade accuses Biden of doing and still denies the accounts of more than 20 women who have accused him of sexual misconduct. And given that the goal of beating Trump is paramount this fall, some see dwelling on an accusation that has yet to be definitively proven as a damaging distraction. To Reade, though, none of this is that complicated. “My story never changed. I just didn’t come forward with all the details. It’s really simple,” she said to me. “I held back this story because I was afraid of a powerful man.”
To be clear, I don’t think the author is prescribing that position so much as describing it, but it’s hard to tell. The piece is titled “The agonizing story of Tara Reade” and the overall sense does seem to hover around the idea that maybe this is all more trouble than it’s worth. Not definitely, but maybe.
I’ll update this story as new clips of the interview are released. Megyn Kelly didn’t offer any sort of timeline so it’s not even clear if the rest of the interview is being released today.
Update: Here’s the next clip. In this one, Reade is asked about testifying under oath and says she’s willing to do that. When asked if she would take a polygraph she replied, “I’m not a criminal. Joe Biden should take the polygraph.” She does add, “I will take one if Joe Biden takes one.”
MK EXCLUSIVE: Will Tara Reade go under oath or take a polygraph? pic.twitter.com/aBXohhg14n — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) May 7, 2020
To be fair, Joe Biden isn’t a criminal either but it’s a clever response. She’s trying to shift the burden of proof onto Biden. Ultimately I don’t think Biden has to prove his innocence, but you can’t escape the fact that many, many people on the left seemed to feel very differently about this issue when the accused was Judge Kavanaugh.


hotair--2020-05-07--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: DoJ's Flynn flop, McEnany's mic drop, Biden's burden swap, Rosenstein's

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: DoJ's Flynn flop, McEnany's mic drop, Biden's burden swap, Rosenstein's cop, and more!

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 : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll discuss the breaking news on Michael Flynn , Joe Biden ’ s Title IX stunner , the deeper meaning of the Kayleigh McEnany mic drop yesterday , and much much more !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosenstein ’ s memo to Robert Mueller , and what questions does it raise ?
Andrew C. McCarthy joins us to discuss that , as well as the unusual move by the DoJ today .
Don ’ t miss it !
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 winning after 2016 ?
Find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April from Crown Forum !

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:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll discuss the breaking news on Michael Flynn, Joe Biden’s Title IX stunner, the deeper meaning of the Kayleigh McEnany mic drop yesterday, and much much more!
What was the secret behind Rod Rosenstein’s memo to Robert Mueller, and what questions does it raise? Andrew C. McCarthy joins us to discuss that, as well as the unusual move by the DoJ today. Don’t miss it!
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 winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-05-07--<span class='red'>Breaking: DoJ drops Flynn prosecution; Update: Prosecutor pulling out of all remai

Breaking: DoJ drops Flynn prosecution; Update: Prosecutor pulling out of all remaining cases?

Get ready for lots and lots of palace-intrigue coverage of this major bombshell .
The Department of Justice has filed a motion today ending all prosecution of Michael Flynn for obstruction of justice , ending one of the key cases developed by special counsel Robert Mueller .
In fact , the DoJ all but accused Mueller of violating the scope of his investigation — a curious position given the memo Rosenstein issued that explicitly named Flynn as a target : The Justice Department on Thursday said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump ’ s first national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prosecution that became a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters in attacking the FBI ’ s Russia investigation .
The move is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller .
It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview .
Flynn himself admitted as much , and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties between Russia and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being filed Thursday , the Justice Department said it is dropping the case “ after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case , including newly discovered and disclosed information.
” The documents were obtained by The Associated Press .
The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn ’ s interview by the FBI was “ untethered to , and unjustified by , the FBI ’ s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn ” and that the interview on January 24 , 2017 was “ conducted without any legitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly have room for criticism in pursuing Flynn on a flimsy obstruction charge , but this argument is curious in relation to the special-counsel prosecution .
Here ’ s the language from Rosenstein ’ s memo to Mueller , which looks as though the DoJ tethered Flynn itself : The prosecution of Flynn specifically related to the explicit language of the second bullet point .
That interview never should have taken place , but Rosenstein very explicitly made it part of Mueller ’ s portfolio .
Why did Rosenstein do that ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then it ’ s a legitimate question to ask why Mueller pursued it , even if it was within the scope of his appointment , especially when the FBI initially concluded that Flynn wasn ’ t lying .
However , that ’ s not the only action that took place today in court .
Lead prosecutor Brandon Van Grack abruptly petitioned to be removed from the case before the DoJ filed for dismissal , a move that should raise some eyebrows on Capitol Hill : That can be read in a couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in protest over the DoJ ’ s decision to end the prosecution .
As one of Mueller ’ s team , Van Grack might have objected to that decision as a political move designed to placate Donald Trump — which is exactly how it will be viewed in some quarters .
On the other hand , Van Grack might have had other reasons to withdraw , especially with two separate probes into Mueller ’ s operations at the DoJ : The move by Van Grack came four days before a court deadline for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort by Flynn ’ s defense team to have the case against him dismissed on the grounds of egregious government misconduct .
In recent weeks and months , Flynn ’ s defense — headed by Texas lawyer Sidney Powell — had escalated its attacks on Van Grack personally , alleging that he withheld evidence favorable to Flynn in defiance of an order from Sullivan requiring the prosecution to turn over such material .
A defense filing two weeks ago accused Van Grack of “ incredible malfeasance ” and of coercing Flynn ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by making “ baseless threats ” to indict Flynn ’ s son , Michael G. Flynn Jr.
It ’ s very possible that the disclosures from investigating US Attorney Jeffrey Jensen made Van Grack ’ s continued presence untenable .
That might have been explained to Van Grack by someone high up at the DoJ — like AG William Barr , perhaps — or maybe Van Grack just read the writing on the wall .
This also leaves Judge Emmet Sullivan in an awkward position .
Not all that long ago , Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came up for sentencing , even though Flynn was never accused of anything approaching such a crime .
Sullivan issued a thinly veiled threat to throw the book at Flynn unless he did more cooperating with the DoJ and Mueller ’ s team , even though the latter expressed satisfaction with Flynn ’ s assistance .
Sullivan then hinted at getting even tougher if Flynn withdrew his plea .
What will Sullivan say now ?
He can ’ t press forward on a case that prosecutors want to drop , not without getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sullivan might have some answering to do on his own behavior at the end of this .
The bottom line is that Michael Flynn is now a free man again , or should be shortly .
Has he been vindicated ?
That ’ s a tougher question , but let ’ s at least say that he ’ s not coming out as badly as Mueller , Rosenstein , James Comey , and the FBI are .
He might even come out better than the DoJ , given the nature of this rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fair to wonder just how this decision got made , even if it ’ s also fair to wonder how Flynn ended up in the dock in the first place .
Update : Looks like Van Grack ’ s on his way out of the DoJ , one way or the other : That could still be a protest move , or something else .
Whatever the issue , though , it ’ s clear that it goes beyond Michael Flynn — one way or the other .

Get ready for lots and lots of palace-intrigue coverage of this major bombshell. The Department of Justice has filed a motion today ending all prosecution of Michael Flynn for obstruction of justice, ending one of the key cases developed by special counsel Robert Mueller. In fact, the DoJ all but accused Mueller of violating the scope of his investigation — a curious position given the memo Rosenstein issued that explicitly named Flynn as a target:
The Justice Department on Thursday said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters in attacking the FBI’s Russia investigation. The move is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview. Flynn himself admitted as much, and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign. In court documents being filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the case “after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.” The documents were obtained by The Associated Press. The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn’s interview by the FBI was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn” and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.”
The DoJ and Mueller certainly have room for criticism in pursuing Flynn on a flimsy obstruction charge, but this argument is curious in relation to the special-counsel prosecution. Here’s the language from Rosenstein’s memo to Mueller, which looks as though the DoJ tethered Flynn itself:
The prosecution of Flynn specifically related to the explicit language of the second bullet point. That interview never should have taken place, but Rosenstein very explicitly made it part of Mueller’s portfolio. Why did Rosenstein do that? And if that’s the case, then it’s a legitimate question to ask why Mueller pursued it, even if it was within the scope of his appointment, especially when the FBI initially concluded that Flynn wasn’t lying.
However, that’s not the only action that took place today in court. Lead prosecutor Brandon Van Grack abruptly petitioned to be removed from the case before the DoJ filed for dismissal, a move that should raise some eyebrows on Capitol Hill:
The top prosecutor in the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn withdrew abruptly and without explanation, a development that comes amid mounting pressure by President Donald Trump and his allies to have the entire matter thrown out of court. Brandon Van Grack, one of special counsel Robert Mueller’s top investigators, informed Judge Emmet Sullivan that he would be quitting the case in a terse, one-sentence filing with the court.
That can be read in a couple of ways. Van Grack might have withdrawn in protest over the DoJ’s decision to end the prosecution. As one of Mueller’s team, Van Grack might have objected to that decision as a political move designed to placate Donald Trump — which is exactly how it will be viewed in some quarters.
On the other hand, Van Grack might have had other reasons to withdraw, especially with two separate probes into Mueller’s operations at the DoJ:
The move by Van Grack came four days before a court deadline for the prosecution to respond to an ongoing effort by Flynn’s defense team to have the case against him dismissed on the grounds of egregious government misconduct. In recent weeks and months, Flynn’s defense — headed by Texas lawyer Sidney Powell — had escalated its attacks on Van Grack personally, alleging that he withheld evidence favorable to Flynn in defiance of an order from Sullivan requiring the prosecution to turn over such material. A defense filing two weeks ago accused Van Grack of “incredible malfeasance” and of coercing Flynn’s guilty plea in the fall of 2017 by making “baseless threats” to indict Flynn’s son, Michael G. Flynn Jr.
It’s very possible that the disclosures from investigating US Attorney Jeffrey Jensen made Van Grack’s continued presence untenable. That might have been explained to Van Grack by someone high up at the DoJ — like AG William Barr, perhaps — or maybe Van Grack just read the writing on the wall.
This also leaves Judge Emmet Sullivan in an awkward position. Not all that long ago, Sullivan accused Flynn of treason when Flynn first came up for sentencing, even though Flynn was never accused of anything approaching such a crime. Sullivan issued a thinly veiled threat to throw the book at Flynn unless he did more cooperating with the DoJ and Mueller’s team, even though the latter expressed satisfaction with Flynn’s assistance. Sullivan then hinted at getting even tougher if Flynn withdrew his plea. What will Sullivan say now? He can’t press forward on a case that prosecutors want to drop, not without getting reamed by the court of appeals. Sullivan might have some answering to do on his own behavior at the end of this.
The bottom line is that Michael Flynn is now a free man again, or should be shortly. Has he been vindicated? That’s a tougher question, but let’s at least say that he’s not coming out as badly as Mueller, Rosenstein, James Comey, and the FBI are. He might even come out better than the DoJ, given the nature of this rather strongly worded statement against interests. It’s fair to wonder just how this decision got made, even if it’s also fair to wonder how Flynn ended up in the dock in the first place.
The Department of Justice's motion to dismiss Flynn's case is an extremely well written defense argument that would absolutely fail if made by the defense, and will be quoted extensively (to no avail) in future 1001 prosecutions. It's transparently corrupt. — IncitementToResurrectionHat (@Popehat) May 7, 2020
Update: Looks like Van Grack’s on his way out of the DoJ, one way or the other:
It's not just the Flynn case. Van Grack is withdrawing as counsel for the Govt in other cases as well. I wouldn't be surprised if that's it for Van Grack at the DOJ. pic.twitter.com/tfBIrw8rxT — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 7, 2020
That could still be a protest move, or something else. Whatever the issue, though, it’s clear that it goes beyond Michael Flynn — one way or the other.


hotair--2020-05-07--National Review on the 1619 Project's Pulitzer Prize win

Earlier this week the 1619 Project won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary .
The Pulitzer committee praised lead essay author Nikole Hannah-Jones for “ a sweeping , deeply reported and personal essay…which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America ’ s story , prompting public conversation about the nation ’ s founding and evolution.
” The aware made no mention of the fact that the NY Times had to issue a correction to the piece after numerous historians complained ( including prior to publication ) that one of its central claims about the Revolutionary War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was as if the journalistic establishment was endorsing the idea that “ fake but accurate ” is good enough to win a top prize .
Today , National Review published a piece which goes into more detail about the historical errors in the piece , particularly the claim about the causes of the Revolutionary War .
The most dramatic and controversial assertion in Hannah-Jones ’ s essay was that , in 1776 , “ one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Her essay cited nothing to support this , nor did it show even the slightest awareness of how radical a claim this is… Organized , popular movements against slavery , and laws restricting or abolishing slavery and the slave trade , were considerably more advanced in the American colonies in the 1770s than in Britain , where Parliament would not ban slavery in Jamaica and other British colonies until 1833 , after many years of failures by William Wilberforce and other anti-slavery leaders .
The world ’ s first organized anti-slavery society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the first legal ban on slavery anywhere in the world was in Vermont in 1777 .
Five of the original 13 states followed suit either during or immediately after the Revolution , passing bans on slavery between 1780 and 1784 .
The first federal ban on slavery , in the Northwest Territory , was drafted in 1784 by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the Confederation Congress in 1787 .
Its language would later be adopted directly into the 13th Amendment… In order to paint the American Revolution as a fight to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only need to ignore the whole history of anti-slavery , you also must invert the chronology and geography of the Revolution .
In reality , the Revolution began in Massachusetts , and the colonies with few slaves and early slavery bans were its most enthusiastic backers , while those with the most slaves tended to have the highest concentrations of Loyalists .
Despite numerous complaints about this revisionist history , Hannah-Jones and the NY Times fought for months to avoid admitting any error .
The reason , as I ’ ve discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The whole project would have been undone without this fanciful alternative view of the causes for the Revolutionary War .
The facts are , of course , the central thing — both the hard , provable facts and the broader narratives of causation , motivation , and effect that historians draw from them .
It is apparent enough that Hannah-Jones dug in so hard on her particular claim about the American Revolution because she was wedded so deeply to the narrative that the 1776 founding of the nation could not be allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of human liberty .
That is why her essay gave her attack on the founding such prominent placement .
Simply put , you can ’ t argue 1619 was the true founding of America without also discrediting 1776 as the founding .
To do that , Hannah-Jones needed to downplay and discredit any motive other than the preservation of slavery , even if the facts didn ’ t support her conclusion .
That ’ s why she ignored professional warnings , given to her in advance , that her claims about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , and I know , and everybody else on this planet knows , that nothing full of as many shoddy errors and untruths , and subject to such withering scholarly rebuttal , as the 1619 Project would be awarded an accolade such as a Pulitzer if its politics were of the right rather than of the left .
It ’ s unthinkable .
But the taste makers clearly agree with the politics motivating this so they were only too happy to overlook a few messy details .
This is only a small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the topic .
The whole thing is worth reading .

Earlier this week the 1619 Project won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary. The Pulitzer committee praised lead essay author Nikole Hannah-Jones for “a sweeping, deeply reported and personal essay…which seeks to place the enslavement of Africans at the center of America’s story, prompting public conversation about the nation’s founding and evolution.” The aware made no mention of the fact that the NY Times had to issue a correction to the piece after numerous historians complained (including prior to publication) that one of its central claims about the Revolutionary War was false. As Ed argued here, it was as if the journalistic establishment was endorsing the idea that “fake but accurate” is good enough to win a top prize.
Today, National Review published a piece which goes into more detail about the historical errors in the piece, particularly the claim about the causes of the Revolutionary War.
The most dramatic and controversial assertion in Hannah-Jones’s essay was that, in 1776, “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” Her essay cited nothing to support this, nor did it show even the slightest awareness of how radical a claim this is… Organized, popular movements against slavery, and laws restricting or abolishing slavery and the slave trade, were considerably more advanced in the American colonies in the 1770s than in Britain, where Parliament would not ban slavery in Jamaica and other British colonies until 1833, after many years of failures by William Wilberforce and other anti-slavery leaders. The world’s first organized anti-slavery society was formed in Pennsylvania in 1774, and the first legal ban on slavery anywhere in the world was in Vermont in 1777. Five of the original 13 states followed suit either during or immediately after the Revolution, passing bans on slavery between 1780 and 1784. The first federal ban on slavery, in the Northwest Territory, was drafted in 1784 by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the Confederation Congress in 1787. Its language would later be adopted directly into the 13th Amendment… In order to paint the American Revolution as a fight to protect slavery from an anti-slavery Britain, you not only need to ignore the whole history of anti-slavery, you also must invert the chronology and geography of the Revolution. In reality, the Revolution began in Massachusetts, and the colonies with few slaves and early slavery bans were its most enthusiastic backers, while those with the most slaves tended to have the highest concentrations of Loyalists.
Despite numerous complaints about this revisionist history, Hannah-Jones and the NY Times fought for months to avoid admitting any error. The reason, as I’ve discussed several times before, is obvious. The whole project would have been undone without this fanciful alternative view of the causes for the Revolutionary War.
The facts are, of course, the central thing — both the hard, provable facts and the broader narratives of causation, motivation, and effect that historians draw from them. It is apparent enough that Hannah-Jones dug in so hard on her particular claim about the American Revolution because she was wedded so deeply to the narrative that the 1776 founding of the nation could not be allowed to be regarded as a milestone in the idea of human liberty. That is why her essay gave her attack on the founding such prominent placement.
Simply put, you can’t argue 1619 was the true founding of America without also discrediting 1776 as the founding. To do that, Hannah-Jones needed to downplay and discredit any motive other than the preservation of slavery, even if the facts didn’t support her conclusion. That’s why she ignored professional warnings, given to her in advance, that her claims about the Revolutionary War were not true.
You know, and I know, and everybody else on this planet knows, that nothing full of as many shoddy errors and untruths, and subject to such withering scholarly rebuttal, as the 1619 Project would be awarded an accolade such as a Pulitzer if its politics were of the right rather than of the left.
It’s unthinkable. But the taste makers clearly agree with the politics motivating this so they were only too happy to overlook a few messy details. This is only a small fraction of what Dan McLaughlin wrote on the topic. The whole thing is worth reading.


hotair--2020-05-07--Rosenstein-Mueller scope memo: Probe Russia collusion we kinda already know didn't exist

Perhaps Adam Schiff shouldn ’ t be alone in panicking over increasing scrutiny into the debunked Russia-collusion conspiracy theory .
After a long fight over the authorizing document for Robert Mueller ’ s scope in his special-counsel probe , the Department of Justice has finally released a redacted version of Rod Rosenstein ’ s supplemental authorization from August 2017 .
Issued three months after Rosenstein ’ s initial appointment of Mueller and authorization , this memo intended to fix some structural defects of Rosenstein ’ s initial authorization .
In retrospect , perhaps Rosenstein should have used that intervening time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it — or just dismiss Mueller altogether : The Justice Department has released a largely unredacted copy of former acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ’ s 2017 memo laying out the scope of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation , offering a previously unseen glimpse into how the Russia probe was framed .
… The memo , dated as being sent on August 2 , 2017 , and written to Mueller when Rosenstein was serving as deputy attorney general , specified five people that he was permitted to investigate : Carter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , George Papadopolous and one other whose name was redacted .
In the case of Carter Page , Mueller was to probe allegations that he committed a crime by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to their efforts to interfere in the 2016 election .
Regarding Manafort , Mueller was tasked with looking into whether he colluded with Russia in their 2016 election interference , as well as regarding his work in Ukraine and whether he committed a crime by taking loans from a bank CEO who was pursuing a job at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same allegations regarding Russian collusion were to be answered by Mueller regarding George Papadopolous , although Mueller was also asked to look into whether Papadopolous was an unregistered agent to the Israeli government .
Read the memo here , but it ’ s about as dry as the New York Post ’ s prose above .
The reason that Rosenstein had to issue this memo is because his first memo was outside the scope of the special-counsel statute , as Andy McCarthy wrote two years ago .
Rosenstein had defined Mueller ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comey ’ s investigation of the 2016 election , but that was explicitly a counterintelligence operation , not a criminal investigation : From the outset , I protested that Rosenstein ’ s order appointing Mueller violated governing special-counsel regulations .
They make the trigger for such an appointment the existence of a “ criminal investigation of a person or matter , ” which some conflict of interest prevents the Justice Department from conducting in the normal course — requiring that an attorney from outside the U.S. government be assigned to conduct the criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 600.3 ) .
To the contrary , Rosenstein ’ s order disclosed no basis for a criminal investigation and indicated no crimes that had allegedly been committed .
Instead , the deputy attorney general assigned Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation .
To wit , Rosenstein defined the probe as “ the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20 , 2017.
” In that testimony , Comey had quite explicitly confirmed a counterintelligence probe : “ I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confirm that the FBI , as part of our counterintelligence mission , is investigating the Russian government ’ s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election ” ( emphasis added ) .
All that Rosenstein appears to have done is to slap language onto his original order to give Mueller the scope to investigate “ allegations ” that various figures “ committed a crime ” in one fashion or another .
One target remains redacted , but the other targets are those listed by the NYP : Carter Page , George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manafort .
Of these four , two got pushed into guilty pleas for lying to investigators in increasingly suspicious circumstances , one ( Manafort ) got convicted on charges that the DoJ had been holding for years , and Page ended up being vindicated in the end .
Especially in the case of Page , the basis for the “ criminal ” investigation had to be the Steele dossier .
The FBI didn ’ t have anything else , and by the time that Rosenstein wrote this memo , they had plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , by that time , the FBI had begun a counterintelligence operation aimed at Christopher Steele ’ s sources , according to the report written by Inspector General Michael Horowitz : Details in the footnotes reveal the FBI knew the dossier wasn ’ t credible before applying for FISA renewals on at least one Trump campaign official .
This information was also known before the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller .
Adding insult to injury , Russian intelligence officials were aware of Steele ’ s investigation into the Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia with disinformation campaigns against the United States .
… Further , the “ FBI had open counterintelligence case on Steele ’ s key source , but failed to apprise the FISA Court ” and “ despite repeated warnings of tainted evidence , FBI continuously sought FISA renewals.
” “ As we can see from these now-declassified footnotes in the IG ’ s report , Russian intelligence was aware of the dossier before the FBI even began its investigation and the FBI had reports in hand that their central piece of evidence was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Senators Grassley and Johnson said about the confirmed revelations .
Instead of acting on this information , Rosenstein issued this cover-your-ass memo to fix the fatal defect that McCarthy had earlier pointed out .
That saved Mueller from having his prosecutions tossed on a foundational basis , but as it turned out , all he got were a couple of process crimes and an easy conviction on Manafort that the DoJ never bothered to pursue when it developed the case .
Mueller also kept mum about the utter nonsense of the Russia-collusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it was immediately apparent that it was based on political oppo research that had ended up being a vehicle for Russian disinformation .
One could argue that Rosenstein was caught between a rock and a hard place in August 2017 .
Had he dropped the probe , Democrats in Congress would have screamed about a cover-up , and Rosenstein couldn ’ t necessarily reveal the classified information that would have backed up that decision .
However , all that shows is just how much of a political hit job the Mueller probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may well be what we will find out in the House Intelligence Committee transcripts , too .
If so , Schiff is only one of many who should be very , very worried about what the rest of the country will discover in those troves .

Perhaps Adam Schiff shouldn’t be alone in panicking over increasing scrutiny into the debunked Russia-collusion conspiracy theory. After a long fight over the authorizing document for Robert Mueller’s scope in his special-counsel probe, the Department of Justice has finally released a redacted version of Rod Rosenstein’s supplemental authorization from August 2017. Issued three months after Rosenstein’s initial appointment of Mueller and authorization, this memo intended to fix some structural defects of Rosenstein’s initial authorization.
In retrospect, perhaps Rosenstein should have used that intervening time to narrow the scope rather than broaden it — or just dismiss Mueller altogether:
The Justice Department has released a largely unredacted copy of former acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s 2017 memo laying out the scope of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, offering a previously unseen glimpse into how the Russia probe was framed. … The memo, dated as being sent on August 2, 2017, and written to Mueller when Rosenstein was serving as deputy attorney general, specified five people that he was permitted to investigate: Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, George Papadopolous and one other whose name was redacted. In the case of Carter Page, Mueller was to probe allegations that he committed a crime by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to their efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Regarding Manafort, Mueller was tasked with looking into whether he colluded with Russia in their 2016 election interference, as well as regarding his work in Ukraine and whether he committed a crime by taking loans from a bank CEO who was pursuing a job at the time with the Trump administration. The same allegations regarding Russian collusion were to be answered by Mueller regarding George Papadopolous, although Mueller was also asked to look into whether Papadopolous was an unregistered agent to the Israeli government.
Read the memo here, but it’s about as dry as the New York Post’s prose above. The reason that Rosenstein had to issue this memo is because his first memo was outside the scope of the special-counsel statute, as Andy McCarthy wrote two years ago. Rosenstein had defined Mueller’s mission as the continuance of James Comey’s investigation of the 2016 election, but that was explicitly a counterintelligence operation, not a criminal investigation:
From the outset, I protested that Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller violated governing special-counsel regulations. They make the trigger for such an appointment the existence of a “criminal investigation of a person or matter,” which some conflict of interest prevents the Justice Department from conducting in the normal course — requiring that an attorney from outside the U.S. government be assigned to conduct the criminal investigation (see 28 CFR Sections 600.1 and 600.3). To the contrary, Rosenstein’s order disclosed no basis for a criminal investigation and indicated no crimes that had allegedly been committed. Instead, the deputy attorney general assigned Mueller to conduct a counterintelligence investigation. To wit, Rosenstein defined the probe as “the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017.” In that testimony, Comey had quite explicitly confirmed a counterintelligence probe: “I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election” (emphasis added).
All that Rosenstein appears to have done is to slap language onto his original order to give Mueller the scope to investigate “allegations” that various figures “committed a crime” in one fashion or another. One target remains redacted, but the other targets are those listed by the NYP: Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort. Of these four, two got pushed into guilty pleas for lying to investigators in increasingly suspicious circumstances, one (Manafort) got convicted on charges that the DoJ had been holding for years, and Page ended up being vindicated in the end.
Especially in the case of Page, the basis for the “criminal” investigation had to be the Steele dossier. The FBI didn’t have anything else, and by the time that Rosenstein wrote this memo, they had plenty of reason to be skeptical of it. In fact, by that time, the FBI had begun a counterintelligence operation aimed at Christopher Steele’s sources, according to the report written by Inspector General Michael Horowitz:
Details in the footnotes reveal the FBI knew the dossier wasn’t credible before applying for FISA renewals on at least one Trump campaign official. This information was also known before the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Adding insult to injury, Russian intelligence officials were aware of Steele’s investigation into the Trump campaign in July 2016. This information helped Russia with disinformation campaigns against the United States. … Further, the “FBI had open counterintelligence case on Steele’s key source, but failed to apprise the FISA Court” and “despite repeated warnings of tainted evidence, FBI continuously sought FISA renewals.” “As we can see from these now-declassified footnotes in the IG’s report, Russian intelligence was aware of the dossier before the FBI even began its investigation and the FBI had reports in hand that their central piece of evidence was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation,” Senators Grassley and Johnson said about the confirmed revelations.
Instead of acting on this information, Rosenstein issued this cover-your-ass memo to fix the fatal defect that McCarthy had earlier pointed out. That saved Mueller from having his prosecutions tossed on a foundational basis, but as it turned out, all he got were a couple of process crimes and an easy conviction on Manafort that the DoJ never bothered to pursue when it developed the case. Mueller also kept mum about the utter nonsense of the Russia-collusion conspiracy theory until the bitter end even when it was immediately apparent that it was based on political oppo research that had ended up being a vehicle for Russian disinformation.
One could argue that Rosenstein was caught between a rock and a hard place in August 2017. Had he dropped the probe, Democrats in Congress would have screamed about a cover-up, and Rosenstein couldn’t necessarily reveal the classified information that would have backed up that decision. However, all that shows is just how much of a political hit job the Mueller probe turned out to be.
And that may well be what we will find out in the House Intelligence Committee transcripts, too. If so, Schiff is only one of many who should be very, very worried about what the rest of the country will discover in those troves.