hotair--2020-12-08--Safe Harbor Hail Mary: Texas sues MI, PA, GA, WI in Supreme Court over election-rules changes

Welcome to Safe Harbor Day , the date on the Electoral College calendar by which all states can guarantee the seating of their electors by ending all state-court challenges to their presidential elections .
By the Associated Press ’ count , only Wisconsin has yet to meet the deadline , but is expected to do so by today .
In what appears to be a last-minute Hail Mary play to forestall the safe-harbor mechanism , the state of Texas has filed suit against Wisconsin in the Supreme Court , as well as Georgia , Michigan , and Pennsylvania , over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court .
The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes , thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election .
The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received , evaluated and counted .
“ Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together .
Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election .
The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures , thereby violating the Constitution .
By ignoring both state and federal law , these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens ’ vote , but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections , ” said Attorney General Paxton .
“ Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire election .
We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.
” Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards .
For presidential elections , each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution .
The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and can not be delegated to local officials .
The majority of the rushed decisions , made by local officials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thereby circumventing the Constitution .
Texas claims in its petition that this is a “ case or controversy between the states , ” which makes the Supreme Court the proper venue .
And that ’ s true enough , but those usually relate to matters of interstate transactions of some sort .
Voting laws seem like a highly unusual matter for such a “ case or controversy , ” as states manage their own elections in their own manner .
Texas claims it has suffered a wrong over the disparate impact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which gives it standing to file the complaint : Anderson v Celebrezze does provide an interesting entrée into this kind of action , but it ’ s tough to see how it holds up as standing for another state to sue .
John Anderson sued Ohio over his potential exclusion from the 1980 presidential ballot based on an arguably unfair filing requirement vis-a-vis the deadline for major-party candidates , who get chosen by convention .
The Supreme Court noted that federal courts have jurisdiction in the dispute because of the potential impact on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have any language granting other states any standing to bring these kinds of suits .
( Neither the controlling opinion nor the dissent even mentions standing . )
Such suits would have to come from those who suffered a particularized , specific , and redressable injury — the candidate or the voters who couldn ’ t cast their ballot .
In other words , Anderson makes a good argument for federal courts to hear lawsuits from Team Trump , or even Sidney Powell , assuming she can find others in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lance v Coffman ( also cited as providing standing ) involved four Colorado citizens challenging redistricting in Colorado , not another state or vice versa , and was also about the jurisdiction of federal courts rather than standing of other states .
Furthermore , the court held in Lance that federal courts were not a forum for “ generalized grievances , ” which is a very good description of this lawsuit .
Neither looks like a very good argument that states can sue other states over their election practices , let alone demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and having their legislatures appoint new electors .
If so , then we would routinely see Alabama suing New York , Kansas suing Colorado , and so on .
The Trump campaign would be the most obvious candidate for standing on all three of those issues , or the voters within each state .
So that ’ s one problem with this complaint , and a rather fundamental one .
Here ’ s another , from University of Texas law prof Steve Vladeck : Normally , a state would have its Solicitor General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It seems very unusual to have State AG Ken Paxton taking the helm on this lawsuit instead .
No one has mentioned why Hawkins ’ s name is not listed on the filing , but it ’ s not unfair to assume that he ’ s missing because he doesn ’ t want to participate in the suit .
Why is Paxton pushing the suit ?
Some are wondering whether it ’ s a stunt to get on Santa Trump ’ s nice list at pardon time : Karen Townsend wrote about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , and it does look like Paxton has some significant problems on his hands .
A pardon will only help if Paxton doesn ’ t want a political career after his term ends , though ; he needs a vindication , not a pardon , if he wants higher office .
It may well be that Paxton just wants to get his name in the papers and impress some of Trump ’ s MAGA base for those future runs at higher office with this lawsuit .
The Supreme Court already has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rules changes ( coming out of the 3-0 loss for Team Trump in the Third District ) , if just to set a bar for future elections on adhering to previously passed statutes .
Team Trump has standing in that case .
This Hail Mary by Texas is likely to land about 50 yards short of the goal line .
Update : Our friend Jonathan Adler is less than impressed , except with the copy editing .
He also smells a rat :

Welcome to Safe Harbor Day, the date on the Electoral College calendar by which all states can guarantee the seating of their electors by ending all state-court challenges to their presidential elections. By the Associated Press’ count, only Wisconsin has yet to meet the deadline, but is expected to do so by today. In what appears to be a last-minute Hail Mary play to forestall the safe-harbor mechanism, the state of Texas has filed suit against Wisconsin in the Supreme Court, as well as Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, over their electoral practices:
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted. “Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.” Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.
To sum up:
From the bill of complaint: "These flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections." PDF: https://t.co/aoXa20zkrL — Ivan Pentchoukov (@IvanPentchoukov) December 8, 2020
Texas claims in its petition that this is a “case or controversy between the states,” which makes the Supreme Court the proper venue. And that’s true enough, but those usually relate to matters of interstate transactions of some sort. Voting laws seem like a highly unusual matter for such a “case or controversy,” as states manage their own elections in their own manner. Texas claims it has suffered a wrong over the disparate impact of those differences in the presidential election, which gives it standing to file the complaint:
With voting, “‘the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.’” Bush II, 531 U.S. at 105 (quoting Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555). In presidential elections, “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983). Thus, votes in Defendant States affect the votes in Plaintiff State, as set forth in more detail below.
Anderson v Celebrezze does provide an interesting entrée into this kind of action, but it’s tough to see how it holds up as standing for another state to sue. John Anderson sued Ohio over his potential exclusion from the 1980 presidential ballot based on an arguably unfair filing requirement vis-a-vis the deadline for major-party candidates, who get chosen by convention. The Supreme Court noted that federal courts have jurisdiction in the dispute because of the potential impact on “other states,” but it doesn’t have any language granting other states any standing to bring these kinds of suits. (Neither the controlling opinion nor the dissent even mentions standing.) Such suits would have to come from those who suffered a particularized, specific, and redressable injury — the candidate or the voters who couldn’t cast their ballot.
In other words, Anderson makes a good argument for federal courts to hear lawsuits from Team Trump, or even Sidney Powell, assuming she can find others in each state with standing. Similarly, Lance v Coffman (also cited as providing standing) involved four Colorado citizens challenging redistricting in Colorado, not another state or vice versa, and was also about the jurisdiction of federal courts rather than standing of other states. Furthermore, the court held in Lance that federal courts were not a forum for “generalized grievances,” which is a very good description of this lawsuit.
Neither looks like a very good argument that states can sue other states over their election practices, let alone demand the unconstitutional remedy of voiding their elections and having their legislatures appoint new electors. If so, then we would routinely see Alabama suing New York, Kansas suing Colorado, and so on. The Trump campaign would be the most obvious candidate for standing on all three of those issues, or the voters within each state.
So that’s one problem with this complaint, and a rather fundamental one. Here’s another, from University of Texas law prof Steve Vladeck:
Anyway, it takes five votes to grant a motion for leave to file — which isn’t going to happen. And it’ll take some time. So chalk this up as mostly a stunt — a dangerous, offensive, and wasteful one, but a stunt nonetheless. — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 8, 2020
Normally, a state would have its Solicitor General represent their claims at the Supreme Court. It seems very unusual to have State AG Ken Paxton taking the helm on this lawsuit instead. No one has mentioned why Hawkins’s name is not listed on the filing, but it’s not unfair to assume that he’s missing because he doesn’t want to participate in the suit.
Why is Paxton pushing the suit? Some are wondering whether it’s a stunt to get on Santa Trump’s nice list at pardon time:
Karen Townsend wrote about the Paxton case a couple of months ago, and it does look like Paxton has some significant problems on his hands. A pardon will only help if Paxton doesn’t want a political career after his term ends, though; he needs a vindication, not a pardon, if he wants higher office. It may well be that Paxton just wants to get his name in the papers and impress some of Trump’s MAGA base for those future runs at higher office with this lawsuit.
The Supreme Court already has a case it will likely hear regarding Pennsylvania’s rules changes (coming out of the 3-0 loss for Team Trump in the Third District), if just to set a bar for future elections on adhering to previously passed statutes. Team Trump has standing in that case. This Hail Mary by Texas is likely to land about 50 yards short of the goal line.
Update: Our friend Jonathan Adler is less than impressed, except with the copy editing. He also smells a rat:


hotair--2020-12-09--"We are not convinced": Nevada supreme court unanimously rejects Team Trump appeal

If nothing else , the ruling has the virtue of brevity .
The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously rejected an appeal by the Trump campaign late last night of its earlier and comprehensive loss on the merits of their claims of massive fraud in the 2020 election .
The court found that the campaign ’ s appeal identified no errors or new facts to warrant reconsideration of Judge James Russell ’ s fact-finding or legal reasoning : The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday night to reject an appeal from President Trump ’ s campaign to overturn the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the president ’ s ongoing legal efforts to have states he did not win declare him victorious .
The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada ’ s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign ’ s efforts in the state last week .
Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state that President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late Tuesday , the justices “ affirmed ” the decision from Russell and said the court would take no action .
The court found that the Trump campaign failed to identify “ any unsupported factual findings ” in Russell ’ s decision , with the state ’ s high court concluding that it had also “ identified none.
” “ To prevail on this appeal , appellants must demonstrate error of law , findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order read .
“ We are not convinced they have done so.
” In fact , the court took less than two pages in its ruling to dispense with the appeal .
Rather than recapitulate Russell ’ s findings , they simply attached it to their unanimous rejection , along with a rather stinging criticism of both the lawsuit and appeal from Team Trump : In particular , appellants have not demonstrated any legal error in the district court ’ s application of NRS 293.410 ( 2 ) ( c ) .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court erred in applying a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence , as supported by the cases cited in the district court ’ s order .
And , in any event , the district court further determined that appellants had not met their burden even if it applied a lesser standard .
Finally , the district court ’ s order thoroughly addressed the grounds asserted in the statement of contest filed by appellants and considered the evidence offered by appellants even when that evidence did not meet the requirements under Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50.275 ; Hallrnctrk v. Eldridge , 124 Nev. 492 , 189 P.3d 646 ( 2008 ) ( explaining requirements for witness to testify as an expert ) , or for admissibility , see , e.g.
, NRS 51.065 ( providing that hearsay is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in Nevada law ) .
The state supreme court had warned the campaign not to waste its time , a warning which they concluded the campaign ignored : Despite our earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue , appellants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ findings , and we have identified none .
The clerk of this court shall issue the remittitur forthwith .
See NRAP 2 ( allowing the court to suspend any rules in a particular case except for the time to file a notice of appeal ) .
For these reasons , we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED .
The Trump campaign has not made its efforts in Nevada a highlight of their efforts to overturn the results of the election , so this might fly under the national radar a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday , this loss and now the state supreme court ruling is a very big deal , because the Nevada district court allowed the campaign to put on its full case against the election .
As the state supreme court points out above , Russell allowed them to enter evidence that courts in the state would normally block — expert testimony without sufficient expertise , hearsay , and so on .
In other words , Team Trump got their full day in court , and still lost .
Russell ruled against every affidavit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument they presented .
The ruling last night from the state supreme court reviewed that record and pointedly notes that not only did the campaign fail to meet a preponderance-of-evidence standard even while including inadmissible presentations , they unanimously agreed with Russell that it didn ’ t even meet lower evidentiary standards .
It ’ s a stunning condemnation of Team Trump ’ s legal work and claims in the election .
So what now ?
The campaign could appeal this to the federal courts , but that would be an act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Safe Harbor date has passed .
This is not the court record a competent legal team would want to bring before the Supreme Court in an application for relief , if for no other reason than federal courts at any level will rely on the state court for its factual findings .
And that would tell them that there ’ s no there there .

If nothing else, the ruling has the virtue of brevity. The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously rejected an appeal by the Trump campaign late last night of its earlier and comprehensive loss on the merits of their claims of massive fraud in the 2020 election. The court found that the campaign’s appeal identified no errors or new facts to warrant reconsideration of Judge James Russell’s fact-finding or legal reasoning:
The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday night to reject an appeal from President Trump’s campaign to overturn the state’s election results, the latest loss in the president’s ongoing legal efforts to have states he did not win declare him victorious. The 6-to-0 decision from Nevada’s high court came after a lower court gave a full-scale ruling against the Trump campaign’s efforts in the state last week. Judge James T. Russell of the Nevada District Court ruled Friday that there was no evidence supporting the claims of fraud and wrongdoing made by the campaign in a state that President-elect Joe Biden won by more than 33,000 votes. In a 40-page order from the Nevada Supreme Court late Tuesday, the justices “affirmed” the decision from Russell and said the court would take no action. The court found that the Trump campaign failed to identify “any unsupported factual findings” in Russell’s decision, with the state’s high court concluding that it had also “identified none.” “To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the order read. “We are not convinced they have done so.”
In fact, the court took less than two pages in its ruling to dispense with the appeal. Rather than recapitulate Russell’s findings, they simply attached it to their unanimous rejection, along with a rather stinging criticism of both the lawsuit and appeal from Team Trump:
In particular, appellants have not demonstrated any legal error in the district court’s application of NRS 293.410(2)(c). We also are not convinced that the district court erred in applying a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, as supported by the cases cited in the district court’s order. And, in any event, the district court further determined that appellants had not met their burden even if it applied a lesser standard. Finally, the district court’s order thoroughly addressed the grounds asserted in the statement of contest filed by appellants and considered the evidence offered by appellants even when that evidence did not meet the requirements under Nevada law for expert testimony, see NRS 50.275; Hallrnctrk v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008) (explaining requirements for witness to testify as an expert), or for admissibility, see, e.g., NRS 51.065 (providing that hearsay is inadmissible except as otherwise
provided in Nevada law).
The state supreme court had warned the campaign not to waste its time, a warning which they concluded the campaign ignored:
Despite our earlier order asking appellants to identify specific findings with which they take issue, appellants have not pointed to any unsupported factual findings, and we have identified none. The clerk of this court shall issue the remittitur forthwith. See NRAP 2 (allowing the court to suspend any rules in a particular case except for the time to file a notice of appeal). For these reasons, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
The Trump campaign has not made its efforts in Nevada a highlight of their efforts to overturn the results of the election, so this might fly under the national radar a bit. However, as I wrote on Friday, this loss and now the state supreme court ruling is a very big deal, because the Nevada district court allowed the campaign to put on its full case against the election. As the state supreme court points out above, Russell allowed them to enter evidence that courts in the state would normally block — expert testimony without sufficient expertise, hearsay, and so on.
In other words, Team Trump got their full day in court, and still lost. Russell ruled against every affidavit, every expert, and every legal argument they presented. The ruling last night from the state supreme court reviewed that record and pointedly notes that not only did the campaign fail to meet a preponderance-of-evidence standard even while including inadmissible presentations, they unanimously agreed with Russell that it didn’t even meet lower evidentiary standards. It’s a stunning condemnation of Team Trump’s legal work and claims in the election.
So what now? The campaign could appeal this to the federal courts, but that would be an act of desperation — and not just because the Safe Harbor date has passed. This is not the court record a competent legal team would want to bring before the Supreme Court in an application for relief, if for no other reason than federal courts at any level will rely on the state court for its factual findings. And that would tell them that there’s no there there.


hotair--2020-12-09--House passes NDAA... by a "yuge" margin

House passes NDAA... by a "yuge" margin

After all of the drama we ’ ve endured over the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) , the end of the story turned out to be rather anticlimactic .
The House voted on the bill last night and it not only passed , but it did so in a landslide rarely seen over the past four years .
The usual bipartisan support for funding the military and our intelligence agencies showed up once again , with only 40 Republicans and 38 Democrats opposing it .
And most of those were the same ones who always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for opposite reasons .
The final tally came in at 335-78 , providing more than enough leverage to overcome President Trump ’ s threatened veto of the measure .
The bill included the language to change the names of military bases named after Confederate leaders and did not provide a provision to repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .
Both of those were sticking points for the White House .
( NY Times ) The House overwhelmingly passed a $ 741 billion defense policy bill on Tuesday that would require that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bases , defying President Trump ’ s veto threat and moving lawmakers one step closer to a potential showdown in his final weeks in office .
The 335-78 bipartisan vote to approve the legislation that authorizes pay raises for American troops reflected optimism among lawmakers in both parties that Congress would be able to force the enactment of the bill over Mr. Trump ’ s objections , in what would be the first veto override of his presidency .
The margin surpassed the two-thirds majority both the House and Senate would need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amounted to a remarkable break from the president by Republicans , who refused to defer to Mr. Trump ’ s desire to derail the critical bill as his time in the White House comes to a close .
Would the bill have failed or at least not reached bulletproof stature if Trump was cruising toward a second term ?
That ’ s impossible to say .
But it ’ s hard to ignore the fact that yesterday ’ s SCOTUS decision over certifying Pennsylvania ’ s election results pretty much drove the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hopes to win a second term .
At this point , House Republicans are likely wagering that they don ’ t need to worry too much about the President ’ s wrath and they can safely run out the clock on his presidency .
I ’ m not sure how safe of a bet that is , however .
While overturning the election results and denying Joe Biden the win looks like a statistical impossibility at this point , it ’ s still very likely that Donald Trump will remain a driving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
He may or may not try for the nomination again in 2024 , ( he would be 78 when he ’ s sworn into office if he won ) but even if he doesn ’ t , his supporters across the country aren ’ t just going to disappear and line up dutifully behind whoever the next GOP savior turns out to be , be it Nikki Haley or Larry Hogan .
( Yes , I had to choke back a laugh when I typed that . )
In the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I ’ m guessing that almost the entire House GOP caucus knew it , even if they didn ’ t want to say it aloud while Trump was railing against it .
And no , I ’ m not just saying that because the final bill was supposed to include Senate Intelligence Committee ’ s instructions for a public report from the UAP Task Force .
( That portion of the bill was unfortunately decoupled from the Senate version and may never be passed at this point , or at least not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) We have to fund the military and our intelligence agencies because not doing so would be tantamount to committing national seppuku .
If we can take off our partisan hats for a moment , we should also recognize that this is the sort of legislation that should be considered on its own merits without it being festooned with all sorts of bells and whistles that have little or nothing to do with defense spending or intelligence assets .
Yes , we can certainly have a debate over what those defense spending levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ section 230 into the mix really just serves as a distraction from the critical nature of this bill .
It already had too many riders on it as it is .
So , assuming the bill makes it to Trump ’ s desk in its current form , will he still go through with this threat to veto it anyway ?
Something tells me he won ’ t .
Donald Trump never likes to be seen as coming out on the losing end of any negotiation .
And if the GOP leadership in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veto will be overridden , that ’ s precisely what it would look like .

After all of the drama we’ve endured over the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the end of the story turned out to be rather anticlimactic. The House voted on the bill last night and it not only passed, but it did so in a landslide rarely seen over the past four years. The usual bipartisan support for funding the military and our intelligence agencies showed up once again, with only 40 Republicans and 38 Democrats opposing it. And most of those were the same ones who always oppose the NDAA on principle, though for opposite reasons. The final tally came in at 335-78, providing more than enough leverage to overcome President Trump’s threatened veto of the measure. The bill included the language to change the names of military bases named after Confederate leaders and did not provide a provision to repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Both of those were sticking points for the White House. (NY Times)
The House overwhelmingly passed a $741 billion defense policy bill on Tuesday that would require that Confederate names be stripped from American military bases, defying President Trump’s veto threat and moving lawmakers one step closer to a potential showdown in his final weeks in office. The 335-78 bipartisan vote to approve the legislation that authorizes pay raises for American troops reflected optimism among lawmakers in both parties that Congress would be able to force the enactment of the bill over Mr. Trump’s objections, in what would be the first veto override of his presidency. The margin surpassed the two-thirds majority both the House and Senate would need to muster to do so. It also amounted to a remarkable break from the president by Republicans, who refused to defer to Mr. Trump’s desire to derail the critical bill as his time in the White House comes to a close.
Would the bill have failed or at least not reached bulletproof stature if Trump was cruising toward a second term? That’s impossible to say. But it’s hard to ignore the fact that yesterday’s SCOTUS decision over certifying Pennsylvania’s election results pretty much drove the last nail in the coffin of Trump’s hopes to win a second term. At this point, House Republicans are likely wagering that they don’t need to worry too much about the President’s wrath and they can safely run out the clock on his presidency.
I’m not sure how safe of a bet that is, however. While overturning the election results and denying Joe Biden the win looks like a statistical impossibility at this point, it’s still very likely that Donald Trump will remain a driving force in the GOP for the foreseeable future. He may or may not try for the nomination again in 2024, (he would be 78 when he’s sworn into office if he won) but even if he doesn’t, his supporters across the country aren’t just going to disappear and line up dutifully behind whoever the next GOP savior turns out to be, be it Nikki Haley or Larry Hogan. (Yes, I had to choke back a laugh when I typed that.)
In the end, the NDAA had to be passed and I’m guessing that almost the entire House GOP caucus knew it, even if they didn’t want to say it aloud while Trump was railing against it. And no, I’m not just saying that because the final bill was supposed to include Senate Intelligence Committee’s instructions for a public report from the UAP Task Force. (That portion of the bill was unfortunately decoupled from the Senate version and may never be passed at this point, or at least not until the next Congress is seated.) We have to fund the military and our intelligence agencies because not doing so would be tantamount to committing national seppuku.
If we can take off our partisan hats for a moment, we should also recognize that this is the sort of legislation that should be considered on its own merits without it being festooned with all sorts of bells and whistles that have little or nothing to do with defense spending or intelligence assets. Yes, we can certainly have a debate over what those defense spending levels should be, but dragging things like section 230 into the mix really just serves as a distraction from the critical nature of this bill. It already had too many riders on it as it is.
So, assuming the bill makes it to Trump’s desk in its current form, will he still go through with this threat to veto it anyway? Something tells me he won’t. Donald Trump never likes to be seen as coming out on the losing end of any negotiation. And if the GOP leadership in both chambers privately assures him that the veto will be overridden, that’s precisely what it would look like.


hotair--2020-12-09--Alert from UK: Regulators now preventing people with "significant history o

Alert from UK: Regulators now preventing people with "significant history of allergic reactions" from taking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

The first rollout of the first clinically approved COVID-19 vaccine just hit its first speedbump .
British health regulators issued a warning today after two health-care workers developed a serious allergic reaction to the Pfizer vaccine .
They are now checking histories on patients before administering the vaccine , and for the moment will not vaccinate those with a “ significant history ” of allergic reactions .
What kind of allergic reactions ?
That ’ s still a bit ambiguous , but Sky News reporter Thomas Moore hints that the concern is about allergic reactions to both other vaccines or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who have a “ significant history ” of allergic reactions shouldn ’ t receive the new Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while they investigate two adverse reactions that occurred on the first day of the country ’ s mass vaccination program .
Professor Stephen Powis , national medical director for the National Health Service in England , said health authorities were acting on a recommendation from the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency .
“ As is common with new vaccines the MHRA have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday , ” Powis said in a statement .
“ Both are recovering well.
” NBC ’ s foreign correspondent Richard Engel reports from the UK that regulators are serious about this new restriction : As Moore points out , that doesn ’ t mean that people have to choose between a vaccine or nothing .
Moderna ’ s vaccine should be available soon , although perhaps less plentiful in the UK as the US has bought most of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The UK also has the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine near the end of its Phase 3 testing , which is a different vaccine type and one that doesn ’ t use the novel messenger-RNA technology on which Pfizer and Moderna rely .
Either of those might end up being suitable for patients with histories of allergic reactions .
Still , it ’ s a new concern .
As the Associated Press reports , Pfizer didn ’ t see this issue in its Phase 3 trials , which either suggests that they didn ’ t include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction can be expected to be a very narrow problem .
The FDA plans to meet tomorrow to make a final decision on Pfizer ’ s emergency-use application , and the US health care system is primed to start delivering it — to nursing homes and health-care workers first , followed by the most at-risk patients .
If the problem remains limited , perhaps the FDA will follow through tomorrow , but they may decide to follow the UK ’ s new guidance and tell people with significant allergies to wait a bit @ @ @ @

The first rollout of the first clinically approved COVID-19 vaccine just hit its first speedbump. British health regulators issued a warning today after two health-care workers developed a serious allergic reaction to the Pfizer vaccine. They are now checking histories on patients before administering the vaccine, and for the moment will not vaccinate those with a “significant history” of allergic reactions.
What kind of allergic reactions? That’s still a bit ambiguous, but Sky News reporter Thomas Moore hints that the concern is about allergic reactions to both other vaccines or food:
U.K. regulators said Wednesday that people who have a “significant history” of allergic reactions shouldn’t receive the new Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine while they investigate two adverse reactions that occurred on the first day of the country’s mass vaccination program. Professor Stephen Powis, national medical director for the National Health Service in England, said health authorities were acting on a recommendation from the Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. “As is common with new vaccines the MHRA have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday,” Powis said in a statement. “Both are recovering well.”
NBC’s foreign correspondent Richard Engel reports from the UK that regulators are serious about this new restriction:
Watching elderly patients here in UK get turned away from vaccinations of Pfizer vaccine because they have history of allergies. — Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) December 9, 2020
As Moore points out, that doesn’t mean that people have to choose between a vaccine or nothing. Moderna’s vaccine should be available soon, although perhaps less plentiful in the UK as the US has bought most of its production line through Operation Warp Speed. The UK also has the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine near the end of its Phase 3 testing, which is a different vaccine type and one that doesn’t use the novel messenger-RNA technology on which Pfizer and Moderna rely. Either of those might end up being suitable for patients with histories of allergic reactions.
Still, it’s a new concern. As the Associated Press reports, Pfizer didn’t see this issue in its Phase 3 trials, which either suggests that they didn’t include people with histories of allergies or this reaction can be expected to be a very narrow problem. The FDA plans to meet tomorrow to make a final decision on Pfizer’s emergency-use application, and the US health care system is primed to start delivering it — to nursing homes and health-care workers first, followed by the most at-risk patients. If the problem remains limited, perhaps the FDA will follow through tomorrow, but they may decide to follow the UK’s new guidance and tell people with significant allergies to wait a bit for another vaccine.


hotair--2020-12-09--GOP members of Inauguration Committee refuse to acknowledge Biden as president-elect

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies ( JCCIC ) is off to a bumpy start .
Generally speaking , this committee isn ’ t one that creates headlines .
This is 2020 , though , and nothing is normal .
Tuesday when the committee met , it failed to pass a resolution that named Joe Biden as the president-elect .
The committee is comprised of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , and JCCIC Chairman Roy Blunt on the Republican side .
The Democrats are Speaker Nancy Pelosi , House Majority Leader Steny H. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hoyer offered a motion recognizing that the group was preparing for the inauguration of Biden and Harris , as is routine , and just like that , things went south .
Because of the legal actions still continuing , the Republicans on the committee voted to reject the motion .
If the motion had passed , it would allow the JCCIC to announce it was preparing for the inauguration of Biden and Harris , in coordination with the Biden Presidential Inaugural Committee and public health experts .
“ So , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notify the American people that it is preparing for the inauguration of Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris , and in consultation with them and health experts are doing so to protect the health of our people — those who attend or don ’ t attend .
And that motion was defeated 3 to 3 , ” Hoyer told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday .
Hoyer declined to speculate why Republicans voted against the measure .
“ You ’ ll have to ask them , you ’ ll have to ask them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans voted against the motion because it recognized Biden as president-elect .
Hoyer ’ s restraint in his remarks didn ’ t last long .
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi told him to say something stronger to slam the Republicans .
Hoyer said Republicans are going along with Trump ’ s “ temper tantrums.
” “ The extent to which Republicans are refusing to accept the outcome of the election and recognize Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as our next President and Vice President is astounding , ” Hoyer said in a statement .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s post-election temper tantrums threatens our democracy and undermines faith in our system of elections .
… Republicans are refusing even to allow JCCIC to say that President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris will be inaugurated on January 20 , even when there is no serious dispute over that fact.
” Instead of describing Trump ’ s legal actions as “ temper tantrums ” , he could have just said that Trump is pursuing these available options , as guaranteed in our constitutional republic , but no .
The alleged desire of Team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swimmingly .
“ It is not the job of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies to get ahead of the electoral process and decide who we are inaugurating , ” Blunt said in a statement after the meeting .
“ The JCCIC is facing the challenges of planning safe inaugural ceremonies during a global pandemic .
I would hope that , going forward , the members of the JCCIC would adhere to the committee ’ s longstanding tradition of bipartisan cooperation and focus on the task at hand , ” Blunt said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledge Biden as the president-elect when the process finishes playing out .
Hoyer ’ s lame motion was just to own the Republicans , as he knows most Republicans are remaining silent until the court challenges are completed .
The six-member committee met in a closed-door meeting in Chuck Schumer ’ s office .
Blunt doesn ’ t think the committee will meet again .
He noted that when he chaired the last inauguration committee , that committee never met .
The inauguration will be scaled back because of the coronavirus pandemic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Members of Congress won ’ t have as many tickets to give to family , friends , and colleagues as they normally do .
Joe Biden has named five co-chairs for his inauguration committee .
They are responsible for organizing the inauguration and all of them have deep ties with Biden .
The lead chair of the committee is Rep. James Clyburn .
That isn ’ t a surprise .
Biden is indebted to Clyburn for his primary victory in South Carolina .
Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer is an inaugural co-chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chair .
The other members of the committee are Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti , Rep. Cedric Richmond , and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester .
They were also campaign chairs .
Richmond has been named a senior advisor to Biden and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement .
Members of Black Lives Matter are protesting the appointment of Garcetti to the inaugural committee .
He was named to the committee about 24 hours after the Los Angeles Police Department broke up a BLM protest outside the mayor ’ s official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past two weeks , BLM-LA protesters have been outside the mayor ’ s house garnering attention to their opposition to Garcetti being nominated to any cabinet or top position in the Harris-Biden administration .
His name has come up for Transportation or Commerce Secretary .
They cite Garcetti ’ s public transportation and homelessness policies , his support for LAPD , and what they call his neglect of civic affairs for reasons of their opposition .
The Marxist wing of the Democrat Party is turning on the liberal wing of the party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to please everybody and keep all the promises he made about diversity and racial unity .
He ’ s set himself up for failure .
No sympathy from me , though .
The party that lives by identity politics , dies by identity politics .

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) is off to a bumpy start. Generally speaking, this committee isn’t one that creates headlines. This is 2020, though, and nothing is normal. Tuesday when the committee met, it failed to pass a resolution that named Joe Biden as the president-elect.
The committee is comprised of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and JCCIC Chairman Roy Blunt on the Republican side. The Democrats are Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, and Senator Amy Klobuchar. Hoyer offered a motion recognizing that the group was preparing for the inauguration of Biden and Harris, as is routine, and just like that, things went south. Because of the legal actions still continuing, the Republicans on the committee voted to reject the motion. If the motion had passed, it would allow the JCCIC to announce it was preparing for the inauguration of Biden and Harris, in coordination with the Biden Presidential Inaugural Committee and public health experts.
“So, you know, I made a motion that the committee notify the American people that it is preparing for the inauguration of Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris, and in consultation with them and health experts are doing so to protect the health of our people — those who attend or don’t attend. And that motion was defeated 3 to 3,” Hoyer told reporters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Hoyer declined to speculate why Republicans voted against the measure. “You’ll have to ask them, you’ll have to ask them,” Hoyer said when pressed about whether Republicans voted against the motion because it recognized Biden as president-elect.
Hoyer’s restraint in his remarks didn’t last long. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi told him to say something stronger to slam the Republicans. Hoyer said Republicans are going along with Trump’s “temper tantrums.”
“The extent to which Republicans are refusing to accept the outcome of the election and recognize Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as our next President and Vice President is astounding,” Hoyer said in a statement. “Their continued deference to President Trump’s post-election temper tantrums threatens our democracy and undermines faith in our system of elections. … Republicans are refusing even to allow JCCIC to say that President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris will be inaugurated on January 20, even when there is no serious dispute over that fact.”
Instead of describing Trump’s legal actions as “temper tantrums”, he could have just said that Trump is pursuing these available options, as guaranteed in our constitutional republic, but no. The alleged desire of Team Biden to unite the country is going swimmingly.
Senator Blunt, chairman of the committee offered a response.
“It is not the job of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies to get ahead of the electoral process and decide who we are inaugurating,” Blunt said in a statement after the meeting. “The JCCIC is facing the challenges of planning safe inaugural ceremonies during a global pandemic. I would hope that, going forward, the members of the JCCIC would adhere to the committee’s longstanding tradition of bipartisan cooperation and focus on the task at hand,” Blunt said.
In other words, Republicans will acknowledge Biden as the president-elect when the process finishes playing out. Hoyer’s lame motion was just to own the Republicans, as he knows most Republicans are remaining silent until the court challenges are completed.
The six-member committee met in a closed-door meeting in Chuck Schumer’s office. Blunt doesn’t think the committee will meet again. He noted that when he chaired the last inauguration committee, that committee never met. The inauguration will be scaled back because of the coronavirus pandemic and public participation will be at a minimum. Members of Congress won’t have as many tickets to give to family, friends, and colleagues as they normally do.
“It’s clearly going to be quite a bit different than any inauguration in the past. Probably some costs of testing we haven’t had before. People will have masks on, would be socially distanced, wherever we are.”
Joe Biden has named five co-chairs for his inauguration committee. They are responsible for organizing the inauguration and all of them have deep ties with Biden. The lead chair of the committee is Rep. James Clyburn. That isn’t a surprise. Biden is indebted to Clyburn for his primary victory in South Carolina. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is an inaugural co-chair. She served as a Biden campaign chair. The other members of the committee are Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Rep. Cedric Richmond, and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester. They were also campaign chairs. Richmond has been named a senior advisor to Biden and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.
“Kamala and I are honored and grateful to these leaders for joining our inaugural committee as co-chairs and helping to organize a safe inauguration for all Americans,” Biden said in a statement.
Members of Black Lives Matter are protesting the appointment of Garcetti to the inaugural committee. He was named to the committee about 24 hours after the Los Angeles Police Department broke up a BLM protest outside the mayor’s official residence and made arrests.
“It’s beyond disheartening that Biden would ignore the calls of Black organizers who helped elect him and appoint Garcetti to any position the very day after LAPD violently assailed protestors in front of the mayor’s mansion,” BLM LA co-founder Dr. Melina Abdullah told Deadline on Monday. “We hope that this will be no more than a consolation prize and that Biden will heed the calls not to appoint one of the most problematic mayors in the nation to his cabinet.”
For the past two weeks, BLM-LA protesters have been outside the mayor’s house garnering attention to their opposition to Garcetti being nominated to any cabinet or top position in the Harris-Biden administration. His name has come up for Transportation or Commerce Secretary. They cite Garcetti’s public transportation and homelessness policies, his support for LAPD, and what they call his neglect of civic affairs for reasons of their opposition.
As long as we talk about white supremacy, we have to talk about it coming in the liberal form. @MayorOfLA upholds liberal white supremacy in Los Angeles #BlockGarcetti @BLMLA @DocMellyMel pic.twitter.com/7q7jXguCli — People's City Council – Los Angeles (@PplsCityCouncil) December 7, 2020
The Marxist wing of the Democrat Party is turning on the liberal wing of the party. Sleepy Joe has his hands full trying to please everybody and keep all the promises he made about diversity and racial unity. He’s set himself up for failure. No sympathy from me, though. The party that lives by identity politics, dies by identity politics.


hotair--2020-12-09--Trump joins doomed Texas election lawsuit, eyeing SCOTUS ruling

What a headline to this CNN story , and accurate too .
The Republican Party is now anti-democratic , not just anti-Democratic .
There ’ s real suspense tonight in Washington about the Texas lawsuit that the president is calling “ the big one.
” Will SCOTUS wipe its ass with the complaint and dispense with it straightaway , or will it feel obliged to hear the case as a matter of original jurisdiction and then wipe its ass with the complaint ?
I hope Trump is already drafting his tweets about what traitors Barrett , Gorsuch , and Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wait .
From CNN : I think it ’ s great that he ’ s joining the suit , even though it … complicates the Court ’ s original jurisdiction over the matter .
( That ’ s supposed to be limited to state-versus-state disputes . )
The more Republicans pile onto this effort , the more total the Court ’ s rebuke will be to this disgusting project the party is engaged in .
All sorts of dubious characters are coming out of the woodwork to participate .
Roy Moore has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s side .
Ted Cruz has agreed to argue the case if SCOTUS takes it .
And as noted above , birther John Eastman is representing Trump and offering legal arguments like this : Nixon won Florida and Ohio in 1960 and lost the election to Kennedy .
Eastman can ’ t even get the most basic easily verifiable facts right .
But beyond that , his argument in this passage boils down to “ These election results were unprecedented in some ways , therefore they must be suspicious.
” Hillary Clinton could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 , noting that never before had a “ winning ” candidate lost the popular vote by so much and only seldom before had the winning candidate lost the popular vote at all .
Eastman ’ s “ logic ” would apply just as well in any election where there ’ s been a demographic realignment towards one party or another .
For instance , Biden made meaningful gains among suburbanites this year which helped him win Arizona and Georgia .
And he benefited from the highest turnout in American history thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population .
Eastman looks at all of that and thinks , “ It can only be fraud.
” This is even more pathetic : We don ’ t know that there was fraud but we should presume that it was rampant and throw out the election because voting was easy this year .
Do I have that right ?
“ People are reading this as a legal motion , but I see more as meta-commentary on whether there is such a thing as ‘ law , ' ” sniffs law prof Orin Kerr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ logic ” is at least true to the spirit of the conspiracy theories that have defined the last month , which aren ’ t designed to prove anything to skeptics — like nine Supreme Court justices — but rather to affirm the suspicions of people who already believe there was fraud and simply won ’ t be convinced otherwise .
It ’ s a press release for Newsmax , essentially .
And it ’ s another reminder of just how stupid the daily parade of “ fraud ” nonsense have been .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is challenging technically because eventually one runs out of synonyms for “ disgraceful , ” but the feeble arguments and even the sloppiness of some of the pleadings makes it seem as though some of the major players are deliberately sabotaging themselves , consciously or not .
It feels like a confession : Deep down we know this is bullsh*t and we ’ re going to make it apparent .
We ’ re watching not just the moral collapse of the GOP but its intellectual collapse .
Gabe Malor is right about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need another one-sentence back-of-the-hand order from SCOTUS on this case .
We need a lengthy repudiation .
Make Gorsuch , Kavanaugh , and Barrett earn their paychecks on this one .
It ’ ll be good for the country long-term .
The key point to remember in all of this is that everyone involved in this lawsuit except Trump knows that it ’ s doomed .
Cruz , the AGs , the amici — from top to bottom , *everyone* grasps how pernicious and frivolous it is .
I hope that Brad Heath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m not sure he is : That ’ s a reassuring thought , that some of the people who ’ ve signed on to this lost cause would back away if they believed it stood any chance of success .
Is it true , though ?
Even if it is , in what sort of esteem should we hold these creatures who are willing to scam MAGA fans with a pantomime of a legal challenge that ’ s destined to lose badly and to embitter millions of Americans in the process ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermine faith in the Court ( on the right , at least ) and in the country ’ s electoral process for no better reason than that pursuing a bad-faith lawsuit will give them a little extra “ but he fights !
” cred with the sort of person who ’ s foolishly invested in this suit .
Like the man says , they ’ re enemies of democracy .
Proudly so , even .
In a healthy country none of them would ever hold office again .
As I ’ m writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ruled on Sidney Powell ’ s “ Kraken ” suit there .
Guess how .
The one useful thing Republicans will get out of this charade is political momentum in red states to scale back mail-in voting going forward , which is already happening in Georgia .
There ’ s no proof of fraud there , as every Republican election official in the state has reiterated ad nauseam , but even so the party ’ s going to use Trump ’ s hysteria as a pretext to make voting harder because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win elections when voting is easy .
I suppose discouraging people from voting in future election is marginally better than trying to outright nullify votes cast in previous ones .
To which the GOP says , “ Why not both ?
”

What a headline to this CNN story, and accurate too. The Republican Party is now anti-democratic, not just anti-Democratic.
There’s real suspense tonight in Washington about the Texas lawsuit that the president is calling “the big one.” Will SCOTUS wipe its ass with the complaint and dispense with it straightaway, or will it feel obliged to hear the case as a matter of original jurisdiction and then wipe its ass with the complaint?
I hope Trump is already drafting his tweets about what traitors Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are. There’s no reason to wait. From CNN:
Trump’s request came in a filing with the court asking to intervene in a lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton seeking to invalidate millions of votes cast in four states that went for Biden: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The President is being represented by a new attorney, John Eastman, who is known for recently pushing a racist conspiracy theory that claimed Vice President-elect Kamala Harris was not eligible for the role because her parents were immigrants.
I think it’s great that he’s joining the suit, even though it … complicates the Court’s original jurisdiction over the matter. (That’s supposed to be limited to state-versus-state disputes.) The more Republicans pile onto this effort, the more total the Court’s rebuke will be to this disgusting project the party is engaged in. All sorts of dubious characters are coming out of the woodwork to participate. Roy Moore has joined an amicus brief on Texas’s side. Ted Cruz has agreed to argue the case if SCOTUS takes it. And as noted above, birther John Eastman is representing Trump and offering legal arguments like this:
This is among the dumbest arguments I’ve ever seen in SCOTUS brief, and that’s saying something. It hits the bonkers superfecta: illogical, ahistorical, factually incorrect, and irrelevant. I can’t wait to assign it to undergrads as a “spot the 10 problems with this” quiz. pic.twitter.com/m3xBxqKGNM — Matt Glassman (@MattGlassman312) December 9, 2020
Nixon won Florida and Ohio in 1960 and lost the election to Kennedy. Eastman can’t even get the most basic easily verifiable facts right. But beyond that, his argument in this passage boils down to “These election results were unprecedented in some ways, therefore they must be suspicious.” Hillary Clinton could have made the same claim against Trump in 2016, noting that never before had a “winning” candidate lost the popular vote by so much and only seldom before had the winning candidate lost the popular vote at all. Eastman’s “logic” would apply just as well in any election where there’s been a demographic realignment towards one party or another. For instance, Biden made meaningful gains among suburbanites this year which helped him win Arizona and Georgia. And he benefited from the highest turnout in American history thanks to a large anti-Trump bloc among the population. Eastman looks at all of that and thinks, “It can only be fraud.”
This is even more pathetic:
The president's latest argument: I can't prove fraud, which proves that there was fraud.https://t.co/hi1F721HwX pic.twitter.com/hykCSxO0qr — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 9, 2020
We don’t know that there was fraud but we should presume that it was rampant and throw out the election because voting was easy this year. Do I have that right? “People are reading this as a legal motion, but I see more as meta-commentary on whether there is such a thing as ‘law,'” sniffs law prof Orin Kerr, only half-joking. Eastman’s “logic” is at least true to the spirit of the conspiracy theories that have defined the last month, which aren’t designed to prove anything to skeptics — like nine Supreme Court justices — but rather to affirm the suspicions of people who already believe there was fraud and simply won’t be convinced otherwise. It’s a press release for Newsmax, essentially.
And it’s another reminder of just how stupid the daily parade of “fraud” nonsense have been. Writing about this demagoguery day after day is challenging technically because eventually one runs out of synonyms for “disgraceful,” but the feeble arguments and even the sloppiness of some of the pleadings makes it seem as though some of the major players are deliberately sabotaging themselves, consciously or not. It feels like a confession: Deep down we know this is bullsh*t and we’re going to make it apparent. We’re watching not just the moral collapse of the GOP but its intellectual collapse.
Gabe Malor is right about this, meanwhile. We don’t need another one-sentence back-of-the-hand order from SCOTUS on this case. We need a lengthy repudiation.
The Texas original action should be dismissed of hand. But at this point, for the good of the nation, the justices should explain why the lawsuit is inappropriate as a matter of procedure, meritless as to substance, and offensive to democratic norms. https://t.co/lB4LlPnekU — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 9, 2020
We have robust election standards in this country at the local, state, and federal levels. And all of that is backstopped by the courts. All of that process is saying that Biden won. But that's not good enough for these elected morons, so now SCOTUS needs to slap it down hard. — Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 9, 2020
Make Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett earn their paychecks on this one. It’ll be good for the country long-term.
The key point to remember in all of this is that everyone involved in this lawsuit except Trump knows that it’s doomed. Cruz, the AGs, the amici — from top to bottom, *everyone* grasps how pernicious and frivolous it is. I hope that Brad Heath is right about this, although I’m not sure he is:
I could be wrong, but I suspect a lot of these Republican states would’ve been been a lot more reluctant to sign on to these kinds of legal arguments — which would expose them to tons of litigation over their own laws — if they thought it had any chance of success. — Brad Heath (@bradheath) December 9, 2020
That’s a reassuring thought, that some of the people who’ve signed on to this lost cause would back away if they believed it stood any chance of success. Is it true, though?
Even if it is, in what sort of esteem should we hold these creatures who are willing to scam MAGA fans with a pantomime of a legal challenge that’s destined to lose badly and to embitter millions of Americans in the process? Everyone participating in this is working to undermine faith in the Court (on the right, at least) and in the country’s electoral process for no better reason than that pursuing a bad-faith lawsuit will give them a little extra “but he fights!” cred with the sort of person who’s foolishly invested in this suit. Like the man says, they’re enemies of democracy. Proudly so, even. In a healthy country none of them would ever hold office again.
As I’m writing this post, a court in Arizona has ruled on Sidney Powell’s “Kraken” suit there. Guess how.
A judge tossed the Arizona "Kraken" suit. "Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election." pic.twitter.com/ztbLgeh7lX — Brad Heath (@bradheath) December 10, 2020
The one useful thing Republicans will get out of this charade is political momentum in red states to scale back mail-in voting going forward, which is already happening in Georgia. There’s no proof of fraud there, as every Republican election official in the state has reiterated ad nauseam, but even so the party’s going to use Trump’s hysteria as a pretext to make voting harder because it’s afraid it can’t win elections when voting is easy. I suppose discouraging people from voting in future election is marginally better than trying to outright nullify votes cast in previous ones. To which the GOP says, “Why not both?”


hotair--2020-12-09--Elon Musk moves to Texas, suggests California is taking success for granted (Update: Starship crash

Elon Musk moves to Texas, suggests California is taking success for granted (Update: Starship crash lands)

Yesterday , Elon Musk gave an interview as part of the Wall Street Journal ’ s CEO Council Summit .
During the interview he announced that he had moved to Texas where two of his current projects are taking up most of his time .
Musk was pretty diplomatic about the reasons for his move but there ’ s no question he was suggesting California is in danger of taking its own past success for granted .
“ Tesla and Space X obviously have massive operations in California , ” Musk said .
He continued , “ In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the last company still manufacturing cars in California .
Space X is the last aerospace company still doing significant manufacturing in California .
“ There used to be over a dozen car plants in California and California used to be the center of aerospace manufacturing .
My companies are the last two left…That ’ s a very important point to make .
“ For myself , yes , I have moved to Texas .
We ’ ve got the Starship development here in south Texas…and then we ’ ve got the big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Austin.
” Pressed on why he made the move , Musk said it ’ s really about what ’ s driving the use of his time but he also turned back to a comparison with California .
“ California is great .
There are a lot of things that are really great about California , ” he said .
But he added , “ There is something that happens when…if a team has been winning for too long , they do tend to get a little complacent , a little entitled and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ championship anymore.
” “ So California ’ s been winning for a long time and I think they ’ re taking it for granted a little bit , ” he said .
So far , Texas is not taking Musk for granted : Compare that to what happened earlier this year when Elon Musk had to sue Alameda County and volunteer to be arrested so his Tesla factory could reopen .
Here was the response he got from one California congresswoman and Musk ’ s reply : I guess he really did get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone and still warning his companies are the last of their kind in the state .
Take the hint , California !
Musk had some other interesting things to say in the interview .
His take on governments as monopolies with poor customer service was interesting .
“ The reason I think the government is often the worst at responding to the customer , being the people , is that they are a monopoly that can ’ t go bankrupt…So if you want to complain about the DMV , what the alternative ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this lesson about the harm caused by monopolies applied to everything .
“ How many candy companies are there ?
Big Candy is consolidated into like three companies or something…So , when ’ s the last time there was some good candy ?
What ’ s the forcing function for a new candy bar ?
I haven ’ t seen one in ages , ” he said .
He then returned to talking about the government .
“ In the limit , government is simply the largest corporation…Government is simply…the ultimate corporation with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Later in the discussion , Musk applied his ideas about feedback loops and what makes companies successful to himself .
He said that he generally found when he was spending a lot of time in meetings looking at Power Point presentations , things went badly .
When he spent time on the factory floor or talking to customers or just thinking about what he liked about his cars , that ’ s when he was more successful .
Asked if having the CEO on the factory floor suggested to his employees that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that idea .
“ I find that if I am engrossed in the details of the issues , this does not result in them feeling worse but feeling better , ” he said .
“ Do you want the general in some ivory tower or on the front lines…Nobody bleeds for the prince in the palace .
Get out there on the goddamn front lines and show them that you care and that you ’ re not just in some plush office somewhere.
” Update : Space X ’ s test of Starship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very last moments when it righted itself and attempted to and on the launch pad .
But it looks like it came in a bit too fast and exploded when it hit the ground .

Yesterday, Elon Musk gave an interview as part of the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council Summit. During the interview he announced that he had moved to Texas where two of his current projects are taking up most of his time.
Musk was pretty diplomatic about the reasons for his move but there’s no question he was suggesting California is in danger of taking its own past success for granted. “Tesla and Space X obviously have massive operations in California,” Musk said. He continued, “In fact, it’s worth noting that Tesla is the last company still manufacturing cars in California. Space X is the last aerospace company still doing significant manufacturing in California.
“There used to be over a dozen car plants in California and California used to be the center of aerospace manufacturing. My companies are the last two left…That’s a very important point to make.
“For myself, yes, I have moved to Texas. We’ve got the Starship development here in south Texas…and then we’ve got the big [Tesla] factory development just outside of Austin.”
Pressed on why he made the move, Musk said it’s really about what’s driving the use of his time but he also turned back to a comparison with California.
“California is great. There are a lot of things that are really great about California,” he said. But he added, “There is something that happens when…if a team has been winning for too long, they do tend to get a little complacent, a little entitled and then they don’t win the championship anymore.” “So California’s been winning for a long time and I think they’re taking it for granted a little bit,” he said.
So far, Texas is not taking Musk for granted:
Welcome to Texas, @elonmusk! Looks like you’re already fitting in. @UTAustin looks forward to working with you. Hook ‘em! pic.twitter.com/2S4OyatJ5K — Jay Hartzell (@JCHartzell) December 9, 2020
Welcome to Texas! @elonmusk Texas loves jobs & we’re very glad to have you as a Texan. https://t.co/VDgTGJIF7Z — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 9, 2020
Compare that to what happened earlier this year when Elon Musk had to sue Alameda County and volunteer to be arrested so his Tesla factory could reopen. Here was the response he got from one California congresswoman and Musk’s reply:
Message received — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 11, 2020
I guess he really did get the message. Now he’s gone and still warning his companies are the last of their kind in the state. Take the hint, California!
Musk had some other interesting things to say in the interview. His take on governments as monopolies with poor customer service was interesting. “The reason I think the government is often the worst at responding to the customer, being the people, is that they are a monopoly that can’t go bankrupt…So if you want to complain about the DMV, what the alternative?” he said.
He then said this lesson about the harm caused by monopolies applied to everything. “How many candy companies are there? Big Candy is consolidated into like three companies or something…So, when’s the last time there was some good candy? What’s the forcing function for a new candy bar? I haven’t seen one in ages,” he said.
He then returned to talking about the government. “In the limit, government is simply the largest corporation…Government is simply…the ultimate corporation with a monopoly,” he said.
Later in the discussion, Musk applied his ideas about feedback loops and what makes companies successful to himself. He said that he generally found when he was spending a lot of time in meetings looking at Power Point presentations, things went badly. When he spent time on the factory floor or talking to customers or just thinking about what he liked about his cars, that’s when he was more successful.
Asked if having the CEO on the factory floor suggested to his employees that he didn’t trust them he rejected that idea. “I find that if I am engrossed in the details of the issues, this does not result in them feeling worse but feeling better,” he said. “Do you want the general in some ivory tower or on the front lines…Nobody bleeds for the prince in the palace. Get out there on the goddamn front lines and show them that you care and that you’re not just in some plush office somewhere.”
Update: Space X’s test of Starship seemed to be going really well until the very last moments when it righted itself and attempted to and on the launch pad. But it looks like it came in a bit too fast and exploded when it hit the ground.


hotair--2020-12-09--Gasoline on the fire: YouTube to remove election-fraud arguments about 2020

Disaster .
Yes , yes , I understand what YouTube wants to accomplish with this new editorial policy .
What I find impossible to grasp is how YouTube and its Alphabet/Google parent fail to comprehend the scope and size of the backfire this will create : Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect .
Given that , we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today ( or anytime after ) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections .
For example , we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors .
We will begin enforcing this policy today , and will ramp up in the weeks to come .
As always , news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there ’ s sufficient education , documentary , scientific or artistic context .
Some are already complaining about a double standard , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t even really the big problem here .
If you want to look for it on YouTube , though , it ’ s not tough to find .
Just do a search on “ Stacey Abrams stolen election ” and you ’ ll get explanations from Abrams herself on how “ democracy failed ” in 2018 , another in October of that year from a YouTuber with over 263,000 subscribers about how Brian Kemp was trying to steal that election , Cory Booker making the same accusation , and so on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Russia collusion ” videos still making the rounds : You can ’ t explain all of those away as performance art , you know .
Although perhaps if someone argued Donald Trump ’ s case through interpretive dance , maybe that would pass muster … ?
“ Artistic context ” sounds like a wide gate in the speech wall being erected , but it ’ s likely just code for “ mainstream media content.
” Don ’ t get your hopes up , dance squads !
As legit an argument that double-standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not the real problem .
The real problem is that the tech giant wants to rebut conspiracy theories by , er , suppressing all arguments that don ’ t agree with their own bias .
That ’ s like trying to put out a grease fire with water .
Or , perhaps more accurately , putting out a grease fire with gasoline .
Nothing promotes conspiracy thinking more than pre-emptive speech regulation .
The response will be , What are they afraid of ?
And then the response will be to just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Furthermore , this kind of top-down speech filter only heightens the concern that Big Tech is becoming a threat to free speech .
Even if one doesn ’ t buy the conspiracy theory du jour that the platform quasi-monopolies quash today , it ’ s not exactly difficult to see the slippery slopes ahead .
What if they decide tomorrow that traditional religious belief should be suppressed ?
Or , perhaps a bit less speculatively , that any arguments for traditional marriage and family structures can no longer be posted ?
Or perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewpoints , and so on .
It ’ s hardly a moment for pushing their quasi-monopoly powers as it is .
Today , attorneys general from 40 states and the Department of Justice filed an anti-trust suit against Facebook over its alleged market practices .
Those will undoubtedly argue that the monopolistic behavior damages consumers ’ rights .
Alphabet/Google/YouTube is likely next , and these kind of speech restrictions will certainly drive some of that impulse to force a breakup of that conglomerate , too .
The more they transform from platform to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political mandate will be to break them up .
The best remedy for bad speech is more speech , not speech codes , deplatforming , and quasi-censorship .
Efforts by tech giants to silence dissent — even wild , uninformed , and erroneous dissent — will only feed the conspiracy thinking in society rather than reduce or eliminate it .
If the tech giants want to keep interfering in free speech , they should not be surprised when government comes to interfere with their business operations .
At the very least , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using anti-trust legislation to keep economic power from consolidating too much , as it quickly transforms into political power — and there ’ s no telling how it will get used .

Disaster. Yes, yes, I understand what YouTube wants to accomplish with this new editorial policy. What I find impossible to grasp is how YouTube and its Alphabet/Google parent fail to comprehend the scope and size of the backfire this will create:
Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.
Some are already complaining about a double standard, which is not tough to believe, but isn’t even really the big problem here. If you want to look for it on YouTube, though, it’s not tough to find. Just do a search on “Stacey Abrams stolen election” and you’ll get explanations from Abrams herself on how “democracy failed” in 2018, another in October of that year from a YouTuber with over 263,000 subscribers about how Brian Kemp was trying to steal that election, Cory Booker making the same accusation, and so on. Not to mention all of the “Russia collusion” videos still making the rounds:
YouTube: “We’re taking down all videos that promote conspiracy theories about the election” Also YouTube: pic.twitter.com/PFQmcQv1ag — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 9, 2020
You can’t explain all of those away as performance art, you know. Although perhaps if someone argued Donald Trump’s case through interpretive dance, maybe that would pass muster … ? “Artistic context” sounds like a wide gate in the speech wall being erected, but it’s likely just code for “mainstream media content.” Don’t get your hopes up, dance squads!
As legit an argument that double-standards application is, though, that’s not the real problem. The real problem is that the tech giant wants to rebut conspiracy theories by, er, suppressing all arguments that don’t agree with their own bias. That’s like trying to put out a grease fire with water. Or, perhaps more accurately, putting out a grease fire with gasoline. Nothing promotes conspiracy thinking more than pre-emptive speech regulation. The response will be, What are they afraid of? And then the response will be to just go elsewhere to post the content.
Furthermore, this kind of top-down speech filter only heightens the concern that Big Tech is becoming a threat to free speech. Even if one doesn’t buy the conspiracy theory du jour that the platform quasi-monopolies quash today, it’s not exactly difficult to see the slippery slopes ahead. What if they decide tomorrow that traditional religious belief should be suppressed? Or, perhaps a bit less speculatively, that any arguments for traditional marriage and family structures can no longer be posted? Or perhaps any pro-life arguments, or pro-Second Amendment viewpoints, and so on.
It’s hardly a moment for pushing their quasi-monopoly powers as it is. Today, attorneys general from 40 states and the Department of Justice filed an anti-trust suit against Facebook over its alleged market practices. Those will undoubtedly argue that the monopolistic behavior damages consumers’ rights. Alphabet/Google/YouTube is likely next, and these kind of speech restrictions will certainly drive some of that impulse to force a breakup of that conglomerate, too. The more they transform from platform to publisher by action, the bigger the political mandate will be to break them up.
The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not speech codes, deplatforming, and quasi-censorship. Efforts by tech giants to silence dissent — even wild, uninformed, and erroneous dissent — will only feed the conspiracy thinking in society rather than reduce or eliminate it. If the tech giants want to keep interfering in free speech, they should not be surprised when government comes to interfere with their business operations. At the very least, it might awaken conservatives to the necessity of using anti-trust legislation to keep economic power from consolidating too much, as it quickly transforms into political power — and there’s no telling how it will get used.


hotair--2020-12-09--Texas fortune-tellers doing a booming business amid pandemic

It seems as if all the doom and gloom news that comes out during the pandemic centers on either the disease itself or the terrible impact that COVID has had on the economy .
Much of the latter is obviously being driven by the government mandates that shut down or severely restrict businesses , particularly in the bar and restaurant industries .
But at least in the Lone Star State there ’ s one industry that managing to thrive .
That would be the fortune-tellers who peer into the future and tell people about what ’ s to come .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who partake of these services , as well as some of the “ providers ” of divination and prophecy… for a price .
“ With the covid and everything , I was stuck in a bubble , ” McKinney resident Premila Patel said .
She finds that predictability at SoulTopia .
And she ’ s not the only one who is looking for assurance .
The New York Times recently highlighted increased online traffic for horoscope and psychic consultations .
Astrologers and tarot card readers have also reported an increased demand in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s just been an explosive amount of people coming in our stores and also through Zoom and on online and also on the phone , ” Michelle Welch said .
One of the fortune-tellers that CBS spoke to reported a 70 % increase in business over 2019 .
She ’ s sold an entire pallet of sage during the last quarter and her sales of magical crystals are well above normal as well .
Apparently , the burning of sage drives away negative spirits or energy or whatever is plaguing your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve never been to one of these shops and I ’ ve never really placed much faith in gramarye or any associated arts of that nature .
But I have plenty of friends who do ( one of whom is actually a self-proclaimed “ witch ” ) and many people obviously take this stuff seriously .
You can kind of see why fortune-tellers and mystics would be doing better these days from two different angles , right ?
First of all , demand for these services probably rises during uncertain times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even feel like the world has simply cursed them .
They want to know if things are going to get better , even if that means finding somebody to cast a spell to give them a bit of insurance .
At the same time , fortune-telling seems like the sort of “ industry ” ( for lack of a better word ) that can adapt itself to the requirements of operating during the pandemic .
As I understand it , most of the in-person sessions only involve two people .
So with some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they can probably meet most government-mandated social distancing requirements without too much trouble .
Others , as mentioned in the CBS article , have taken their services online and are doing “ readings ” over Zoom or Skype video .
Hopefully , none of the spirits they contact will forget to put their pants on before the show begins .
Sure , it would be easy to criticize their success from a strictly religious perspective .
I ’ m pretty sure that most of the major religions frown on this sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Satan worship or some other heresy .
But I suppose that everyone has to believe in something , and if having some masked woman burn some sage and flip over some colorful cards brings you more peace of mind , more power to you , I guess .
And really… what ’ s the worst that could happen ?
I just remembered watching Poltergeist and I ’ m already kind of sorry I asked that question .

It seems as if all the doom and gloom news that comes out during the pandemic centers on either the disease itself or the terrible impact that COVID has had on the economy. Much of the latter is obviously being driven by the government mandates that shut down or severely restrict businesses, particularly in the bar and restaurant industries. But at least in the Lone Star State there’s one industry that managing to thrive. That would be the fortune-tellers who peer into the future and tell people about what’s to come. CBS in Dallas spoke to some people who partake of these services, as well as some of the “providers” of divination and prophecy… for a price.
“With the covid and everything, I was stuck in a bubble,” McKinney resident Premila Patel said. She finds that predictability at SoulTopia. And she’s not the only one who is looking for assurance. The New York Times recently highlighted increased online traffic for horoscope and psychic consultations. Astrologers and tarot card readers have also reported an increased demand in their services. “Since the pandemic, it’s just been an explosive amount of people coming in our stores and also through Zoom and on online and also on the phone,” Michelle Welch said.
One of the fortune-tellers that CBS spoke to reported a 70% increase in business over 2019. She’s sold an entire pallet of sage during the last quarter and her sales of magical crystals are well above normal as well. Apparently, the burning of sage drives away negative spirits or energy or whatever is plaguing your house.
By way of disclosure, I’ve never been to one of these shops and I’ve never really placed much faith in gramarye or any associated arts of that nature. But I have plenty of friends who do (one of whom is actually a self-proclaimed “witch”) and many people obviously take this stuff seriously.
You can kind of see why fortune-tellers and mystics would be doing better these days from two different angles, right? First of all, demand for these services probably rises during uncertain times when people are frightened or might possibly even feel like the world has simply cursed them. They want to know if things are going to get better, even if that means finding somebody to cast a spell to give them a bit of insurance.
At the same time, fortune-telling seems like the sort of “industry” (for lack of a better word) that can adapt itself to the requirements of operating during the pandemic. As I understand it, most of the in-person sessions only involve two people. So with some face masks and a slightly longer table, they can probably meet most government-mandated social distancing requirements without too much trouble. Others, as mentioned in the CBS article, have taken their services online and are doing “readings” over Zoom or Skype video. Hopefully, none of the spirits they contact will forget to put their pants on before the show begins.
Sure, it would be easy to criticize their success from a strictly religious perspective. I’m pretty sure that most of the major religions frown on this sort of thing as falling into the same category as Satan worship or some other heresy. But I suppose that everyone has to believe in something, and if having some masked woman burn some sage and flip over some colorful cards brings you more peace of mind, more power to you, I guess. And really… what’s the worst that could happen?
I just remembered watching Poltergeist and I’m already kind of sorry I asked that question.


hotair--2020-12-09--Hunter Biden: I just learned that I'm under federal investigation for "tax affairs"

I ’ m picturing Trump trashing the Oval Office in a blind rage upon learning this news , then dialing up Bill Barr and screaming into the phone : Why didn ’ t this come out before the election ?
It wouldn ’ t have mattered if it did , but POTUS is on a tireless hunt for ways to convince himself that his defeat was unfair .
“ The DOJ could have revealed this before November 3 but didn ’ t ” is another one for the pile .
Do we know for sure , though , that Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election ?
It ’ d be weird if the investigation didn ’ t start until after his dad had been elected president .
Actually , we do know .
Read on .
The first question : Does this somehow have to do with the fabled laptop and related claims about China and Ukraine made by Trump and Rudy Giuliani before the election ?
According to Politico , it does not : NBC is reporting an IRS lien was placed on Biden and his wife in November of last year over unpaid taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lien stood a bit north of $ 112,000 — but it ’ s not clear if that ’ s related to the new investigation .
It wouldn ’ t be the first time Hunter ’ s run into tax trouble , though : He paid off a $ 450,000 state tax lien in July of this year .
Where ’ d he get that kind of dough ?
Good question .
But it makes me think that today ’ s news probably isn ’ t connected to his federal tax lien .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he just pay off that one too ?
Via CNN , here ’ s the part of this story that ’ s going to give Trump a conniption : After pausing in the months before the election , federal authorities are now actively investigating the business dealings of Hunter Biden , a person with knowledge of the probe said .
His father , President-elect Joe Biden , is not implicated .
Now that the election is over , the investigation is entering a new phase .
Federal prosecutors in Delaware , working with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI , are taking overt steps such as issuing subpoenas and seeking interviews , the person with knowledge said .
Activity in the investigation had been largely dormant in recent months due to Justice Department guidelines prohibiting overt actions that could affect an election , the person said .
POTUS is reading that right now , thinking , “ What ’ s the point of having a Justice Department if it won ’ t help you win an election ?
” More seriously , though , Hunter could be in real trouble if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t ask me how any of this squares with the claim above that this new tax probe is unrelated to what Trump and Giuliani were screaming about in October : Not only did this investigation begin before the election , allegedly it began before Joe was a candidate for president — all the way back in 2018 , CNN says .
As for the allegations of money laundering , Fox News ’ s report on this story reminds readers that it obtained a DOJ “ Receipt for Property ” document for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Case ID ” as 272D-BA-3065729 .
272D is supposedly code for “ Money Laundering , Unknown SUA [ Specified Unlawful Activity ] —White Collar Crime Program.
” The “ BA ” allegedly refers to the FBI ’ s Baltimore office , which would have jurisdiction over Delaware cases .
Imagine Biden ’ s own son being indicted for some sort of money-laundering scheme — involving China — by his own DOJ during his first few months as president .
An utter political fiasco .
Maybe Hunter should call up Trump and offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chavez really did meddle with Dominion ’ s voting machines in return for a pardon before January 20 .
No worse than a 50/50 chance that he ’ d accept .
Exit question : This long-running black comedy can only end with Hunter and POTUS finding themselves in adjoining cells in a minimum-security federal pen for tax fraud circa 2022 , right ?

I’m picturing Trump trashing the Oval Office in a blind rage upon learning this news, then dialing up Bill Barr and screaming into the phone: Why didn’t this come out before the election?
It wouldn’t have mattered if it did, but POTUS is on a tireless hunt for ways to convince himself that his defeat was unfair. “The DOJ could have revealed this before November 3 but didn’t” is another one for the pile.
Do we know for sure, though, that Biden was being probed over tax matters before the election? It’d be weird if the investigation didn’t start until after his dad had been elected president.
Actually, we do know. Read on.
BREAKING: Hunter Biden, President-elect Biden's son, says in a statement that he has been informed that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware is "investigating my tax affairs." pic.twitter.com/J2iDvrLw2O — NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) December 9, 2020
The first question: Does this somehow have to do with the fabled laptop and related claims about China and Ukraine made by Trump and Rudy Giuliani before the election? According to Politico, it does not:
a source familiar w/ the matter claims that this investigation is not related to the attacks the Trump team and their allies made against Hunter during the campaign.
Asked about what it IS about, they did not clarify further. — Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) December 9, 2020
NBC is reporting an IRS lien was placed on Biden and his wife in November of last year over unpaid taxes. As of March 2020, that lien stood a bit north of $112,000 — but it’s not clear if that’s related to the new investigation. It wouldn’t be the first time Hunter’s run into tax trouble, though: He paid off a $450,000 state tax lien in July of this year.
Where’d he get that kind of dough? Good question. But it makes me think that today’s news probably isn’t connected to his federal tax lien. If it was, why wouldn’t he just pay off that one too?
Via CNN, here’s the part of this story that’s going to give Trump a conniption:
After pausing in the months before the election, federal authorities are now actively investigating the business dealings of Hunter Biden, a person with knowledge of the probe said. His father, President-elect Joe Biden, is not implicated. Now that the election is over, the investigation is entering a new phase. Federal prosecutors in Delaware, working with the IRS Criminal Investigation agency and the FBI, are taking overt steps such as issuing subpoenas and seeking interviews, the person with knowledge said. Activity in the investigation had been largely dormant in recent months due to Justice Department guidelines prohibiting overt actions that could affect an election, the person said.
POTUS is reading that right now, thinking, “What’s the point of having a Justice Department if it won’t help you win an election?”
More seriously, though, Hunter could be in real trouble if CNN’s sources are correct. Don’t ask me how any of this squares with the claim above that this new tax probe is unrelated to what Trump and Giuliani were screaming about in October:
Investigators have been examining multiple financial issues, including whether Hunter Biden and his associates violated tax and money laundering laws in business dealings in foreign countries, principally China, according to two people briefed on the probe. Some of those transactions involved people who the FBI believe sparked counterintelligence concerns, a common issue when dealing with Chinese business, according to another source.
Not only did this investigation begin before the election, allegedly it began before Joe was a candidate for president — all the way back in 2018, CNN says. As for the allegations of money laundering, Fox News’s report on this story reminds readers that it obtained a DOJ “Receipt for Property” document for Biden’s laptop that listed the “Case ID” as 272D-BA-3065729. 272D is supposedly code for “Money Laundering, Unknown SUA [Specified Unlawful Activity]—White Collar Crime Program.” The “BA” allegedly refers to the FBI’s Baltimore office, which would have jurisdiction over Delaware cases.
Imagine Biden’s own son being indicted for some sort of money-laundering scheme — involving China — by his own DOJ during his first few months as president. An utter political fiasco. Maybe Hunter should call up Trump and offer to say that the ghost of Hugo Chavez really did meddle with Dominion’s voting machines in return for a pardon before January 20. No worse than a 50/50 chance that he’d accept.
Exit question: This long-running black comedy can only end with Hunter and POTUS finding themselves in adjoining cells in a minimum-security federal pen for tax fraud circa 2022, right?