hotair--2020-05-14--Forbes: Sullivan defying SCOTUS, DC appellate precedents in his Flynn stunt; NYT: Sullivan "renowned

Forbes: Sullivan defying SCOTUS, DC appellate precedents in his Flynn stunt; NYT: Sullivan "renowned for his independent streak"

Remember stare decisis ?
It was all the rage in late 2018 , and again in early 2017 , when two Republican nominees got confirmed to the Supreme Court .
Senate Democrats made them pledge fealty to the principle of stare decisis , which requires that previous Supreme Court precedent must be followed and upheld in all but the most unusual circumstances for the stability of the law .
Over at Forbes , Mark Chenowith labors under the impression that this principle still applies .
He notes that Judge Emmet Sullivan ’ s attempts to appoint a prosecutor to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed by accepting a plea deal violates not one but two controlling precedents .
One such precedent was delivered just a week ago in US v Sineneng-Smith , on a 9-0 Supreme Court vote and an opinion : One week ago , the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision , authored by Justice Ginsburg , that took judges to task for similar amicus antics .
Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a nutshell , this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them .
They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay ( or issues to tackle ) that the parties have not brought before them .
As J. Ginsburg put it : “ [ C ] ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘ do not , or should not , sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right .
[ They ] wait for cases to come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases arise , courts ] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.
” … Justice Ginsburg ’ s decision castigated the Ninth Circuit ’ s conduct as “ depart [ ing ] so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion ” and “ remand [ ed ] the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.
” J. Ginsburg faulted the panel ’ s “ redirection ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the Ninth Circuit ’ s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.
” If Sullivan somehow missed the news on Sineneng-Smith , he surely couldn ’ t have missed US v Fokker Servs BV , Chenowith assumes .
That DC Circuit appellate precedent got delivered four years ago and is “ even more squarely on point , ” he writes : The Fokker case arose in the context of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ( DPA ) the Department of Justice entered into with a Dutch company that disclosed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In such deals , defendants plead guilty to a charge , but the government does not prosecute the case right away .
In exchange , for a certain agreed-to period of time , the defendant demonstrates that it has reformed its conduct and put more effective compliance protocols in place .
If the government is satisfied at the end of the time period , it will dismiss the charge and the defendant will avert criminal punishment .
District judges primarily have to approve these deals to ensure that DOJ is not using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to a speedy trial .
In Fokker , however , the district judge refused to enter the DPA because he felt that the company was getting off too easily and should have to pay a higher fine , hire an independent monitor , and that individuals at the company should have to face prosecution .
As the Court of Appeals explained though , such considerations are outside the judge ’ s role : “ The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch .
The Executive ’ s charging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once brought .
It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations , much less to impose its own charging preferences.
” Indeed , “ [ f ] ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether … to dismiss a proceeding once brought.
” J. Srinivasan explained that the Constitution ’ s delegation of “ take Care ” duties and the pardon power undergird the Executive ’ s primacy .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … at its most limited ’ when reviewing the Executive ’ s exercise of discretion over charging determinations.
” With specific regard to Rule 48 ( a ) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure , which requires “ leave of court ” to dismiss criminal charges against a defendant , J. Srinivasan said , “ [ D ] ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.
” And the leave of court language “ gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution ’ s exercise of charging authority .
For instance , a court can not deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution ’ s desire to dismiss the charges [ . ]
” Both of these are controlling precedents .
Both essentially say the same thing — judges can ’ t replace prosecutors in criminal cases just because they want to find ways to punish a defendant .
Judge Sullivan is mocking stare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
Shouldn ’ t that outrage the same media outlets that insisted on defending stare decisis when it comes to nominees to the Supreme Court , which actually does have the authority to rethink its own precedent ?
You ’ d think so , but don ’ t look for consistency at the New York Times .
They ’ re too busy celebrating Sullivan ’ s “ independent streak ” : The case cemented Judge Sullivan ’ s reputation for fierce independence and low tolerance for government misconduct — a reputation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entertaining a challenge to the Justice Department ’ s extraordinary motion to dismiss its criminal case against Michael T. Flynn , President Trump ’ s former national security adviser .
On Tuesday night , less than a week after prosecutors filed a motion to drop the case against Mr. Flynn , who had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of making false statements to federal authorities , Judge Sullivan indicated he was willing to hear from outside legal experts before he decides how to rule .
That appears to leave the door open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is politically motivated .
The department ’ s reversal followed months of pressure from Mr. Trump and his allies .
Judge Sullivan showed the extent of his concern on Wednesday when he appointed a retired federal judge , John Gleeson , to present arguments against the government ’ s decision to drop the case , and to address whether Mr. Flynn may have committed perjury by seeking in January to withdraw his 2017 guilty plea .
A search through Michael Crowley ’ s hagiographic treatment of Sullivan fails to find any mention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
In fact , the New York Times article fails to mention stare decisis in any context , never informing its readers that Sullivan ’ s actions violate both Supreme Court and DC appellate precedent , which both explicitly forbid what Sullivan is attempting to do here .
The Gray Lady certainly seemed a little more animated about that principle in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings , as well as in relation to Neil Gorsuch .
Even worse , Jonathan Turley points out , Sullivan appears to want to usurp the executive branch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try Flynn for perjury over his guilty plea has Turley particularly concerned about the aftermath of exposed prosecutorial misconduct in other cases : My concerns have deepened with the latest order : “ Upon consideration of the entire record in this case , it is hereby ORDERED that the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson ( Ret . )
as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government ’ s Motion to Dismiss , ” the judge wrote .
“ [ I ] t is further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C .
§ 401 , Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42 , the Court ’ s inherent authority , and any other applicable statutes , rules , or controlling law.
” The suggestion that Flynn could be charged with perjury for seeking to withdraw a plea is highly disconcerting .
As a criminal defense attorney , my concern is that such a claim could be made in thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such pleas or allegations of prosecutorial abuse have been raised for dismissal .
… Such an extraordinary action would occur in the context of an already troubling record .
Judge Sullivan was previously criticized for suggesting that Flynn could be charged with treason , including an earlier blog column here .
He is now allowing third parties to make arguments in a criminal case on an unopposed motion and exploring a charge that he might be able to bring against Flynn .
Judge Sullivan would not only ignore the agreement of the parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice , but effectively create a new case of his own making .
At some point , the court risks the appearance of assuming both prosecutorial and judicial functions .
A perjury charge leaves the appearance of a court imposing its own notion of justice through a dubious judicially-mandated criminal charge .
Or , as attorney Jay Marshall Wolman put it more succinctly : The whole case is a bad look , and Sullivan wants to keep expanding it .
He ’ s not the only entity disregarding precedent , either .
Where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stare decisis now ?

Remember stare decisis? It was all the rage in late 2018, and again in early 2017, when two Republican nominees got confirmed to the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats made them pledge fealty to the principle of stare decisis, which requires that previous Supreme Court precedent must be followed and upheld in all but the most unusual circumstances for the stability of the law.
Over at Forbes, Mark Chenowith labors under the impression that this principle still applies. He notes that Judge Emmet Sullivan’s attempts to appoint a prosecutor to look for crimes that Michael Flynn might have committed by accepting a plea deal violates not one but two controlling precedents. One such precedent was delivered just a week ago in US v Sineneng-Smith, on a 9-0 Supreme Court vote and an opinion :
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” … Justice Ginsburg’s decision castigated the Ninth Circuit’s conduct as “depart[ing] so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion” and “remand[ed] the case for an adjudication of the appeal attuned to the case shaped by the parties rather than the case designed by the appeals panel.” J. Ginsburg faulted the panel’s “redirection” and “takeover” of the appeal and chastised that “the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”
If Sullivan somehow missed the news on Sineneng-Smith, he surely couldn’t have missed US v Fokker Servs BV, Chenowith assumes. That DC Circuit appellate precedent got delivered four years ago and is “even more squarely on point,” he writes:
The Fokker case arose in the context of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) the Department of Justice entered into with a Dutch company that disclosed violating U.S. sanctions and export control laws. In such deals, defendants plead guilty to a charge, but the government does not prosecute the case right away. In exchange, for a certain agreed-to period of time, the defendant demonstrates that it has reformed its conduct and put more effective compliance protocols in place. If the government is satisfied at the end of the time period, it will dismiss the charge and the defendant will avert criminal punishment. District judges primarily have to approve these deals to ensure that DOJ is not using them to defeat a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. In Fokker, however, the district judge refused to enter the DPA because he felt that the company was getting off too easily and should have to pay a higher fine, hire an independent monitor, and that individuals at the company should have to face prosecution. As the Court of Appeals explained though, such considerations are outside the judge’s role: “The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive’s charging authority embraces … whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences.” Indeed, “[f]ew subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether … to dismiss a proceeding once brought.” J. Srinivasan explained that the Constitution’s delegation of “take Care” duties and the pardon power undergird the Executive’s primacy. As a result, “‘judicial authority is … at its most limited’ when reviewing the Executive’s exercise of discretion over charging determinations.” With specific regard to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires “leave of court” to dismiss criminal charges against a defendant, J. Srinivasan said, “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” And the leave of court language “gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority. For instance, a court cannot deny leave of court because of a view that the defendant should stand trial notwithstanding the prosecution’s desire to dismiss the charges[.]”
Both of these are controlling precedents. Both essentially say the same thing — judges can’t replace prosecutors in criminal cases just because they want to find ways to punish a defendant. Judge Sullivan is mocking stare decisis and flouting precedent in the Flynn case.
Shouldn’t that outrage the same media outlets that insisted on defending stare decisis when it comes to nominees to the Supreme Court, which actually does have the authority to rethink its own precedent? You’d think so, but don’t look for consistency at the New York Times. They’re too busy celebrating Sullivan’s “independent streak”:
The case cemented Judge Sullivan’s reputation for fierce independence and low tolerance for government misconduct — a reputation in the spotlight again now that he is entertaining a challenge to the Justice Department’s extraordinary motion to dismiss its criminal case against Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. On Tuesday night, less than a week after prosecutors filed a motion to drop the case against Mr. Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of making false statements to federal authorities, Judge Sullivan indicated he was willing to hear from outside legal experts before he decides how to rule. That appears to leave the door open for critics who claim that the motion is politically motivated. The department’s reversal followed months of pressure from Mr. Trump and his allies. Judge Sullivan showed the extent of his concern on Wednesday when he appointed a retired federal judge, John Gleeson, to present arguments against the government’s decision to drop the case, and to address whether Mr. Flynn may have committed perjury by seeking in January to withdraw his 2017 guilty plea.
A search through Michael Crowley’s hagiographic treatment of Sullivan fails to find any mention of Sineneng-Smith. Ditto that for Fokker, too. In fact, the New York Times article fails to mention stare decisis in any context, never informing its readers that Sullivan’s actions violate both Supreme Court and DC appellate precedent, which both explicitly forbid what Sullivan is attempting to do here. The Gray Lady certainly seemed a little more animated about that principle in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, as well as in relation to Neil Gorsuch.
Even worse, Jonathan Turley points out, Sullivan appears to want to usurp the executive branch authority to prosecute. His threat to try Flynn for perjury over his guilty plea has Turley particularly concerned about the aftermath of exposed prosecutorial misconduct in other cases:
My concerns have deepened with the latest order:
“Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss,” the judge wrote. “[I]t is further ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, the Court’s inherent authority, and any other applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law.” The suggestion that Flynn could be charged with perjury for seeking to withdraw a plea is highly disconcerting. As a criminal defense attorney, my concern is that such a claim could be made in thousands of cases where defendants have sought to withdraw such pleas or allegations of prosecutorial abuse have been raised for dismissal. … Such an extraordinary action would occur in the context of an already troubling record. Judge Sullivan was previously criticized for suggesting that Flynn could be charged with treason, including an earlier blog column here. He is now allowing third parties to make arguments in a criminal case on an unopposed motion and exploring a charge that he might be able to bring against Flynn. Judge Sullivan would not only ignore the agreement of the parties, the judgment of the Department of Justice, but effectively create a new case of his own making. At some point, the court risks the appearance of assuming both prosecutorial and judicial functions. A perjury charge leaves the appearance of a court imposing its own notion of justice through a dubious judicially-mandated criminal charge.
Or, as attorney Jay Marshall Wolman put it more succinctly:
Flynn aside, People routinely confess/admit to sufficient facts in a plea. I get that it’s technically perjury to admit to a crime you didn’t commit, but it’s a bad look. https://t.co/OxZhDdsZo6 — Jay Marshall Wolman (@wolmanj) May 14, 2020
The whole case is a bad look, and Sullivan wants to keep expanding it. He’s not the only entity disregarding precedent, either. Where is the media’s obsession with stare decisis now?


hotair--2020-05-14--Antibody studies of Spain and France show just five percent of population has been infected

This news made me remember that study published in late March , in the first few weeks of the pandemic , guesstimating what the prevalence of the disease was in hard-hit European countries .
This is where researchers believed things probably stood seven long weeks ago based on their model : The eye-popping number was Spain ’ s , where 15 percent of the population was already expected to have been infected .
Imagine what sort of prevalence there might be now after seven more weeks of transmission — granted , much slower transmission due to the nationwide lockdown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up towards herd immunity ?
No , it turns out .
A large national antibody finds actual prevalence at just … five percent .
Between this result and the data from that study of MLB personnel earlier this week , suggesting one percent prevalence or thereabouts across the U.S. , what ’ s left of the Oxford model ’ s theory of tens of millions of “ hidden ” asymptomatic infections ?
The infection fatality rate there stands at around 1.2 percent , or 12 times more lethal than the flu .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results , said the country ’ s health minister .
“ There is no herd immunity in Spain.
” France has been testing its population for antibodies too .
The results were similar .
A mere 4.4 per cent of the French population – 2.8 million people – have been infected , according to findings by the Pasteur Institue , published in the journal Science and based on models applied to hospital and death data .
Even in the worst hit parts of France , the eastern area and the Paris region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine and 10 per cent on average , the research found .
Said French researchers , “ Our results show that without a vaccine the herd immunity alone will not be enough to avoid a second wave at the end of the lockdown .
Efficient control measures must thus be upheld after May 11.
” France has recorded 27,074 deaths from the disease ; if the antibody estimate is accurate , that would mean an infection fatality rate of just a shade under one percent .
Optimistic estimates of the disease ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order of 0.5 percent or lower .
The France/Spain data is bad news in that sense .
Given how dangerous COVID-19 appears to be , there ’ s a benefit to it not being as easily transmitted as modelers expected .
The highest prevalence among any large population based on antibody testing that I can think of offhand is NYC , ground zero of America ’ s coronavirus nightmare , where just 20 percent or so of the population is infected despite the city ’ s outsized population density and reliance on mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultra-hot hot spots suggests that maybe we can hold down transmission with basic precautions like masks and social distancing ( and eventually centralized quarantine ? )
while we wait on a vaccine .
It ’ ll only be another year .
Or 18 months .
Or much longer ?

This news made me remember that study published in late March, in the first few weeks of the pandemic, guesstimating what the prevalence of the disease was in hard-hit European countries. This is where researchers believed things probably stood seven long weeks ago based on their model:
The eye-popping number was Spain’s, where 15 percent of the population was already expected to have been infected. Imagine what sort of prevalence there might be now after seven more weeks of transmission — granted, much slower transmission due to the nationwide lockdown, but still. Could Spain be creeping up towards herd immunity?
No, it turns out. A large national antibody finds actual prevalence at just … five percent. Between this result and the data from that study of MLB personnel earlier this week, suggesting one percent prevalence or thereabouts across the U.S., what’s left of the Oxford model’s theory of tens of millions of “hidden” asymptomatic infections?
BREAKING NEWS: Preliminary results of Spain's seroprevalence study #ENECOVID. >60,000 participants Antibodies for #SARSCoV2:
5% of Spanish population
11% in region with highest incidence (Madrid) So far from herd immunity in country with 2nd largest number of cases after U.S. https://t.co/P8dpzaibuX — Miguel Hernán (@_MiguelHernan) May 13, 2020
The infection fatality rate there stands at around 1.2 percent, or 12 times more lethal than the flu. “We have not been surprised” by the results, said the country’s health minister. “There is no herd immunity in Spain.”
France has been testing its population for antibodies too. The results were similar.
A mere 4.4 per cent of the French population – 2.8 million people – have been infected, according to findings by the Pasteur Institue, published in the journal Science and based on models applied to hospital and death data. Even in the worst hit parts of France, the eastern area and the Paris region, the infection rate only reaches between nine and 10 per cent on average, the research found.
Said French researchers, “Our results show that without a vaccine the herd immunity alone will not be enough to avoid a second wave at the end of the lockdown. Efficient control measures must thus be upheld after May 11.” France has recorded 27,074 deaths from the disease; if the antibody estimate is accurate, that would mean an infection fatality rate of just a shade under one percent. Optimistic estimates of the disease’s true fatality rate have been on the order of 0.5 percent or lower. The France/Spain data is bad news in that sense.
Given how dangerous COVID-19 appears to be, there’s a benefit to it not being as easily transmitted as modelers expected. The highest prevalence among any large population based on antibody testing that I can think of offhand is NYC, ground zero of America’s coronavirus nightmare, where just 20 percent or so of the population is infected despite the city’s outsized population density and reliance on mass transit. The relatively low prevalence in ultra-hot hot spots suggests that maybe we can hold down transmission with basic precautions like masks and social distancing (and eventually centralized quarantine?) while we wait on a vaccine.
It’ll only be another year. Or 18 months. Or much longer?


hotair--2020-05-14--Barstool sports founder: 'We're staying inside until there's a cure? When did that become the game?'

Dave Portnoy , the founder of Barstool sports , posted a rant about coronavirus lockdowns on Twitter yesterday which has already been viewed more than 3 million times .
You may not agree with everything he says here but he does make a solid point about the way the goal has subtly shifted over the past 5-6 weeks .
“ What the f**k is going on ?
When did this become flatten the curve , flatten the curve , flatten the curve to we have to find a cure or everyone ’ s going to die ?
” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Like Fauci .
Seems like a nice enough dude .
I ’ ve always been , oh he ’ s—no agenda .
Looks like he could be maybe the grandfather in Wedding Crashers .
Gets in front of the Senate he ’ s like ‘ If we reopen the country too quick everyone ’ s dead.
’ Where ’ d that come from ?
“ And the LA Mayor .
We ’ re not opening the city until we find a cure ?
What ?
Find a cure ?
Who says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cure ?
We haven ’ t found a cure to cancer .
It took AIDS 20 years or whatever , do we even have a cure ?
So the economy ’ s just shut down ?
“ All we ’ ve heard forever : Flatten the curve , flatten the curve , make sure there ’ s hospital beds .
We ’ re there .
Now all of a sudden it ’ s like a 180.
” Portnoy went on to say , “ We ’ ve done exactly what you said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Watch the full clip below , but that ’ s the gist of it .
Given the number of views , Portnoy ’ s rant has apparently captured a frustration that a lot of people are feeling right now .
There ’ s a fundamental miscommunication about how we ’ re expected to balance taking precautions not to spread the virus and carrying on with our lives in some sustainable way .
When you actually talk to or even just hear about the situation some people are in because of these lock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different light .
Yesterday , a family member called me for advice on buying a new computer .
After years of working for the same organization he was laid off last month and is trying to figure out how to make a living to help support his family .
His old computer belongs to the place he worked for many years , so to even get started he needs to buy a new one of his own .
It ’ s a scary place to be as an adult with a mortgage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the normal bills to pay .
Earlier this week another family member learned that their employer had just fired four other people .
One of the people who lost their job is a single mom whose husband died only a few months ago .
This is a tough blow for a family that has already had enough of those .
Of course I understand the company had no choice .
The economy is crushing everyone .
In fact , it ’ s guaranteed that if things don ’ t pick up , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course no one wants their community to turn into New York City with refrigerated trucks full of bodies outside hospitals .
We can ’ t pretend there ’ s no threat because the fact remains that most of the country is not even close to reaching herd immunity and won ’ t be for quite a while .
But the fact remains that there are terrible outcomes on both sides of this equation .
Here ’ s Portnoy ’ s rant .
I ’ m sure this is going to be dumped on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , dangerous , etc .
I don ’ t think the idea here is to start ignoring public health officials wholesale .
I think the idea is to highlight the fact that the death toll isn ’ t the only price we ’ re paying right now .
It ’ s not clear all of our elected officials and experts get that .

Dave Portnoy, the founder of Barstool sports, posted a rant about coronavirus lockdowns on Twitter yesterday which has already been viewed more than 3 million times. You may not agree with everything he says here but he does make a solid point about the way the goal has subtly shifted over the past 5-6 weeks.
“What the f**k is going on? When did this become flatten the curve, flatten the curve, flatten the curve to we have to find a cure or everyone’s going to die?” he said to open the rant. He continued, “Like Fauci. Seems like a nice enough dude. I’ve always been, oh he’s—no agenda. Looks like he could be maybe the grandfather in Wedding Crashers. Gets in front of the Senate he’s like ‘If we reopen the country too quick everyone’s dead.’ Where’d that come from?
“And the LA Mayor. We’re not opening the city until we find a cure? What? Find a cure? Who says we’re going to find a cure? We haven’t found a cure to cancer. It took AIDS 20 years or whatever, do we even have a cure? So the economy’s just shut down?
“All we’ve heard forever: Flatten the curve, flatten the curve, make sure there’s hospital beds. We’re there. Now all of a sudden it’s like a 180.”
Portnoy went on to say, “We’ve done exactly what you said, now you’re changing the rules.”
Watch the full clip below, but that’s the gist of it. Given the number of views, Portnoy’s rant has apparently captured a frustration that a lot of people are feeling right now. There’s a fundamental miscommunication about how we’re expected to balance taking precautions not to spread the virus and carrying on with our lives in some sustainable way.
When you actually talk to or even just hear about the situation some people are in because of these lock down orders, it puts things in a different light. Yesterday, a family member called me for advice on buying a new computer. After years of working for the same organization he was laid off last month and is trying to figure out how to make a living to help support his family. His old computer belongs to the place he worked for many years, so to even get started he needs to buy a new one of his own. It’s a scary place to be as an adult with a mortgage, kids headed to college and all the normal bills to pay.
Earlier this week another family member learned that their employer had just fired four other people. One of the people who lost their job is a single mom whose husband died only a few months ago. This is a tough blow for a family that has already had enough of those. Of course I understand the company had no choice. The economy is crushing everyone. In fact, it’s guaranteed that if things don’t pick up, more people will be laid off.
Of course no one wants their community to turn into New York City with refrigerated trucks full of bodies outside hospitals. We can’t pretend there’s no threat because the fact remains that most of the country is not even close to reaching herd immunity and won’t be for quite a while. But the fact remains that there are terrible outcomes on both sides of this equation.
Here’s Portnoy’s rant. I’m sure this is going to be dumped on by a lot of people as anti-science, dangerous, etc. I don’t think the idea here is to start ignoring public health officials wholesale. I think the idea is to highlight the fact that the death toll isn’t the only price we’re paying right now. It’s not clear all of our elected officials and experts get that.


hotair--2020-05-14--Clapper: Unmasking was so routine to me that I don't recall doing it to an incoming national securit

Clapper: Unmasking was so routine to me that I don't recall doing it to an incoming national security adviser, or something

Does James Clapper have a point in how routine it would be for a Director of National Intelligence to request “ unmasking ” from SIGINT intercepts ?
Yes , of course , but that ’ s a deflection from the reveal yesterday , and both Clapper and CNN ’ s John Berman know that .
It ’ s the timing of the requests , for one thing , and the breathtaking scope of the requests for another .
Why did Clapper need three requests after the 2016 election on material that clearly related to incoming administration policy on Russia ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ US ambassador to Italy , and Joe Biden need to request the identity at all ?
Berman doesn ’ t ask , but he does provide a deflection of his own : BERMAN : Generally speaking , how many unmasking requests did you make , say , in a given week ?
CLAPPER : Well , great question , and it varied , and I don ’ t recall the exact number .
But over the six-plus , six and a half , almost seven years I served as DNI , I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or twice a week , perhaps ?
But it would vary .
[ Crosstalk ] Not every day but fairly frequently .
It ’ s a routine thing , it ’ s appropriate and legitimate .
When you have a valid foreign intelligence target engaging with a US person — is it , for example , an insider ?
Someone in the government engaging with that foreign adversary ?
So it ’ s important from the standpoint of potential jeopardy to the national security that you know — you understand what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would make those requests once or twice a week , and to be clear , the number of unmasking requests actually went up in the years of the Trump administration from the Obama administration .
Do you remember why you made these specific — and there were three , December 2nd , December 28th , January 7th — these requests to unmask the name of an individual ?
CLAPPER : No I don ’ t , I don ’ t recall what prompted a request on my — that was made on my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t remember the specifics or what it was that was in the SIGINT report that was suggestive enough that I was concerned and felt that I should know who was actually involved .
Gee , why would those requests have gone up in 2017 and 2018 ?
Could it be because we were in the middle of a Russia-collusion panic that nearly paralyzed Washington , and which turned out to be based on drizzly horse puckey ?
Democrats on Capitol Hill spent two-plus years in hysteria imagining a Russian beneath every Republican bed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities in congressional hearings to respond to those allegations .
The triggering event for these unmasking requests — or at least one of them — was Flynn ’ s conversation with Sergei Kislyak .
We know this because it ’ s part of the FBI ’ s case against Flynn , and it ’ s precisely what they interrogated him about , even while pretending it wasn ’ t an interrogation .
Clapper ’ s claim that he can ’ t recall this because it ’ s routine is absurd .
The context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have made the US person involved obvious , and just as obviously not just “ someone engaging with a foreign adversary , ” but whose official job in the transition team ( which is a government office , too ) required him to engage with foreign diplomats .
And even if Clapper somehow couldn ’ t figure out that the US person discussing sanctions policy with Kislyak was Flynn , he should have dropped it once Flynn was unmasked , and all other unmasking requests should have been denied .
We know they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the information came to the FBI , which absurdly took it as a Logan Act violation .
It seems likely that the multiple unmasking requests were a mechanism to allow the FBI to get Flynn ’ s identity so that they could set him up for a perjury trap for purely political purposes .
The political nature of these requests pertaining to Flynn becomes obvious from their initiation almost immediately after the election and the officials who have no role in such matters who requested them — Power , Ambassador John Phillips , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden too .
Unmasking for the purpose of stopping espionage is “ appropriate and legitimate ” on occasion , and the DNI would be an appropriate officer for such requests , but only when there is a clear risk of espionage .
Unmasking for political purposes is outrageous , and that ’ s clearly what happened here — especially since no one ever found any evidence that Flynn was spying on anyone anyway .
This is a scandal of Watergate proportions .

Does James Clapper have a point in how routine it would be for a Director of National Intelligence to request “unmasking” from SIGINT intercepts? Yes, of course, but that’s a deflection from the reveal yesterday, and both Clapper and CNN’s John Berman know that. It’s the timing of the requests, for one thing, and the breathtaking scope of the requests for another. Why did Clapper need three requests after the 2016 election on material that clearly related to incoming administration policy on Russia?
And why did Samantha Power, the US ambassador to Italy, and Joe Biden need to request the identity at all? Berman doesn’t ask, but he does provide a deflection of his own:
Clapper: I was unmasking Americans “once or twice a week” but “I don’t recall what prompted a request that was made on my behalf for unmasking” Flynn. pic.twitter.com/Tq0G8HlkhA — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 14, 2020
BERMAN: Generally speaking, how many unmasking requests did you make, say, in a given week? CLAPPER: Well, great question, and it varied, and I don’t recall the exact number. But over the six-plus, six and a half, almost seven years I served as DNI, I would say perhaps once a week — once or twice a week, perhaps? But it would vary. [Crosstalk] Not every day but fairly frequently. It’s a routine thing, it’s appropriate and legitimate. When you have a valid foreign intelligence target engaging with a US person — is it, for example, an insider? Someone in the government engaging with that foreign adversary? So it’s important from the standpoint of potential jeopardy to the national security that you know — you understand what’s going on. BERMAN: So you would make those requests once or twice a week, and to be clear, the number of unmasking requests actually went up in the years of the Trump administration from the Obama administration. Do you remember why you made these specific — and there were three, December 2nd, December 28th, January 7th — these requests to unmask the name of an individual? CLAPPER: No I don’t, I don’t recall what prompted a request on my — that was made on my behalf for unmasking. I don’t remember the specifics or what it was that was in the SIGINT report that was suggestive enough that I was concerned and felt that I should know who was actually involved.
Gee, why would those requests have gone up in 2017 and 2018? Could it be because we were in the middle of a Russia-collusion panic that nearly paralyzed Washington, and which turned out to be based on drizzly horse puckey? Democrats on Capitol Hill spent two-plus years in hysteria imagining a Russian beneath every Republican bed, and demanded action from our intel communities in congressional hearings to respond to those allegations.
The triggering event for these unmasking requests — or at least one of them — was Flynn’s conversation with Sergei Kislyak. We know this because it’s part of the FBI’s case against Flynn, and it’s precisely what they interrogated him about, even while pretending it wasn’t an interrogation. Clapper’s claim that he can’t recall this because it’s routine is absurd. The context of the conversation that was captured would have made the US person involved obvious, and just as obviously not just “someone engaging with a foreign adversary,” but whose official job in the transition team (which is a government office, too) required him to engage with foreign diplomats. And even if Clapper somehow couldn’t figure out that the US person discussing sanctions policy with Kislyak was Flynn, he should have dropped it once Flynn was unmasked, and all other unmasking requests should have been denied.
We know they weren’t, however, because the information came to the FBI, which absurdly took it as a Logan Act violation. It seems likely that the multiple unmasking requests were a mechanism to allow the FBI to get Flynn’s identity so that they could set him up for a perjury trap for purely political purposes. The political nature of these requests pertaining to Flynn becomes obvious from their initiation almost immediately after the election and the officials who have no role in such matters who requested them — Power, Ambassador John Phillips, chief of staff Denis McDonough, and Biden too.
Unmasking for the purpose of stopping espionage is “appropriate and legitimate” on occasion, and the DNI would be an appropriate officer for such requests, but only when there is a clear risk of espionage. Unmasking for political purposes is outrageous, and that’s clearly what happened here — especially since no one ever found any evidence that Flynn was spying on anyone anyway. This is a scandal of Watergate proportions.


hotair--2020-05-14--Hoo boy: NYU study says coronavirus tests being used at the White House could be inaccurate half the

Hoo boy: NYU study says coronavirus tests being used at the White House could be inaccurate half the time

If this study is correct — if — then there ’ s no such thing yet as a COVID-19 test that ’ s very fast and highly accurate .
And given how close infected people keep getting to the president , a test that ’ s quick and reliable is of the utmost importance .
Until we have one , he and his staff should be sticklers about masks and social distancing .
They ’ re headed in that direction , thankfully .
The study looked at Abbott Laboratories ’ ID Now molecular COVID-19 rapid test , which Trump hailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a March 30 news briefing because it boasted of delivering positive results in as little as five minutes .
But the NYU researchers concluded that when testing swabs were stored before use in a stabilizing solution , the Abbott test missed at least one-third of positive results that were found using a different , more time-consuming procedure , the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test .
Last month , responding to concerns about false negative results , Abbott changed its protocol to recommend using dry nasal swabs , rather than storing them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the researchers concluded that actually increased the rate of false negatives to 48 percent .
Abbott ’ s ID Now system is the one in use at the White House because it delivers results so quickly .
Staffers can be tested shortly before meeting with Trump and know if they ’ re positive or not ; just within the past week , Air Force Gen. Joseph Lengyel tested positive at the White House and was prevented from attending a meeting with him .
Problem , though : Lengyel later tested negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machines aren ’ t perfect .
False positives are one thing , though .
False negatives are much more alarming , since that means infected people are being cleared to meet with the president in the mistaken belief that they ’ re not infected .
And false negatives are what the study got from the Abbott machines .
It may be sheer dumb luck that neither Trump nor Pence has gotten sick yet .
Abbott disputes the results , insisting that false negatives from their tests reported elsewhere are running at .02 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers were operating their machine correctly .
Could be , but questions have been raised about the accuracy of their insta-tests for awhile : Before a Senate committee last week , National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins testified that the rapid Abbott test had a 15 percent false negative rate , an apparent reference to unpublished data from the Cleveland Clinic .
“ If you ’ re in a circumstance where you really don ’ t want to miss a diagnosis of somebody who ’ s already carrying the virus , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a higher sensitivity than that , ” Collins said .
The Abbott rapid test missed about 25 percent of positives compared with a slower Abbott test , according to a study published April 23 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology .
The White House is very much an environment “ where you really don ’ t want to miss a diagnosis of somebody who ’ s already carrying the virus.
” If the tests were erring on the side of false positives , that would be fine since people who test positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until more reliable tests clear them , as happened with Lengyel .
But false negatives are a disaster in the making .
But if the White House doesn ’ t use the Abbott tests , what are they supposed to use ?
The new antigen test being developed by Quidel is a potential breakthrough , as it ’ s about as fast as the Abbott test and cheaper .
But antigen tests also have higher rates of false negatives than the traditional PCR test performed in a lab .
NBC estimates that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which would be a major improvement over the Abbott test if the NYU study is right but not the sort of gamble you ’ d want to take with the president ’ s life .
How about the brand spanking new saliva test instead ?
Not only does that bypass those god-awful foot-long swabs , it ’ s reportedly as accurate as a lab test .
To test for accuracy and win over the FDA , Rutgers compared the saliva test against the state-of-the-art nasopharyngeal swab in 60 patients in an effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was tested twice , once with each approach .
The results were identical , Brooks said .
The Yale School of Public Health conducted its own study of 44 inpatients and 98 health-care workers and found that saliva samples taken from just inside the mouth provided greater detection and consistency than the nasal swab approach .
The study also concluded there was less variability in results with the self-sample collection of saliva .
The saliva test may be more accurate than the lab test , as it detected traces of the virus in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Yale study who tested negative when they were swabbed .
The problem for now is speed .
Rutgers ’ s saliva test is designed to be used at home and then mailed out to a lab , with results in 48 hours .
That ’ s too long to be useful to the White House — although a different saliva test is in the works in Connecticut that could potentially make results available within a half-hour , a la a pregnancy test .
That ’ s what Trump and his team need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe some sort of on-site testing could be set up to rapidly process results from the Rutgers test .
Scott Gottlieb imagines it becoming a daily exercise : “ Consider a model where employees would spit in tubes and then the samples would be pooled together in groups of 50 or even 100 and tested overnight to see if anyone has coronavirus .
If a pooled sample gets a hit , the workers could be individually screened using PCR.
” In the meantime , basic common sense is to isolate Trump and Pence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few trusted advisors , like Mark Meadows , to act as go-betweens with the rest of the staff and test them daily or twice daily .
Do everything on video chat that can be plausibly done on video chat .

If this study is correct — if — then there’s no such thing yet as a COVID-19 test that’s very fast and highly accurate.
And given how close infected people keep getting to the president, a test that’s quick and reliable is of the utmost importance.
Until we have one, he and his staff should be sticklers about masks and social distancing. They’re headed in that direction, thankfully.
The study looked at Abbott Laboratories’ ID Now molecular COVID-19 rapid test, which Trump hailed as a “whole new ballgame” at a March 30 news briefing because it boasted of delivering positive results in as little as five minutes. But the NYU researchers concluded that when testing swabs were stored before use in a stabilizing solution, the Abbott test missed at least one-third of positive results that were found using a different, more time-consuming procedure, the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test. Last month, responding to concerns about false negative results, Abbott changed its protocol to recommend using dry nasal swabs, rather than storing them in a solution that could dilute the samples. But the researchers concluded that actually increased the rate of false negatives to 48 percent.
Abbott’s ID Now system is the one in use at the White House because it delivers results so quickly. Staffers can be tested shortly before meeting with Trump and know if they’re positive or not; just within the past week, Air Force Gen. Joseph Lengyel tested positive at the White House and was prevented from attending a meeting with him. Problem, though: Lengyel later tested negative twice, evidence that the White House machines aren’t perfect. False positives are one thing, though. False negatives are much more alarming, since that means infected people are being cleared to meet with the president in the mistaken belief that they’re not infected.
And false negatives are what the study got from the Abbott machines. It may be sheer dumb luck that neither Trump nor Pence has gotten sick yet.
Abbott disputes the results, insisting that false negatives from their tests reported elsewhere are running at .02 percent. They also question whether the NYU researchers were operating their machine correctly. Could be, but questions have been raised about the accuracy of their insta-tests for awhile:
Before a Senate committee last week, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins testified that the rapid Abbott test had a 15 percent false negative rate, an apparent reference to unpublished data from the Cleveland Clinic. “If you’re in a circumstance where you really don’t want to miss a diagnosis of somebody who’s already carrying the virus, you’d like to have something that has a higher sensitivity than that,” Collins said. The Abbott rapid test missed about 25 percent of positives compared with a slower Abbott test, according to a study published April 23 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
The White House is very much an environment “where you really don’t want to miss a diagnosis of somebody who’s already carrying the virus.” If the tests were erring on the side of false positives, that would be fine since people who test positive can always be kept away from others until more reliable tests clear them, as happened with Lengyel. But false negatives are a disaster in the making.
But if the White House doesn’t use the Abbott tests, what are they supposed to use? The new antigen test being developed by Quidel is a potential breakthrough, as it’s about as fast as the Abbott test and cheaper. But antigen tests also have higher rates of false negatives than the traditional PCR test performed in a lab. NBC estimates that they’ll detect 80 percent of infections, which would be a major improvement over the Abbott test if the NYU study is right but not the sort of gamble you’d want to take with the president’s life.
How about the brand spanking new saliva test instead? Not only does that bypass those god-awful foot-long swabs, it’s reportedly as accurate as a lab test.
To test for accuracy and win over the FDA, Rutgers compared the saliva test against the state-of-the-art nasopharyngeal swab in 60 patients in an effort to find early infection. Each patient was tested twice, once with each approach. The results were identical, Brooks said. The Yale School of Public Health conducted its own study of 44 inpatients and 98 health-care workers and found that saliva samples taken from just inside the mouth provided greater detection and consistency than the nasal swab approach. The study also concluded there was less variability in results with the self-sample collection of saliva.
The saliva test may be more accurate than the lab test, as it detected traces of the virus in the mouths of two people participating in the Yale study who tested negative when they were swabbed. The problem for now is speed. Rutgers’s saliva test is designed to be used at home and then mailed out to a lab, with results in 48 hours. That’s too long to be useful to the White House — although a different saliva test is in the works in Connecticut that could potentially make results available within a half-hour, a la a pregnancy test. That’s what Trump and his team need. Until it’s available, maybe some sort of on-site testing could be set up to rapidly process results from the Rutgers test. Scott Gottlieb imagines it becoming a daily exercise: “Consider a model where employees would spit in tubes and then the samples would be pooled together in groups of 50 or even 100 and tested overnight to see if anyone has coronavirus. If a pooled sample gets a hit, the workers could be individually screened using PCR.”
In the meantime, basic common sense is to isolate Trump and Pence to whatever extent possible. Designate a few trusted advisors, like Mark Meadows, to act as go-betweens with the rest of the staff and test them daily or twice daily. Do everything on video chat that can be plausibly done on video chat.


hotair--2020-05-14--V.A.: Honoring the fallen will be different this Memorial Day

The coronavirus pandemic is changing another annual tradition this year .
The way in which our nation ’ s fallen heroes will be honored at cemeteries across America will be different than previous years .
There will be no large groups of volunteers placing American flags at headstones of graves to commemorate their service to our country .
Traditionally , groups of individuals like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts , for example , gather to place flags at cemeteries as a way of honoring fallen veterans and completing community service hours towards merit badge requirements .
For scouts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that teaches them to work together while doing good in the community .
Some volunteer groups can grow quite large and while normally that would be a good thing , this year it is a concern , thanks to the coronavirus pandemic .
Social distancing measures are still required everywhere , whether a state has reopened to some normal activities or not .
This year the Department of Veterans Affairs has banned mass flag placements due to the pandemic .
The U.S. National Cemetery Administration , the federal agency within the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Because of the “ national emergency , VA national cemeteries will not be hosting public Memorial Day events , ” and that includes “ mass placement of gravesite flags.
” On Long Island , N.Y. a county executive is asking for reconsideration of the ban .
On Long Island , N.Y. , where more than 500,000 veterans are buried at two national military cemeteries , there are demands for the VA to reconsider and rescind the ban .
“ If we can ’ t figure out a way to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to honor them , then something is seriously wrong , ” said Suffolk County executive Steve Bellone , whose county includes the sprawling Calverton and Long Island National Cemeteries , which hold more veterans than any other military cemetery in the nation , including Arlington National Cemetery .
Bellone is confident that officials can carry out a plan that would keep the Scouts safe .
“ What we ’ re asking the VA to do is , rather than have a blanket policy across the country , allow the national cemeteries at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in conjunction with the local health department , ” he told Fox News .
“ We will take the responsibility to say that this flag placement plan meets the state and national guidelines but give us that opportunity to do it , allow us to honor our fallen heroes.
” Every year , the members of Boy Scout Troop 443 from Middle Island , N.Y. , place thousands of flags next to the headstones at one of the Suffolk sites , the Calverton National Cemetery .
It ’ s a legitimate complaint that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fits all approach – doesn ’ t work everywhere .
Agencies in the federal government , though , are set up to make sweeping generalizations in public policy , not to tailor policy to individual communities or states .
What may work for large military cemeteries in New York may not be necessary for other states .
In the case of Long Island , the agency noted that it hasn ’ t met the state ’ s criteria for reopening and social gatherings must be limited .
The Suffolk County executive posed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a way to do this and practice social distancing .
The scouts will be fine and there will be other good deeds to do for the community .
It will likely be a disappointment for families and friends who come to pay their respects on Memorial Day .
To them , the veterans administration suggests they bring their own flags and flowers and place them at the graves of their loved ones .
However , visitors will be allowed to visit the cemeteries over the holiday weekend to place flowers or flags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , provided they avoid any large gatherings or close contact with other families .
The department is also scrapping plans to hold large-scale commemorative events to mark the holiday , set aside each year to honor individuals who died while serving in the armed forces .
In a statement , VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said the ongoing coronavirus restrictions will force this year ’ s observation to be “ different ” but pledged the spirit of the holiday will remain unchanged .
“ While the department can ’ t hold large public ceremonies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service members with the solemn dignity and respect they have earned through their service and sacrifice , ” he said .
Veterans Affairs officials will still hold wreath-laying ceremonies at department cemeteries across the country but they will not be open to the public .
There will be no large public gatherings allowed .
VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said the commemorations will be different but they will maintain the spirit of the holiday .
Each VA cemetery will hold a wreath-laying ceremony , hold a moment of silence , and play “ Taps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be open from dawn to dusk on Monday , 25 , Memorial Day .
The department also recommends that visitors come on Friday , Saturday , or Sunday in order to practice safety guidelines like social distancing .
Also available for families this year will be the Veterans Legacy Memorial online .
Beginning today ( May 14 ) families may leave tribute comments on a veteran ’ s memorial page .
The online site includes a section for every veteran or service member interred at a VA cemetery .
We do things differently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is another example of how past traditions are changing to accommodate the virus outbreak .

The coronavirus pandemic is changing another annual tradition this year. The way in which our nation’s fallen heroes will be honored at cemeteries across America will be different than previous years. There will be no large groups of volunteers placing American flags at headstones of graves to commemorate their service to our country.
Traditionally, groups of individuals like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, gather to place flags at cemeteries as a way of honoring fallen veterans and completing community service hours towards merit badge requirements. For scouts, it’s a group service project that teaches them to work together while doing good in the community. Some volunteer groups can grow quite large and while normally that would be a good thing, this year it is a concern, thanks to the coronavirus pandemic. Social distancing measures are still required everywhere, whether a state has reopened to some normal activities or not.
This year the Department of Veterans Affairs has banned mass flag placements due to the pandemic. The U.S. National Cemetery Administration, the federal agency within the Department of Veterans Affairs that operates the sites said, “Because of the “national emergency, VA national cemeteries will not be hosting public Memorial Day events,” and that includes “mass placement of gravesite flags.” On Long Island, N.Y. a county executive is asking for reconsideration of the ban.
On Long Island, N.Y., where more than 500,000 veterans are buried at two national military cemeteries, there are demands for the VA to reconsider and rescind the ban. “If we can’t figure out a way to make sure we are placing flags at their graves to honor them, then something is seriously wrong,” said Suffolk County executive Steve Bellone, whose county includes the sprawling Calverton and Long Island National Cemeteries, which hold more veterans than any other military cemetery in the nation, including Arlington National Cemetery. Bellone is confident that officials can carry out a plan that would keep the Scouts safe. “What we’re asking the VA to do is, rather than have a blanket policy across the country, allow the national cemeteries at the local level, to make this determination in conjunction with the local health department,” he told Fox News. “We will take the responsibility to say that this flag placement plan meets the state and national guidelines but give us that opportunity to do it, allow us to honor our fallen heroes.” Every year, the members of Boy Scout Troop 443 from Middle Island, N.Y., place thousands of flags next to the headstones at one of the Suffolk sites, the Calverton National Cemetery.
It’s a legitimate complaint that a blanket order – a one size fits all approach – doesn’t work everywhere. Agencies in the federal government, though, are set up to make sweeping generalizations in public policy, not to tailor policy to individual communities or states. What may work for large military cemeteries in New York may not be necessary for other states. In the case of Long Island, the agency noted that it hasn’t met the state’s criteria for reopening and social gatherings must be limited. The Suffolk County executive posed a question as he said that surely there is a way to do this and practice social distancing.
“We just commemorated VE Day, this is the generation that lived through the adversity of the great depression, they won World War Two. What is it going to say about our generation if we can’t figure out a way to honor the greatest generation by placing flags at their graves on Memorial Day?” asked Bellone.
The scouts will be fine and there will be other good deeds to do for the community. It will likely be a disappointment for families and friends who come to pay their respects on Memorial Day. To them, the veterans administration suggests they bring their own flags and flowers and place them at the graves of their loved ones.
However, visitors will be allowed to visit the cemeteries over the holiday weekend to place flowers or flags at the grave sites of loved ones, provided they avoid any large gatherings or close contact with other families. The department is also scrapping plans to hold large-scale commemorative events to mark the holiday, set aside each year to honor individuals who died while serving in the armed forces. In a statement, VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said the ongoing coronavirus restrictions will force this year’s observation to be “different” but pledged the spirit of the holiday will remain unchanged. “While the department can’t hold large public ceremonies, VA will still honor veterans and service members with the solemn dignity and respect they have earned through their service and sacrifice,” he said.
Veterans Affairs officials will still hold wreath-laying ceremonies at department cemeteries across the country but they will not be open to the public. There will be no large public gatherings allowed. VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said the commemorations will be different but they will maintain the spirit of the holiday. Each VA cemetery will hold a wreath-laying ceremony, hold a moment of silence, and play “Taps”. All of the cemeteries will be open from dawn to dusk on Monday, 25, Memorial Day. The department also recommends that visitors come on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday in order to practice safety guidelines like social distancing.
Also available for families this year will be the Veterans Legacy Memorial online. Beginning today (May 14) families may leave tribute comments on a veteran’s memorial page. The online site includes a section for every veteran or service member interred at a VA cemetery.
We do things differently now, due to the coronavirus pandemic. This is another example of how past traditions are changing to accommodate the virus outbreak.


hotair--2020-05-14--The Chuck Todd apology. "That was not our edit"

When we discussed the deceptively edited video of Bill Barr that Chuck Todd played on Meet the Press this weekend , I noted that a rather vague apology had been offered .
But the apology wasn ’ t from the host himself .
It was posted to Twitter on the show ’ s account .
It also left unanswered some key questions about how the video wound up being chopped the way it was , who did it , and if Todd was aware of the full quote from Barr before offering his opinion of it .
To his credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plate on MSNBC yesterday and offered a full and seemingly sincere apology .
He also answered the questions I mentioned above .
( National Review ) MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd on Tuesday apologized on-air for playing a clip of Attorney General William Barr that was edited in a misleading way during his Sunday show , saying he is “ very sorry ” for the mistake while stipulating “ that was not our edit.
” … “ We did not edit that out .
That was not our edit , ” Todd said during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not include Barr ’ s additional remarks because “ we only saw the shorter of two clips that CBS did air.
” “ We should have looked at both and checked for a full transcript , a mistake that I wish we hadn ’ t made and one that I wish I hadn ’ t made , ” Todd continued .
“ The second part of the attorney general ’ s answer would have put it in the proper context , and had I seen that part of the interview , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way I did .
And I obviously am very sorry for that mistake.
” And now it ’ s my turn to offer something of an apology .
There did indeed seem to be two different versions of the clip at CBS ’ s website .
One had the full interview and one was more of an abbreviated highlight reel .
I had originally posited that the only two likely options were that some production assistant at NBC had edited the clip without telling Todd or that he had known that the clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway .
It honestly hadn ’ t occurred to me that CBS might have chopped it up in that fashion themselves .
Sorry about that .
I agree with Chuck Todd that he should have sought out the full interview and it was his responsibility to do so .
But he ’ s acknowledged that and taken responsibility for the error .
That ’ s about the most we could expect from him under the circumstances .
With all that out of the way , however , that brings the mystery to yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question of who did the editing for the shorter version that wound up being used on Meet the Press has been answered , at least in terms of which network did it .
But what we could really use now is an answer as to why it was edited in that fashion .
If you go back and look at the clip they used , it ’ s obvious that the place where they cut off Barr ’ s answer to Catherine Herridge made him come off as callous and out of touch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working for a professional news-gathering organization that deals with politics did that innocently , without understanding the tone that would be conveyed .
This was an intentional choice that someone made .
And any viewer who chose to watch the shorter version would have been left with that negative impression of Barr .
I ’ m willing to take Chuck Todd at his word when he says that NBC grabbed the shorter clip accidentally .
But somebody at CBS News made the conscious decision to edit that interview the way they did and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that decision were playing partisan politics in an effort to make the Trump administration look bad , not reporting the news as it happened .
And if anyone owes the public an apology for this entire debacle , it ’ s them .

When we discussed the deceptively edited video of Bill Barr that Chuck Todd played on Meet the Press this weekend, I noted that a rather vague apology had been offered. But the apology wasn’t from the host himself. It was posted to Twitter on the show’s account. It also left unanswered some key questions about how the video wound up being chopped the way it was, who did it, and if Todd was aware of the full quote from Barr before offering his opinion of it.
To his credit, Chuck Todd stepped up to the plate on MSNBC yesterday and offered a full and seemingly sincere apology. He also answered the questions I mentioned above. (National Review)
MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd on Tuesday apologized on-air for playing a clip of Attorney General William Barr that was edited in a misleading way during his Sunday show, saying he is “very sorry” for the mistake while stipulating “that was not our edit.” … “We did not edit that out. That was not our edit,” Todd said during his apology, adding that the show did not include Barr’s additional remarks because “we only saw the shorter of two clips that CBS did air.” “We should have looked at both and checked for a full transcript, a mistake that I wish we hadn’t made and one that I wish I hadn’t made,” Todd continued. “The second part of the attorney general’s answer would have put it in the proper context, and had I seen that part of the interview, I would not have framed the conversation the way I did. And I obviously am very sorry for that mistake.”
And now it’s my turn to offer something of an apology. There did indeed seem to be two different versions of the clip at CBS’s website. One had the full interview and one was more of an abbreviated highlight reel. I had originally posited that the only two likely options were that some production assistant at NBC had edited the clip without telling Todd or that he had known that the clip was misleadingly edited and went with it anyway. It honestly hadn’t occurred to me that CBS might have chopped it up in that fashion themselves. Sorry about that.
I agree with Chuck Todd that he should have sought out the full interview and it was his responsibility to do so. But he’s acknowledged that and taken responsibility for the error. That’s about the most we could expect from him under the circumstances.
With all that out of the way, however, that brings the mystery to yet another twist in the road. The question of who did the editing for the shorter version that wound up being used on Meet the Press has been answered, at least in terms of which network did it. But what we could really use now is an answer as to why it was edited in that fashion.
If you go back and look at the clip they used, it’s obvious that the place where they cut off Barr’s answer to Catherine Herridge made him come off as callous and out of touch. There is zero chance that anyone working for a professional news-gathering organization that deals with politics did that innocently, without understanding the tone that would be conveyed. This was an intentional choice that someone made. And any viewer who chose to watch the shorter version would have been left with that negative impression of Barr.
I’m willing to take Chuck Todd at his word when he says that NBC grabbed the shorter clip accidentally. But somebody at CBS News made the conscious decision to edit that interview the way they did and publish it. The people involved in that decision were playing partisan politics in an effort to make the Trump administration look bad, not reporting the news as it happened. And if anyone owes the public an apology for this entire debacle, it’s them.


hotair--2020-05-14--Trump: Biden's "the Big Unmasker," so how can he say he didn't know anything?

Great question — and perhaps George Stephanopoulos should get an answer to it .
Yesterday , Trump called out both Joe Biden and the ABC News host over Biden ’ s earlier lie on Good Morning America that he knew nothing about the investigation into Michael Flynn .
Hours later , the declassified list of unmaskers included Joe Biden ’ s name , with a request a full week after the meeting that Biden claimed was his only connection to the Flynn probe .
“ So how do you know nothing if you ’ re one of the unmaskers ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should get to the bottom of it : President Trump suggested former Vice President Joe Biden was not truthful about his knowledge of the FBI ’ s Russia investigation after his name was on a list released by Republicans of Obama-era officials who requested the “ unmasking ” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in intelligence reports .
“ The unmasking is a massive thing , ” Trump told reporters in the Cabinet Room on Wednesday .
“ I watched Biden yesterday on ‘ Good Morning America ’ being interviewed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he said he knew nothing about anything.
” “ He has no idea , he knows nothing about anything .
Nothing at all .
And then it gets released today that he was a big unmasker , ” the president continued .
“ So how do you know nothing if you ’ re one of the unmaskers ?
” One might have thought that Stephanopoulos himself would address this issue , since Biden lied about it to his audience .
At least from GMA ’ s Twitter feed , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show even discussed the issue of the flurry of unmasking requests that came from Obama administration officials after the 2016 election , most of whom — like Biden — have no reason to peek under the hood of a counterintelligence operation .
Reporters had better start asking questions about it , Rand Paul warned yesterday evening .
“ This is exactly what they they were accusing President Trump of , ” Paul said at a press conference after the release of the unmasking-request list , “ using government to go after a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been going around for years that Obama ’ s administration was abusing te power of unmasking , and this sounds like they were using it to go after a political opponent , which is a serious offense and should be investigated , ” Paul said .
“ The fact that Vice President Biden is directly involved in the unmasking of a political opponent — think about it .
You remember impeachment ?
They said the president was using the government to go after a political opponent ?
This is Vice President Biden using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go after a political opponent and he is caught red-handed here… eavesdropping on a political opponent ’ s phone calls.
” “ Every reporter in the country needs to ask this legitimate question .
They need to come out of hibernation and ask Vice President Biden , do we think it is a legitimate function of government to eavesdrop on political opponents , illegally unmask them and listen to their private conversation ?
” “ This is exactly what they were accusing President Trump of — he was acquitted on those charges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is guilty of using government to go after a political opponent.
” One reporter got into the swing of things immediately .
Just how did all these people know about the Flynn conversation in the first place , if it came from a counterintelligence operation ?
That ’ s a very good question , Paul says — and he ’ s correct .
When the US ambassador to Italy is filing an unmasking request about a conversation between a presidential transition team and a Russian ambassador , it ’ s clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the very least .
Paul says that it ’ s more of a sign of an administration “ abusing its power to go after a political opponent , ” and it needs more investigation .
A lot more investigation .
“ The question really is , ” Paul concludes , “ was the Vice President leading this effort to go after General Flynn , or was it President Obama ?
” I ’ m sure the national media will get right on that question , but Paul did announce that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Great question — and perhaps George Stephanopoulos should get an answer to it. Yesterday, Trump called out both Joe Biden and the ABC News host over Biden’s earlier lie on Good Morning America that he knew nothing about the investigation into Michael Flynn. Hours later, the declassified list of unmaskers included Joe Biden’s name, with a request a full week after the meeting that Biden claimed was his only connection to the Flynn probe.
“So how do you know nothing if you’re one of the unmaskers?” Trump wondered, and told reporters they should get to the bottom of it:
President Trump suggested former Vice President Joe Biden was not truthful about his knowledge of the FBI’s Russia investigation after his name was on a list released by Republicans of Obama-era officials who requested the “unmasking” of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in intelligence reports. “The unmasking is a massive thing,” Trump told reporters in the Cabinet Room on Wednesday. “I watched Biden yesterday on ‘Good Morning America’ being interviewed by one of your colleagues, George Stephanopoulos, and he said he knew nothing about anything.” “He has no idea, he knows nothing about anything. Nothing at all. And then it gets released today that he was a big unmasker,” the president continued. “So how do you know nothing if you’re one of the unmaskers?”
One might have thought that Stephanopoulos himself would address this issue, since Biden lied about it to his audience. At least from GMA’s Twitter feed, though, it doesn’t appear that the show even discussed the issue of the flurry of unmasking requests that came from Obama administration officials after the 2016 election, most of whom — like Biden — have no reason to peek under the hood of a counterintelligence operation.
Reporters had better start asking questions about it, Rand Paul warned yesterday evening. “This is exactly what they they were accusing President Trump of,” Paul said at a press conference after the release of the unmasking-request list, “using government to go after a political opponent”:
“These rumors have been going around for years that Obama’s administration was abusing te power of unmasking, and this sounds like they were using it to go after a political opponent, which is a serious offense and should be investigated,” Paul said. “The fact that Vice President Biden is directly involved in the unmasking of a political opponent — think about it. You remember impeachment? They said the president was using the government to go after a political opponent? This is Vice President Biden using the spying powers of the U.S. to go after a political opponent and he is caught red-handed here… eavesdropping on a political opponent’s phone calls.” “Every reporter in the country needs to ask this legitimate question. They need to come out of hibernation and ask Vice President Biden, do we think it is a legitimate function of government to eavesdrop on political opponents, illegally unmask them and listen to their private conversation?” “This is exactly what they were accusing President Trump of — he was acquitted on those charges. They have now found that Vice President Biden is guilty of using government to go after a political opponent.”
One reporter got into the swing of things immediately. Just how did all these people know about the Flynn conversation in the first place, if it came from a counterintelligence operation? That’s a very good question, Paul says — and he’s correct. When the US ambassador to Italy is filing an unmasking request about a conversation between a presidential transition team and a Russian ambassador, it’s clear that the administration in place was being indiscreet, at the very least. Paul says that it’s more of a sign of an administration “abusing its power to go after a political opponent,” and it needs more investigation. A lot more investigation.
“The question really is,” Paul concludes, “was the Vice President leading this effort to go after General Flynn, or was it President Obama?” I’m sure the national media will get right on that question, but Paul did announce that the Senate would take it up themselves anyway.


hotair--2020-05-14--SCOTUS sounds unlikely to support faithless electors

When I previewed the Supreme Court ’ s choices in the faithless elector cases of Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca , I attempted to highlight the conflicting urges to honor the results of valid elections and respect the intentions of the Founders when they wrote the Constitution .
That conflict appeared to be on display yesterday when the justices heard arguments in both cases .
Attorneys for the electors in question consistently argued that the states were given no role in controlling the actions of the electors once they ’ ve been selected .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and liberal , sounded dubious about that argument at best .
The arguments also included the invocation , probably for the first time ever , of the name of a character from The Lord of the Rings .
( NBC News ) But several members of the court seemed concerned that if electors are free agents , they could end up deciding who wins when the popular vote for president is very close .
“ The consequences could be chaotic , ” said Justice Samuel Alito .
“ When there ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there would be a concerted campaign to change the vote of a few electors.
” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said judges should avoid creating turmoil when legal issues are close ones .
“ We shouldn ’ t facilitate or create chaos , ” he said .
The normally silent Clarence Thomas was the one who invoked a J. R. R. Tolkien character , asking plaintiffs ’ attorney Lawrence Lessig if there was nothing the state could do if an elector decided to cast a vote for Frodo Baggins .
But it wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Lessig ’ s theory .
When he pointed out that there is nothing in the Constitution giving the states authority to restrict how an elector can vote , Elena Kagan was one of the justices who declared that there was also nothing specifically preventing them from doing so .
In that case , she said , “ If there ’ s silence , maybe the best thing to do is leave it to the states.
” But the Justices also weren ’ t entirely against free will for the electors , either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Free Beacon , at least some of them seemed to find a warning about partisan manipulation of the electors persuasive as well .
Yet the Court was also broadly eager to identify the limits on state power over members of the Electoral College .
Lessig warned that making electors “ minions ” of each state would open the door to partisan manipulation .
“ If you find the state has the power to regulate electoral votes , may the state forbid the elector from voting for a candidate who has not visited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tax returns as bills in New Jersey and New York purport to do , or has not pledged to appoint justices who will uphold Roe ?
” Lessig asked .
“ Open this door and there are an endless list of partisan opportunisms that will tempt the states.
” Those final questions from Lessig were clearly targeted at the conservative justices without directly saying so .
He invoked the prospect of states passing laws forbidding their electors from voting for a candidate “ who has not released his tax returns ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or vowing to uphold Roe v. Wade .
That may have sent a chill down the spines of at least four or five of the justices .
In keeping with what I previously wrote , I still find the “ chaos ” argument unpersuasive for the most part .
Elections can be rather chaotic events even when they run smoothly , and that ’ s probably by design .
Just being afraid that you won ’ t like the result of the electors ’ choices doesn ’ t change the words of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve noted before , they debated the idea allowing electors to decide the results of presidential elections while the document was being drafted .
Hamilton wrote at length in Federalist 68 about the need for only “ men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station ” to decide who should be president .
And given the final text of the Constitution , it appears that his arguments carried the debate .
But if we have to find some constitutional path to supporting the rights of the states to control how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put forward carries at least some weight .
Saying that the Constitution doesn ’ t specifically forbid such actions by the states is rather weak tea .
It lists the things that the government can do , not what it can ’ t .
But since the Founders didn ’ t see fit to grant the federal government the power to control how the electors vote , we might be able to fall back on the Tenth Amendment and define such power as being “ reserved to the States respectively , or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know .
But we probably won ’ t have too long to wait .
A decision in these cases is expected in July .

When I previewed the Supreme Court’s choices in the faithless elector cases of Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, I attempted to highlight the conflicting urges to honor the results of valid elections and respect the intentions of the Founders when they wrote the Constitution. That conflict appeared to be on display yesterday when the justices heard arguments in both cases. Attorneys for the electors in question consistently argued that the states were given no role in controlling the actions of the electors once they’ve been selected. But several of the justices, both conservative and liberal, sounded dubious about that argument at best. The arguments also included the invocation, probably for the first time ever, of the name of a character from The Lord of the Rings. (NBC News)
But several members of the court seemed concerned that if electors are free agents, they could end up deciding who wins when the popular vote for president is very close. “The consequences could be chaotic,” said Justice Samuel Alito. “When there’s an election with a small margin of victory, there would be a concerted campaign to change the vote of a few electors.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said judges should avoid creating turmoil when legal issues are close ones. “We shouldn’t facilitate or create chaos,” he said.
The normally silent Clarence Thomas was the one who invoked a J. R. R. Tolkien character, asking plaintiffs’ attorney Lawrence Lessig if there was nothing the state could do if an elector decided to cast a vote for Frodo Baggins. But it wasn’t just the conservative justices pushing back on Lessig’s theory. When he pointed out that there is nothing in the Constitution giving the states authority to restrict how an elector can vote, Elena Kagan was one of the justices who declared that there was also nothing specifically preventing them from doing so. In that case, she said, “If there’s silence, maybe the best thing to do is leave it to the states.”
But the Justices also weren’t entirely against free will for the electors, either. As Kevin Daley points out at the Free Beacon, at least some of them seemed to find a warning about partisan manipulation of the electors persuasive as well.
Yet the Court was also broadly eager to identify the limits on state power over members of the Electoral College. Lessig warned that making electors “minions” of each state would open the door to partisan manipulation. “If you find the state has the power to regulate electoral votes, may the state forbid the elector from voting for a candidate who has not visited the state, who has not released his tax returns as bills in New Jersey and New York purport to do, or has not pledged to appoint justices who will uphold Roe?” Lessig asked. “Open this door and there are an endless list of partisan opportunisms that will tempt the states.”
Those final questions from Lessig were clearly targeted at the conservative justices without directly saying so. He invoked the prospect of states passing laws forbidding their electors from voting for a candidate “who has not released his tax returns” (an obvious reference to President Trump) or vowing to uphold Roe v. Wade. That may have sent a chill down the spines of at least four or five of the justices.
In keeping with what I previously wrote, I still find the “chaos” argument unpersuasive for the most part. Elections can be rather chaotic events even when they run smoothly, and that’s probably by design. Just being afraid that you won’t like the result of the electors’ choices doesn’t change the words of the Founding Fathers. And as we’ve noted before, they debated the idea allowing electors to decide the results of presidential elections while the document was being drafted. Hamilton wrote at length in Federalist 68 about the need for only “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station” to decide who should be president. And given the final text of the Constitution, it appears that his arguments carried the debate.
But if we have to find some constitutional path to supporting the rights of the states to control how electors vote, maybe the argument Kagan put forward carries at least some weight. Saying that the Constitution doesn’t specifically forbid such actions by the states is rather weak tea. It lists the things that the government can do, not what it can’t. But since the Founders didn’t see fit to grant the federal government the power to control how the electors vote, we might be able to fall back on the Tenth Amendment and define such power as being “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I honestly don’t know. But we probably won’t have too long to wait. A decision in these cases is expected in July.