hotair--2020-12-12--USOPC gives the green light to athletes protesting during the Olympics

The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee ( USOPC ) caved to American athletes who wish to turn their performance into a social justice protest .
Thursday the committee announced it will not sanction athletes who raise a fist or kneel on the medals stand at next year ’ s Tokyo Games .
Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice recommended to the USOPC that the prohibition on athletes to peacefully protest and demonstrate be removed .
This relates to Rule 50 and Section 2.2 to the International Olympic Committee and International Paralympic Committee .
The recommendation was in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social injustices and want to promote human dignity through global sport .
“ It calls for the IOC and IPC to update guidelines to allow for peaceful actions that specifically advocate for human rights and racial and social justice , and distinguishes those acts from to-be-defined “ divisive demonstrations ” – including , but not limited to , currently prohibited acts of hate speech , racist propaganda , political statements and discrimination.
” The Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice was formed in September to make recommendations to the USOPC .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the Protests and Demonstrations Steering Committee .
That ’ s right – protests and demonstrations by athletes have their own committee .
It ’ s 2020 and Black Lives Matter dominates all cultural events , whether it is a sports competition or a television show .
The message is that white people are oppressors and wish harm to minorities , especially police officers .
That line of thought is the basis for the defund the police movement .
The steering committee is prioritizing the rights of athletes to protest during an international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steering Committee , one of four committees that constitutes the Council , was charged with assessing current policies and offering options in relation to protests and demonstrations at the Olympic and Paralympic Games .
Since its inception in September , the steering committee worked in collaboration with representatives from the athlete community , AAC , National Governing Bodies , U.S. Olympians & Paralympians Association , USOPC , and industry and academic thought leaders .
The committee gathered data and qualitative input , including an analysis of the opinions of Team USA athletes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current academic publications about human rights .
“ The Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice provided its recommendation to the USOPC , NGBs , IOC and IPC in an effort to show the power and duty athletes have to build a more inclusive world through sport , ” said Moushaumi Robinson , 2004 Olympic gold medalist in track and field , AAC leadership member and chair of the Council .
“ The Council believes the diversity of Team USA athletes is our strength , and that this recommendation can be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Olympic sprinters , Tommie Smith and John Carlos , were sent back home after raising their fists on the medals stand in protest of racial inequality in the U.S. Rule 50 of the IOC Olympic Charter prohibits inside-the-lines protests at the games .
Athletes have protested in the years since 1968 , of course , and the frequency of such protests has increased , especially during recent years as public demonstrations against social injustice have increased .
Now protests and demonstrations are seen as a part of the job for many athletes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ views during the Games , particularly those from historically underrepresented and minoritized groups , contributes to the dehumanization of athletes that is at odds with key Olympic and Paralympic values , ” said the athlete statement that accompanied the recommendations .
The athletes seek changes that would bring the policy closer to those in major U.S. and international leagues , most of which relaxed their rules regarding demonstrations in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death in May at the hands of Minneapolis police and the unrest that ensued .
NBA players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assurances they could use their platform to address social justice issues .
The IOC has maintained that protests have no place in athletics .
The United States sends the most money to the Olympics and wins the most medals .
Such political statements carry a lot of weight on the international stage because of the exposure they get around the world .
U.S. Olympics CEO Sarah Hirshland and the committee want to appear as woke as possible , claiming the world was waiting on its decision .
For extra measure , the announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just last year , though , Hirshland wasn ’ t sufficiently woke and reprimanded two American athletes for protesting during the Pan-Am Games in Peru .
The USOPC ’ s CEO , Sarah Hirshland , said she expects criticism from the IOC and others , but “ we can ’ t walk the walk as a movement if we don ’ t look at this issue , in particular.
” The USOPC decision , which also will apply to Olympic trials , comes in the wake of a 19-month stretch during which its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became untenable .
In the summer of 2019 , Hirshland reprimanded American hammer thrower Gwen Berry and fencer Race Imboden for violating Rule 50 , after Berry raised her fist and Imboden kneeled on the medals stand at the Pan-Am Games in Peru .
Then , during the period of social unrest that followed Floyd ’ s killing by a white police officer while the Black man was in handcuffs , Berry called out the USOPC for being hypocritical when it announced it would follow the lead of many sports leagues by increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S .
So , here we are .
Protests won ’ t be the exception to normal behavior by Olympians , it will be the norm .
It ’ s malarkey , though , for supporters to say that the protests aren ’ t political .
“ You see athletes in sports leagues becoming aware of the power they have in driving social change , ” said Yannick Kluch , a sports culture professor at Rowan University who helped the athletes tackle these issues .
“ Often , you hear people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mix politics with sports , ’ ” Kluch said .
“ But these are two ( false ) assumptions .
The first is that human rights and race and social justice are political .
They ’ re about human dignity , not politics .
It ’ s also very clear that human rights are not political but have been heavily politicized.
” Would you like some athletic competition with your social justice protests ?
It looks like you ’ ll be accommodated from here on out .

The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) caved to American athletes who wish to turn their performance into a social justice protest. Thursday the committee announced it will not sanction athletes who raise a fist or kneel on the medals stand at next year’s Tokyo Games.
Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice recommended to the USOPC that the prohibition on athletes to peacefully protest and demonstrate be removed. This relates to Rule 50 and Section 2.2 to the International Olympic Committee and International Paralympic Committee. The recommendation was in response to athletes who protest against racial and social injustices and want to promote human dignity through global sport. “It calls for the IOC and IPC to update guidelines to allow for peaceful actions that specifically advocate for human rights and racial and social justice, and distinguishes those acts from to-be-defined “divisive demonstrations” – including, but not limited to, currently prohibited acts of hate speech, racist propaganda, political statements and discrimination.”
The Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice was formed in September to make recommendations to the USOPC. The council consists of four committees, including the Protests and Demonstrations Steering Committee. That’s right – protests and demonstrations by athletes have their own committee. It’s 2020 and Black Lives Matter dominates all cultural events, whether it is a sports competition or a television show. The message is that white people are oppressors and wish harm to minorities, especially police officers. That line of thought is the basis for the defund the police movement. The steering committee is prioritizing the rights of athletes to protest during an international sporting competition.
The Protests and Demonstrations Steering Committee, one of four committees that constitutes the Council, was charged with assessing current policies and offering options in relation to protests and demonstrations at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Since its inception in September, the steering committee worked in collaboration with representatives from the athlete community, AAC, National Governing Bodies, U.S. Olympians & Paralympians Association, USOPC, and industry and academic thought leaders. The committee gathered data and qualitative input, including an analysis of the opinions of Team USA athletes, and conducted an evaluation of historical and current academic publications about human rights. “The Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice provided its recommendation to the USOPC, NGBs, IOC and IPC in an effort to show the power and duty athletes have to build a more inclusive world through sport,” said Moushaumi Robinson, 2004 Olympic gold medalist in track and field, AAC leadership member and chair of the Council. “The Council believes the diversity of Team USA athletes is our strength, and that this recommendation can be a catalyst for change.”
In 1968 two Olympic sprinters, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, were sent back home after raising their fists on the medals stand in protest of racial inequality in the U.S. Rule 50 of the IOC Olympic Charter prohibits inside-the-lines protests at the games. Athletes have protested in the years since 1968, of course, and the frequency of such protests has increased, especially during recent years as public demonstrations against social injustice have increased. Now protests and demonstrations are seen as a part of the job for many athletes.
“Prohibiting athletes to freely express their views during the Games, particularly those from historically underrepresented and minoritized groups, contributes to the dehumanization of athletes that is at odds with key Olympic and Paralympic values,” said the athlete statement that accompanied the recommendations. The athletes seek changes that would bring the policy closer to those in major U.S. and international leagues, most of which relaxed their rules regarding demonstrations in the wake of George Floyd’s death in May at the hands of Minneapolis police and the unrest that ensued. NBA players, for instance, pushed repeatedly for assurances they could use their platform to address social justice issues.
The IOC has maintained that protests have no place in athletics. The United States sends the most money to the Olympics and wins the most medals. Such political statements carry a lot of weight on the international stage because of the exposure they get around the world. U.S. Olympics CEO Sarah Hirshland and the committee want to appear as woke as possible, claiming the world was waiting on its decision. For extra measure, the announcement was made on Human Rights Day. Just last year, though, Hirshland wasn’t sufficiently woke and reprimanded two American athletes for protesting during the Pan-Am Games in Peru.
The USOPC’s CEO, Sarah Hirshland, said she expects criticism from the IOC and others, but “we can’t walk the walk as a movement if we don’t look at this issue, in particular.” The USOPC decision, which also will apply to Olympic trials, comes in the wake of a 19-month stretch during which its willingness to adhere to the IOC directive became untenable. In the summer of 2019, Hirshland reprimanded American hammer thrower Gwen Berry and fencer Race Imboden for violating Rule 50, after Berry raised her fist and Imboden kneeled on the medals stand at the Pan-Am Games in Peru. Then, during the period of social unrest that followed Floyd’s killing by a white police officer while the Black man was in handcuffs, Berry called out the USOPC for being hypocritical when it announced it would follow the lead of many sports leagues by increasing efforts to address issues of racial inequality in the U.S.
So, here we are. Protests won’t be the exception to normal behavior by Olympians, it will be the norm. It’s malarkey, though, for supporters to say that the protests aren’t political.
“You see athletes in sports leagues becoming aware of the power they have in driving social change,” said Yannick Kluch, a sports culture professor at Rowan University who helped the athletes tackle these issues. “Often, you hear people saying ‘I don’t want to mix politics with sports,’” Kluch said. “But these are two (false) assumptions. The first is that human rights and race and social justice are political. They’re about human dignity, not politics. It’s also very clear that human rights are not political but have been heavily politicized.”
Would you like some athletic competition with your social justice protests? It looks like you’ll be accommodated from here on out.


hotair--2020-12-12--Report: Trump wants special counsel appointed to investigate Hunter Biden -- but Barr's "unlikely" t

Report: Trump wants special counsel appointed to investigate Hunter Biden -- but Barr's "unlikely" to do it

A little something new for the “ Barr ’ s trying to rebuild respectability in official Washington before reentering private life ” file .
The case for appointing a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden is cut and dried .
As I noted last night , even some Trump critics believe it ’ s warranted .
Why would Barr show such restraint in this case after he was willing to elevate John Durham to the status of special counsel in order to protect Durham ’ s investigation ?
Meanwhile , an intriguing question for legal eagles : Can Trump himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t ?
President Trump has expressed interest in pursuing the appointment of a special counsel to investigate allegations of fraud in the November elections and issues related to Hunter Biden , according to people familiar with the matter .
In recent days , the president has directed advisers to look for people who could serve in such a position , one of the people said , as lawsuits and other efforts by Mr. Trump and his campaign to reverse the election results flounder .
White House officials and allies of the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed for the appointment of a special counsel , another person familiar with the discussions said… Mr. Trump , in a meeting Friday , fumed about a Wall Street Journal report that Mr. Barr knew of an existing federal investigation into Hunter Biden before the election but worked to keep it from being publicly disclosed , a person familiar with the conversation said .
In the meeting , Mr. Trump contemplated firing Mr. Barr , people familiar with the conversation said , adding that it is not clear whether Mr. Trump intends to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is unlikely to name anyone to such a post , particularly after he appointed another prosecutor in October as special counsel to continue his examination of the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ’ s 2016 Russia investigation .
In case you ’ re wondering , yes , Trump has seen this WSJ report : “ The president now is re-exploring options for replacing Barr , ” Axios is reporting this afternoon .
Ironically , the Times has a story out today describing how Barr *did* try to help Trump out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at Rudy Giuliani ’ s Ukraine material on Hunter Biden .
Reportedly he deputized Scott Brady , a Trumpist U.S. Attorney based in Pittsburgh , to meet with Rudy and his lawyer and go over the material in January of this year .
Brady in turn asked the FBI to follow up on what Rudy had , knowing full well how explosive a probe into Biden ’ s son ’ s finances could be in the middle of a presidential election campaign .
The FBI was nervous about it for precisely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; “ Justice Department policy typically forbids investigators from making aggressive moves before elections that could affect the outcome of the vote if they become public , ” the Times notes .
Sources also found it odd that Barr would ask Brady to handle the matter when there was already an investigation into Hunter Biden operating out of Delaware .
The implication is that Barr gave it to him because he wanted an attack dog on it .
It remains unclear what the current investigation into Biden ’ s “ tax affairs ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income , perhaps ?
Another possibility from the Times : “ Legal experts said that prosecutors could be examining how Mr. Biden obtained the money to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax liens this year.
” Did Hunter get a little windfall from someone to pay off his debts ?
From whom ?
As for why Barr doesn ’ t want to appoint a special counsel , it could be that he thinks it ’ d be bad form to do it during a lame-duck period .
He elevated Durham to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , remember , not after .
With just 40 days left in Trump ’ s presidency , maybe he thinks it ’ s unfair to make any sudden moves that would tie the hands of his successor at this point .
It could also be that Barr recognizes that having the Trump administration name a special counsel for Hunter would actually make things easier on Joe Biden in a way .
If Barr appoints the prosecutor who ’ s sniffing around Hunter , it ’ ll be easier for Democrats to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit if Hunter ends up being charged .
It ’ ll also effectively take the prosecution out of the hands of Biden ’ s DOJ since the special counsel is largely independent of normal DOJ oversight .
Without a special counsel , in other words , this lands squarely in the lap of Biden and his new AG .
It ’ ll be up to them whether to prosecute the president ’ s son and there are no good options politically for them in making that decision .
Imagine if the Biden DOJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declines to charge Hunter with anything .
That ’ ll look much shadier than if a Barr-appointed special counsel arrived at the same conclusion .
So , in a way , Barr declining to appoint a special counsel is helpful to the GOP .
As , of course , is his refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate election fraud .
The overwhelming likelihood is that a special counsel would end up confirming that there ’ s no evidence of widespread fraud , giving Biden something to crow about : “ A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General has now looked into this and found nothing amiss .
It ’ s time to drop these fantasies that the election was stolen.
” Barr may be thinking that it ’ s better to avoid that scenario and let Republicans entertain their illusions about a rigged election by declining to appoint someone who might disprove it .
DOJ regulations say that only the Attorney General can name a special counsel so in theory Barr ’ s decision on this is final .
But Trump has two ways around that .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr and elevate some flunky to acting AG who ’ ll make the appointment instead .
But another , bolder way would be for Trump to appoint the special counsel himself .
That appointment would be challenged in court by pointing to the regs , noting that Barr never signed off on Trump ’ s decision .
But the president would counter that by citing the unitary executive theory of Article II , insisting that all executive power is ultimately reposed in him .
If the AG can appoint a special counsel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The AG ’ s powers derive from the president ’ s authority , after all .
I think Trump would choose the first option , not just because it ’ s more in keeping with his M.O .
but because he wouldn ’ t want to run the risk of losing in court by choosing the second one .
Exit question : If it ’ s true that Trump “ has directed advisers to look for people who could serve in such a position , ” as the WSJ claims in the excerpt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Barr to make the appointment after all ?
If the president can directly appoint a special counsel — and he probably can , constitutionally — then Barr ’ s refusal to comply with Trump ’ s wishes might lead Trump to appoint , say , Joe diGenova .
Or Rudy Giuliani !
If Barr ’ s choice here when push comes to shove is between appointing a respected , competent , ethical prosecutor and the president usurping him by appointing some political crony , Barr should do the responsible thing and make @ @ @ @

A little something new for the “Barr’s trying to rebuild respectability in official Washington before reentering private life” file.
The case for appointing a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden is cut and dried. As I noted last night, even some Trump critics believe it’s warranted. Why would Barr show such restraint in this case after he was willing to elevate John Durham to the status of special counsel in order to protect Durham’s investigation?
Meanwhile, an intriguing question for legal eagles: Can Trump himself appoint a special counsel if Barr won’t?
President Trump has expressed interest in pursuing the appointment of a special counsel to investigate allegations of fraud in the November elections and issues related to Hunter Biden, according to people familiar with the matter. In recent days, the president has directed advisers to look for people who could serve in such a position, one of the people said, as lawsuits and other efforts by Mr. Trump and his campaign to reverse the election results flounder. White House officials and allies of the president on Capitol Hill and elsewhere have also pushed for the appointment of a special counsel, another person familiar with the discussions said… Mr. Trump, in a meeting Friday, fumed about a Wall Street Journal report that Mr. Barr knew of an existing federal investigation into Hunter Biden before the election but worked to keep it from being publicly disclosed, a person familiar with the conversation said. In the meeting, Mr. Trump contemplated firing Mr. Barr, people familiar with the conversation said, adding that it is not clear whether Mr. Trump intends to follow through… Associates of Mr. Barr said he is unlikely to name anyone to such a post, particularly after he appointed another prosecutor in October as special counsel to continue his examination of the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2016 Russia investigation.
In case you’re wondering, yes, Trump has seen this WSJ report:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337754366569295874
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337755490563010560
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337772511870799872
“The president now is re-exploring options for replacing Barr,” Axios is reporting this afternoon. Ironically, the Times has a story out today describing how Barr *did* try to help Trump out by having the DOJ take a hard look at Rudy Giuliani’s Ukraine material on Hunter Biden. Reportedly he deputized Scott Brady, a Trumpist U.S. Attorney based in Pittsburgh, to meet with Rudy and his lawyer and go over the material in January of this year. Brady in turn asked the FBI to follow up on what Rudy had, knowing full well how explosive a probe into Biden’s son’s finances could be in the middle of a presidential election campaign. The FBI was nervous about it for precisely that reason, fearing a repeat of Emailgate; “Justice Department policy typically forbids investigators from making aggressive moves before elections that could affect the outcome of the vote if they become public,” the Times notes. Sources also found it odd that Barr would ask Brady to handle the matter when there was already an investigation into Hunter Biden operating out of Delaware. The implication is that Barr gave it to him because he wanted an attack dog on it.
A passage of note:
The F.B.I. viewed the investigative steps into Mr. Biden that Mr. Brady sought as unwarranted because the Delaware inquiry involving money laundering had fizzled out and because they were skeptical of Mr. Giuliani’s material. For example, they had already examined a laptop owned by Mr. Biden and an external hard drive that had been abandoned at a computer store in Wilmington and found nothing to advance the inquiry.
It remains unclear what the current investigation into Biden’s “tax affairs” relates to. Failing to report Burisma income, perhaps? Another possibility from the Times: “Legal experts said that prosecutors could be examining how Mr. Biden obtained the money to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax liens this year.” Did Hunter get a little windfall from someone to pay off his debts? From whom?
As for why Barr doesn’t want to appoint a special counsel, it could be that he thinks it’d be bad form to do it during a lame-duck period. He elevated Durham to special counsel a few weeks before the election, remember, not after. With just 40 days left in Trump’s presidency, maybe he thinks it’s unfair to make any sudden moves that would tie the hands of his successor at this point. It could also be that Barr recognizes that having the Trump administration name a special counsel for Hunter would actually make things easier on Joe Biden in a way. If Barr appoints the prosecutor who’s sniffing around Hunter, it’ll be easier for Democrats to believe that it’s a Trump-engineered political hit if Hunter ends up being charged. It’ll also effectively take the prosecution out of the hands of Biden’s DOJ since the special counsel is largely independent of normal DOJ oversight.
Without a special counsel, in other words, this lands squarely in the lap of Biden and his new AG. It’ll be up to them whether to prosecute the president’s son and there are no good options politically for them in making that decision. Imagine if the Biden DOJ finds no evidence of a crime and declines to charge Hunter with anything. That’ll look much shadier than if a Barr-appointed special counsel arrived at the same conclusion.
So, in a way, Barr declining to appoint a special counsel is helpful to the GOP. As, of course, is his refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate election fraud. The overwhelming likelihood is that a special counsel would end up confirming that there’s no evidence of widespread fraud, giving Biden something to crow about: “A prosecutor appointed by Trump’s own Attorney General has now looked into this and found nothing amiss. It’s time to drop these fantasies that the election was stolen.” Barr may be thinking that it’s better to avoid that scenario and let Republicans entertain their illusions about a rigged election by declining to appoint someone who might disprove it.
DOJ regulations say that only the Attorney General can name a special counsel so in theory Barr’s decision on this is final. But Trump has two ways around that. One, of course, is to fire Barr and elevate some flunky to acting AG who’ll make the appointment instead. But another, bolder way would be for Trump to appoint the special counsel himself. That appointment would be challenged in court by pointing to the regs, noting that Barr never signed off on Trump’s decision. But the president would counter that by citing the unitary executive theory of Article II, insisting that all executive power is ultimately reposed in him. If the AG can appoint a special counsel, by definition the president can too. The AG’s powers derive from the president’s authority, after all.
I think Trump would choose the first option, not just because it’s more in keeping with his M.O. but because he wouldn’t want to run the risk of losing in court by choosing the second one. Exit question: If it’s true that Trump “has directed advisers to look for people who could serve in such a position,” as the WSJ claims in the excerpt up top, does that put pressure on Barr to make the appointment after all? If the president can directly appoint a special counsel — and he probably can, constitutionally — then Barr’s refusal to comply with Trump’s wishes might lead Trump to appoint, say, Joe diGenova. Or Rudy Giuliani! If Barr’s choice here when push comes to shove is between appointing a respected, competent, ethical prosecutor and the president usurping him by appointing some political crony, Barr should do the responsible thing and make the appointment himself.


hotair--2020-12-12--CNN's April Ryan to other journalists: Stop exposing leaks on Biden

CNN analyst and American Urban Radio Networks White House correspondent April Ryan wants the name of the person who taped a meeting between Joe Biden and civil rights leaders this week and then leaked the tape to the press .
According to Ms. Ryan , that person has some ‘ splainin ’ to do .
Her message is clear – during the Biden administration , there must be no unfavorable reporting provided by the use of leaks to the press .
Ryan was tweeting about the leaked tape that brought to light Biden ’ s frustration about the defund the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially the far-left progressive wing of the party .
He told the civil rights leaders that the defund the police message allowed Republicans to “ beat the living hell out of us ” in down-ballot races .
He was pointing out that though he won the presidential election , Republicans flipped seats in the House and increased their numbers in state and local offices .
The blue tsunami that we were promised in the November election never happened .
Biden said Republicans used their anti-cop message and he ’ s right .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ political ad and not hear a Republican candidate reference the Democrats ’ promise to defund the police .
Normal Americans don ’ t approve of that message .
The problem with the leak of that comment from Biden is it goes against a priority for Black Lives Matter .
BLM does , in fact , want to defund the police .
It ’ s not just a slogan for them , they want to shrink the size of police departments in the name of police reform .
Some of the most extreme members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ altogether .
This defies rational thought but for some of the social justice warriors , there is no middle ground .
These are the same people who want to abolish ICE and the border patrol .
So , when the tape was leaked , the reaction from the far left was predictable .
Some city councils run by Democrats have voted to defund the police and crime is rising .
Joe Biden might like to pretend the slogan shouldn ’ t be taken literally but he ’ s wrong about that .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They think he isn ’ t naming enough progressive people to his administration , instead , he is making safe choices and using Obama retreads instead of people from the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party .
Joe Biden said that he ’ s supportive of defunding the police during the Democrat primary race .
April Ryan is coming to Joe Biden ’ s rescue and demanding that fellow reporters stop doing stories revolving around leaks from Biden ’ s meetings .
In other words , a reporter is speaking up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional in journalism , she wants others to provide cover for Status Quo Joe .
She is calling for behavior that is the exact opposite of what reporters are supposed to do .
Why should reporters ignore a story provided by the leak of a tape ?
Hasn ’ t that been the standard practice of reporters for the last four years ?
She wants to know what ’ s the agenda .
The fun part of this story is that another reporter , Vice journalist Edward Ongweso Jr. , responded to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took his tweet seriously .
He mocked her but she took his response to be supportive .
“ It is irresponsible and sets a dangerous precedent for journalists covering the incoming administration to be able to use secretly recorded conversations in their stories , ” Ongweso Jr. tweeted .
“ To parse out Biden ’ s thoughts and anticipate his policy commitments , you must go through proper channels.
” Ongweso Jr. continued sarcastically , “ The White House Press Secretary , the spokespeople for the President and Vice President , senior officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President ’ s public statements are all designated and responsible sources for information about the President ’ s thoughts and intentions.
” “ Revealing a contradiction between Biden ’ s private thoughts and public statements is dangerous because it erodes public trust in the President , the Office , and the media itself , ” the Vice reporter concluded .
Sarcasm doesn ’ t play well on Twitter unless the tweeter notes it is sarcasm .
Her ego is big enough that she thought another reporter was agreeing with her .
Like others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was incredulous that she is so dense as to think that protecting the incoming president from far-left Democrats is the thing to do .
He couldn ’ t believe that she then applauded his tweets .
The truth is that the majority of reporting on the Trump White House has been on stories provided by anonymous sources and leaks .
CNN , Ryan ’ s employer , has built its brand on this kind of reporting in the Trump era .
MSNBC and the alphabet broadcast networks do it , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be in the White House , suddenly the press is expected to go back into the same sleep mode they were in during the Obama administration by partisan reporters like Ryan .
Ryan has a long history of partisan reporting , especially on the Trump administration .
She sparred regularly with Sarah Huckabee-Sanders .
She makes attacks personal , as she did with Sanders during # PieGate .
Secretly taped conversations by Melania Trump ’ s former best friend and assistant in the White House were fodder for many stories on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president are leaked regularly to the press and CNN is only too happy to run with the stories if it shows Trump in a bad light .
April Ryan all but endorsed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the presidential election .
She posted an interview with Harris on social media and swooned over her like a teenage girl .
Her latest adventure in fangirl behavior is over the appointment of Susan Rice as Biden ’ s domestic adviser .
Rice ’ s experience is in foreign policy , not domestic policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her past work in the Obama administration that she received this consolation appointment instead of one that requires Senate confirmation , like Secretary of State , the position she sought .
Last month Ryan referred to Trump as the Murderer-in-Chief because of deaths from the coronavirus .
I ’ m sure she ’ ll give Joe Biden the same treatment when he takes over in January , right ?

CNN analyst and American Urban Radio Networks White House correspondent April Ryan wants the name of the person who taped a meeting between Joe Biden and civil rights leaders this week and then leaked the tape to the press. According to Ms. Ryan, that person has some ‘splainin’ to do. Her message is clear – during the Biden administration, there must be no unfavorable reporting provided by the use of leaks to the press.
Ryan was tweeting about the leaked tape that brought to light Biden’s frustration about the defund the police message coming from so many Democrats, especially the far-left progressive wing of the party. He told the civil rights leaders that the defund the police message allowed Republicans to “beat the living hell out of us” in down-ballot races. He was pointing out that though he won the presidential election, Republicans flipped seats in the House and increased their numbers in state and local offices. The blue tsunami that we were promised in the November election never happened. Biden said Republicans used their anti-cop message and he’s right. It was impossible to listen to a political ad and not hear a Republican candidate reference the Democrats’ promise to defund the police. Normal Americans don’t approve of that message.
The problem with the leak of that comment from Biden is it goes against a priority for Black Lives Matter. BLM does, in fact, want to defund the police. It’s not just a slogan for them, they want to shrink the size of police departments in the name of police reform. Some of the most extreme members want to do away with the police altogether. This defies rational thought but for some of the social justice warriors, there is no middle ground. These are the same people who want to abolish ICE and the border patrol. So, when the tape was leaked, the reaction from the far left was predictable. Some city councils run by Democrats have voted to defund the police and crime is rising. Joe Biden might like to pretend the slogan shouldn’t be taken literally but he’s wrong about that.
Biden is already under fire from BLM supporters. They think he isn’t naming enough progressive people to his administration, instead, he is making safe choices and using Obama retreads instead of people from the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party. Joe Biden said that he’s supportive of defunding the police during the Democrat primary race. April Ryan is coming to Joe Biden’s rescue and demanding that fellow reporters stop doing stories revolving around leaks from Biden’s meetings. In other words, a reporter is speaking up against transparency. Instead of being a professional in journalism, she wants others to provide cover for Status Quo Joe. She is calling for behavior that is the exact opposite of what reporters are supposed to do. Why should reporters ignore a story provided by the leak of a tape? Hasn’t that been the standard practice of reporters for the last four years? She wants to know what’s the agenda.
“I asked an incoming White House source was the meeting contentious with civil rights leader and @JoeBiden and the answer was ‘no’. A rights leader at the meeting says @JoeBiden was passionate,” Ryan tweeted. “The question is who taped this meeting and why? What is the agenda?”
The fun part of this story is that another reporter, Vice journalist Edward Ongweso Jr., responded to her tweet in a sarcastic way but she took his tweet seriously. He mocked her but she took his response to be supportive.
“It is irresponsible and sets a dangerous precedent for journalists covering the incoming administration to be able to use secretly recorded conversations in their stories,” Ongweso Jr. tweeted. “To parse out Biden’s thoughts and anticipate his policy commitments, you must go through proper channels.” Ongweso Jr. continued sarcastically, “The White House Press Secretary, the spokespeople for the President and Vice President, senior officials (without attribution), and the President’s public statements are all designated and responsible sources for information about the President’s thoughts and intentions.” “Revealing a contradiction between Biden’s private thoughts and public statements is dangerous because it erodes public trust in the President, the Office, and the media itself,” the Vice reporter concluded.
Sarcasm doesn’t play well on Twitter unless the tweeter notes it is sarcasm. Her ego is big enough that she thought another reporter was agreeing with her.
“You hit the nail in the head! This is not good at all,” Ryan said in response to the first tweet. She then “liked” the other two tweets in the thread.
Like others who were looking at the tweets, he was incredulous that she is so dense as to think that protecting the incoming president from far-left Democrats is the thing to do. He couldn’t believe that she then applauded his tweets.
The truth is that the majority of reporting on the Trump White House has been on stories provided by anonymous sources and leaks. CNN, Ryan’s employer, has built its brand on this kind of reporting in the Trump era. MSNBC and the alphabet broadcast networks do it, too. So, now that a Democrat is going to be in the White House, suddenly the press is expected to go back into the same sleep mode they were in during the Obama administration by partisan reporters like Ryan.
Ryan has a long history of partisan reporting, especially on the Trump administration. She sparred regularly with Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. She makes attacks personal, as she did with Sanders during #PieGate. Secretly taped conversations by Melania Trump’s former best friend and assistant in the White House were fodder for many stories on cable news channels. Private conversations with the president are leaked regularly to the press and CNN is only too happy to run with the stories if it shows Trump in a bad light.
So who is eagerly waiting to hear these audio tapes of Melania Trump talking about bad about @realDonaldTrump @IvankaTrump & the rest of his adult children? I’m ready! (Story broken by @yashar) #RNC2020 #MelaniaTrump https://t.co/BGiVt4Nowl — AprilDRyan (@AprilDRyan) August 28, 2020
April Ryan all but endorsed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the presidential election. She posted an interview with Harris on social media and swooned over her like a teenage girl. Her latest adventure in fangirl behavior is over the appointment of Susan Rice as Biden’s domestic adviser.
Earlier in the day, she hyped up Susan Rice’s appointment as Biden’s domestic policy adviser, exclaiming “Tuning into the Wilmington event today! Domestic Policy Advisor with a new twist! This is going change the game of that position with your extensive background!”
Rice’s experience is in foreign policy, not domestic policy. Rice is so toxic because of her past work in the Obama administration that she received this consolation appointment instead of one that requires Senate confirmation, like Secretary of State, the position she sought.
Last month Ryan referred to Trump as the Murderer-in-Chief because of deaths from the coronavirus. I’m sure she’ll give Joe Biden the same treatment when he takes over in January, right?


hotair--2020-12-12--Giuliani: We'll continue the fight in state courts

We ’ re getting lots of bravado last night and this morning from Team Trump , including the captain of the team himself , after last night ’ s utterly predictable loss at the Supreme Court .
The unanimous decision rejecting any of Texas ’ demanded remedies ( and a 7-2 loss on taking the case at all ) should be , as Allahpundit described it last night , the endgame .
And yet , they ’ re pledging to fight on , including this declaration from Trump this morning : His lead attorney went on television last night pledging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sean Hannity that his team will now shift its focus to the state courts , where he claimed Trump had never been given a chance to present his evidence : “ The legal path [ is ] in the state courts and you have to hope that the justices in the state court are going to show somewhat more determination , somewhat more willingness , to be willing to take some degree of criticism and somewhat more willingness to have an open mind , ” Giuliani said .
“ That ’ s all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Giuliani continued .
“ We ’ re just asking them to hear the facts .
Let the American people—let the American people hear the facts and let the judges hear the facts .
So far the facts have been oppressed .
They ’ ve been subject to censorship—censorship by big media , censorship by big tech , censorship by the Democrat Party and censorship by the courts .
No court has granted a hearing.
” That is a big , fat lie .
Team Trump got a full hearing in several states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyses , especially in Nevada .
In that court , Judge James Russell allowed them to present even inadmissible evidence , and then in his ruling systematically dismantled every piece of their case .
The Nevada Supreme Court then endorsed Russell ’ s findings of fact and law while pointing out that Team Trump never bothered to fix the issues raised by Russell in their appeal .
Trump ’ s team got hearings in other states too , most notably in Pennsylvania , where Giuliani infamously retreated from claims of fraud .
Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they went nowhere despite the oft-proclaimed affidavits that turned out to be nothing much at all .
( Read Texas ’ Supreme Court complaint and the rebuttals from those states for citations . )
And yesterday , Team Trump lost after presenting their case in a Wisconsin state court , too : A judge in Wisconsin on Friday rejected President Trump ’ s challenge to the state ’ s recount and affirmed Wisconsin ’ s certified results showing President-elect Joe Biden won the state by more than 20,600 votes .
The Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin Supreme Court , which is expected to hear arguments on Saturday at 1 p.m .
ET .
Reserve Judge Stephen Simanek said election officials followed the state ’ s voting laws and that Mr. Trump failed to demonstrate that laws were erroneously interpreted .
This is the latest loss in a string of legal defeats for the president and his allies who have challenged the results of the election in courts across several battleground states .
In their challenge to the recount , the Mr. Trump ’ s lawyers tried to throw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it claims were illegally cast by voters in Dane and Milwaukee counties .
These ballots included the following : those cast during early in-person absentee voting which the Trump campaign claimed lacked proper written applications ; ballots cast by people who improperly claimed they were indefinitely confined , which meant the voters didn ’ t have to provide photo ID ; absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing witness address information , a practice that ’ s been in place since 2016 ; and ballots returned to parks in Madison .
… “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the recount occurred in compliance with the Wisconsin election laws , ” Judge Simanek said , noting this wasn ’ t about alleged widespread fraud .
“ The determination of the court is that the petitioner , appellants here have not demonstrated that an erroneous interpretation of Wisconsin ’ s early voting laws happened here.
” Simanek pointed out that Trump ’ s attorneys , as in Pennsylvania , never made a case that those votes were fraudulent either .
The Wisconsin state supreme court is meeting today to hear the appeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not likely to succeed , to say the least , especially given the track record on factual presentation by Giuliani ’ s team and especially since they never alleged fraud .
Even if one is inclined to agree that rules shouldn ’ t have been changed , that ’ s not a reason to punish the voters that relied in good faith on the rules in the election at the time if Trump can ’ t prove those votes as fraudulent — rules which , Simanek also points out , the Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For those reasons and more , there really isn ’ t much left to fight after the Supreme Court ’ s decision last night .
Even if Trump won an election challenge in one of these state courts for the first time , the state and Joe Biden would appeal upward too , and what happens then ?
The federal appellate courts have been brutal to the demand that election results be cancelled and legislatures directed to pick new electors .
No court is going to throw out elections certified by the states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve argued , especially not federal courts , as the Supreme Court made excruciatingly clear last night .
Last night ’ s abrupt dismissal on standing and the clear impression of a unanimous rejection of Texas ’ remedies certainly hints to lower courts that pursuing the latter would be an exercise in futility .
It may not be official precedent , but … come on , man .
It ’ s over .
As everyone knew on November 4th , too .
Other than the recounts and the legitimate debate over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this has been entirely futile right from the beginning .
It ’ s been a fantasy spun by sore losers and grifters in service of themselves rather than the voters .
And it needs to stop , because it ’ s over , and has been for well over a month .
So what did happen in the 2020 election ?
How did Trump lose while adding millions of votes to his total from 2016 ?
It ’ s fairly simple : we had a high-turnout election that Republicans largely won .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ political engagement because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the wave of riots and spiking crime across the country .
People had fewer distractions , and the mail-in balloting gave them more access to voting in the fall than to other activities like concerts , bars , churches , movies , and vacations .
Republicans won down-ballot because of the chaos in the streets , while Joe Biden won at the top because he successfully Rope-a-Doped Trump into making the presidential election about his behavior .
Biden ’ s affability was a big improvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and this time he stayed out of Trump ’ s own way .
It doesn ’ t take a conspiracy theory to explain Trump ’ s loss .
And now that Team Trump has had numerous opportunities to challenge the election in part by pushing these theories and failing to prove their case , it ’ s time to accept the results and focus on what comes next — especially in Georgia .

We’re getting lots of bravado last night and this morning from Team Trump, including the captain of the team himself, after last night’s utterly predictable loss at the Supreme Court. The unanimous decision rejecting any of Texas’ demanded remedies (and a 7-2 loss on taking the case at all) should be, as Allahpundit described it last night, the endgame. And yet, they’re pledging to fight on, including this declaration from Trump this morning:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337755964339081216
His lead attorney went on television last night pledging the same thing. Rudy Giuliani told Sean Hannity that his team will now shift its focus to the state courts, where he claimed Trump had never been given a chance to present his evidence:
“The legal path [is] in the state courts and you have to hope that the justices in the state court are going to show somewhat more determination, somewhat more willingness, to be willing to take some degree of criticism and somewhat more willingness to have an open mind,” Giuliani said. “That’s all we’re asking to do,” Giuliani continued. “We’re just asking them to hear the facts. Let the American people—let the American people hear the facts and let the judges hear the facts. So far the facts have been oppressed. They’ve been subject to censorship—censorship by big media, censorship by big tech, censorship by the Democrat Party and censorship by the courts. No court has granted a hearing.”
That is a big, fat lie. Team Trump got a full hearing in several states in which they presented their affidavits and analyses, especially in Nevada. In that court, Judge James Russell allowed them to present even inadmissible evidence, and then in his ruling systematically dismantled every piece of their case. The Nevada Supreme Court then endorsed Russell’s findings of fact and law while pointing out that Team Trump never bothered to fix the issues raised by Russell in their appeal.
Trump’s team got hearings in other states too, most notably in Pennsylvania, where Giuliani infamously retreated from claims of fraud. Their claims were also heard in Michigan, where they went nowhere despite the oft-proclaimed affidavits that turned out to be nothing much at all. (Read Texas’ Supreme Court complaint and the rebuttals from those states for citations.) And yesterday, Team Trump lost after presenting their case in a Wisconsin state court, too:
A judge in Wisconsin on Friday rejected President Trump’s challenge to the state’s recount and affirmed Wisconsin’s certified results showing President-elect Joe Biden won the state by more than 20,600 votes. The Trump campaign has filed an appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is expected to hear arguments on Saturday at 1 p.m. ET. Reserve Judge Stephen Simanek said election officials followed the state’s voting laws and that Mr. Trump failed to demonstrate that laws were erroneously interpreted. This is the latest loss in a string of legal defeats for the president and his allies who have challenged the results of the election in courts across several battleground states. In their challenge to the recount, the Mr. Trump’s lawyers tried to throw out more than 220,000 absentee ballots that it claims were illegally cast by voters in Dane and Milwaukee counties. These ballots included the following: those cast during early in-person absentee voting which the Trump campaign claimed lacked proper written applications; ballots cast by people who improperly claimed they were indefinitely confined, which meant the voters didn’t have to provide photo ID; absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing witness address information, a practice that’s been in place since 2016; and ballots returned to parks in Madison. … “At issue here simply is whether or not the recount occurred in compliance with the Wisconsin election laws,” Judge Simanek said, noting this wasn’t about alleged widespread fraud. “The determination of the court is that the petitioner, appellants here have not demonstrated that an erroneous interpretation of Wisconsin’s early voting laws happened here.”
Simanek pointed out that Trump’s attorneys, as in Pennsylvania, never made a case that those votes were fraudulent either. The Wisconsin state supreme court is meeting today to hear the appeal on this case. It’s not likely to succeed, to say the least, especially given the track record on factual presentation by Giuliani’s team and especially since they never alleged fraud. Even if one is inclined to agree that rules shouldn’t have been changed, that’s not a reason to punish the voters that relied in good faith on the rules in the election at the time if Trump can’t prove those votes as fraudulent — rules which, Simanek also points out, the Trump campaign never challenged prior to the election.
For those reasons and more, there really isn’t much left to fight after the Supreme Court’s decision last night. Even if Trump won an election challenge in one of these state courts for the first time, the state and Joe Biden would appeal upward too, and what happens then? The federal appellate courts have been brutal to the demand that election results be cancelled and legislatures directed to pick new electors. No court is going to throw out elections certified by the states where the challengers have lost every case they’ve argued, especially not federal courts, as the Supreme Court made excruciatingly clear last night. Last night’s abrupt dismissal on standing and the clear impression of a unanimous rejection of Texas’ remedies certainly hints to lower courts that pursuing the latter would be an exercise in futility. It may not be official precedent, but … come on, man. It’s over.
As everyone knew on November 4th, too. Other than the recounts and the legitimate debate over bureaucratic changes to election processes, all of this has been entirely futile right from the beginning. It’s been a fantasy spun by sore losers and grifters in service of themselves rather than the voters. And it needs to stop, because it’s over, and has been for well over a month.
So what did happen in the 2020 election? How did Trump lose while adding millions of votes to his total from 2016? It’s fairly simple: we had a high-turnout election that Republicans largely won. The turnout can be attributed to high political engagement because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the wave of riots and spiking crime across the country. People had fewer distractions, and the mail-in balloting gave them more access to voting in the fall than to other activities like concerts, bars, churches, movies, and vacations. Republicans won down-ballot because of the chaos in the streets, while Joe Biden won at the top because he successfully Rope-a-Doped Trump into making the presidential election about his behavior. Biden’s affability was a big improvement over Hillary Clinton’s entitled personality, and this time he stayed out of Trump’s own way.
It doesn’t take a conspiracy theory to explain Trump’s loss. And now that Team Trump has had numerous opportunities to challenge the election in part by pushing these theories and failing to prove their case, it’s time to accept the results and focus on what comes next — especially in Georgia.


hotair--2020-12-12--A police shooting that shows why we need body cameras

On Tuesday night in Riverview , Florida , 27-year-old Dylan Ray Scott was shot and killed by sheriff ’ s deputies following a standoff in his pickup truck .
This isn ’ t a police shooting that you ’ ll be hearing about on the national news and there won ’ t be any marches in the street demanding “ justice for Dylan ” because Scott was white .
But the shooting has still produced some of the usual pushback in the local press and social media groups talking about “ killer cops ” and the usual charges that emerge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lethal force encounter .
What should make this case different if there ’ s any justice in the world is that the entire encounter was captured on police dashcams and body cameras from beginning to end .
Having Scott wind up dead in his vehicle wasn ’ t what any of the law enforcement officers on the scene wanted , but it ’ s a perfect example of why we should welcome the ubiquitous use of police body cams all across the country .
The reason is that there was one person who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way and that person was Dylan Ray Scott .
( NY Post ) “ No matter what videos like these show , there will still be people who will just call him a ‘ killer cop , ’ ” said Eugene O ’ Donnell , a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former NYPD officer and Queens prosecutor — adding that it “ underscores how uninformed ” the debate on police shootings has become .
“ Especially in this unforgiving climate , officers like this just get unfairly branded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be used against them if they are ever again made to use deadly force.
” Police body camera footage shows Scott racing away from a deputy who first stopped him , only coming to a halt after his pickup was T-boned by another car — with a female passenger with him getting out safely before the shooting .
Let ’ s go to the video footage of the events in question before breaking it down .
It should probably go without saying that this footage may be highly disturbing for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ auto-play , but this player doesn ’ t allow you to disable it .
The sound is muted , however . )
Here are the things we know about this situation and why any sort of blowback against the sheriff ’ s deputies is inappropriate .
Bear with me because it ’ s a sizable list .
Scott was well known to local law enforcement .
At the time he was pulled over he had multiple outstanding warrants and previous convictions for burglary , drug possession , resisting an officer with violence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fleeing and attempting to elude police .
Instead of cooperating with the deputies , Scott attempted to flee in his pickup truck , colliding with someone unrelated to the incident who was later hospitalized .
Dylan Scott had written a note to his mother earlier this year , telling her that he wanted to “ commit suicide by cop.
” His mother produced the note for the court in a previous case .
When the deputies surrounded the truck , Scott kept his hands near his waistband , claiming to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands despite the deputies literally begging him for four minutes not to make them shoot him .
They repeatedly assured Scott that he could be out of jail on bond in the morning and it “ didn ’ t have to end this way.
” Despite all of that , Scott suddenly lunged from the passenger side of his truck toward the officers , bringing his hand up as if he was holding a weapon .
( Scott turned out to not have a gun , but the deputies had no way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dylan Scott was given every chance in the world to walk away uninjured .
He chose to intentionally force the officers to shoot him .
Now two of the officers are on administrative leave and they ’ re being called “ killer cops ” by some of the locals .
And this is precisely why we need dash cameras and body cameras for police officers .
Without that type of evidence being made available to the public , this could have readily turned into yet another rallying point to be used by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or “ abolish ” the police , particularly if Dylan Scott had happened to have been a minority suspect .

On Tuesday night in Riverview, Florida, 27-year-old Dylan Ray Scott was shot and killed by sheriff’s deputies following a standoff in his pickup truck. This isn’t a police shooting that you’ll be hearing about on the national news and there won’t be any marches in the street demanding “justice for Dylan” because Scott was white. But the shooting has still produced some of the usual pushback in the local press and social media groups talking about “killer cops” and the usual charges that emerge after law enforcement winds up in a lethal force encounter. What should make this case different if there’s any justice in the world is that the entire encounter was captured on police dashcams and body cameras from beginning to end. Having Scott wind up dead in his vehicle wasn’t what any of the law enforcement officers on the scene wanted, but it’s a perfect example of why we should welcome the ubiquitous use of police body cams all across the country. The reason is that there was one person who definitely wanted the encounter to end this way and that person was Dylan Ray Scott. (NY Post)
“No matter what videos like these show, there will still be people who will just call him a ‘killer cop,’” said Eugene O’Donnell, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former NYPD officer and Queens prosecutor — adding that it “underscores how uninformed” the debate on police shootings has become. “Especially in this unforgiving climate, officers like this just get unfairly branded, and even 10 years from now it will be used against them if they are ever again made to use deadly force.” Police body camera footage shows Scott racing away from a deputy who first stopped him, only coming to a halt after his pickup was T-boned by another car — with a female passenger with him getting out safely before the shooting.
Let’s go to the video footage of the events in question before breaking it down. It should probably go without saying that this footage may be highly disturbing for some viewers. (My apologies for the auto-play, but this player doesn’t allow you to disable it. The sound is muted, however.)
Here are the things we know about this situation and why any sort of blowback against the sheriff’s deputies is inappropriate. Bear with me because it’s a sizable list.
Scott was well known to local law enforcement. At the time he was pulled over he had multiple outstanding warrants and previous convictions for burglary, drug possession, resisting an officer with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, and fleeing and attempting to elude police.
Instead of cooperating with the deputies, Scott attempted to flee in his pickup truck, colliding with someone unrelated to the incident who was later hospitalized.
Dylan Scott had written a note to his mother earlier this year, telling her that he wanted to “commit suicide by cop.” His mother produced the note for the court in a previous case.
When the deputies surrounded the truck, Scott kept his hands near his waistband, claiming to have a gun. He refused to show his hands despite the deputies literally begging him for four minutes not to make them shoot him. They repeatedly assured Scott that he could be out of jail on bond in the morning and it “didn’t have to end this way.”
Despite all of that, Scott suddenly lunged from the passenger side of his truck toward the officers, bringing his hand up as if he was holding a weapon. (Scott turned out to not have a gun, but the deputies had no way of knowing that.)
In other words, Dylan Scott was given every chance in the world to walk away uninjured. He chose to intentionally force the officers to shoot him. Now two of the officers are on administrative leave and they’re being called “killer cops” by some of the locals. And this is precisely why we need dash cameras and body cameras for police officers. Without that type of evidence being made available to the public, this could have readily turned into yet another rallying point to be used by activists who want to “defund” or “abolish” the police, particularly if Dylan Scott had happened to have been a minority suspect.


hotair--2020-12-12--America's worst governor for AG? Say it isn't so

Is this a legitimate Biden administration leak , a trial balloon or just wishful thinking ?
There ’ s a case to be made for all three possibilities , but the buzz inside the swamp this weekend suggests that Joe Biden is seriously looking at New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as a possible pick for Attorney General .
People from New York State are all too familiar with Cuomo , but at least some of them would probably be happy to see this happen .
Of course , if Uncle Joe does make this call , he ’ s got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of baggage that Cuomo brings along with him .
( Associated Press ) New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo is one of several contenders under consideration by President-elect Joe Biden for the role of attorney general , a person with knowledge of the search process said Friday .
The other three contenders at the moment include former Alabama Sen. Doug Jones , federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates , said the person , who cautioned that no decision had been reached and no announcement was expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss the search process by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press .
Being on the shortlist doesn ’ t assure anyone of getting the nod , but you can see why Biden ’ s team might be leaning toward Cuomo if only for the optics .
The mainstream media was tripping over itself to praise Cuomo for his daily briefings on the coronavirus over the summer and fall , with some referring to the New York governor as the “ shadow president.
” The Attorney General obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such matters , but Biden ran on a promise to “ beat the virus ” and having Cuomo on his team might be seen as a way to reinforce that message .
I ’ ll admit that if Andrew Cuomo turns out to be the pick , Biden can at least claim that it wasn ’ t a purely political appointment .
At least on paper , Cuomo certainly has all of the minimum boxes checked on his resume .
He has a law degree and he served as the state Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor .
But such a move could be kind of awkward when you recall that Cuomo made an unequivocal statement back in April , saying he wasn ’ t running for president , vice president , or anything else and that “ I ’ m not going to Washington.
” Cuomo also brings a lot of baggage with him , as I mentioned above .
All through the entire time he ’ s been governor , Cuomo has been dogged by scandals that took down many of his closest advisors and major donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as the “ Buffalo billion ” was littered with cases of Cuomo aides and cronies going to prison ( more than one of them ) or barely avoiding time behind bars through plea deals .
How that many corrupt politicos managed to take the fall without Cuomo himself winding up on trial remains something of a mystery , but it ’ s no secret in New York that Andrew Cuomo ( much like his father before him ) has never exactly been seen as being pure as the driven snow .
Speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll just say that I ’ m kind of torn on this question .
From a purely selfish perspective , I wouldn ’ t mind seeing Cuomo shipped off to Washington so he can ’ t do any more damage back home .
But then we ’ d all be stuck with his liberal policies and dubious ethics on a national scale .
Also , if Cuomo resigns , Lt. Gov .
Kathy Hochul would step up to become governor , opening the door for a new second fiddle .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s current AG , Letitia James , who has been nothing short of a disaster .
And it would bring James one step closer to her blatantly obvious desire to become governor herself with an eye on a national office beyond that .
All things considered , maybe we ’ re all better off if Biden takes a pass on Cuomo .
None of his other choices would be quite as inflammatory .
Giving it to Doug Jones would basically just be a consolation prize after his tenure in the Senate was cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less optimal choice since Biden is probably still likely to nominate him to the Supreme Court if there ’ s an opening , if only as a nod to the Obama faithful .
Sally Yates would fall into the same category as part of the old Obama team and would probably be a fairly vanilla choice , having already served as the Deputy AG .

Is this a legitimate Biden administration leak, a trial balloon or just wishful thinking? There’s a case to be made for all three possibilities, but the buzz inside the swamp this weekend suggests that Joe Biden is seriously looking at New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as a possible pick for Attorney General. People from New York State are all too familiar with Cuomo, but at least some of them would probably be happy to see this happen. Of course, if Uncle Joe does make this call, he’s got to be aware of the massive amount of baggage that Cuomo brings along with him. (Associated Press)
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is one of several contenders under consideration by President-elect Joe Biden for the role of attorney general, a person with knowledge of the search process said Friday. The other three contenders at the moment include former Alabama Sen. Doug Jones, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, said the person, who cautioned that no decision had been reached and no announcement was expected imminently. The person was not authorized to discuss the search process by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press.
Being on the shortlist doesn’t assure anyone of getting the nod, but you can see why Biden’s team might be leaning toward Cuomo if only for the optics. The mainstream media was tripping over itself to praise Cuomo for his daily briefings on the coronavirus over the summer and fall, with some referring to the New York governor as the “shadow president.” The Attorney General obviously has no direct role to play in such matters, but Biden ran on a promise to “beat the virus” and having Cuomo on his team might be seen as a way to reinforce that message.
I’ll admit that if Andrew Cuomo turns out to be the pick, Biden can at least claim that it wasn’t a purely political appointment. At least on paper, Cuomo certainly has all of the minimum boxes checked on his resume. He has a law degree and he served as the state Attorney General of New York before being elected as governor. But such a move could be kind of awkward when you recall that Cuomo made an unequivocal statement back in April, saying he wasn’t running for president, vice president, or anything else and that “I’m not going to Washington.”
Cuomo also brings a lot of baggage with him, as I mentioned above. All through the entire time he’s been governor, Cuomo has been dogged by scandals that took down many of his closest advisors and major donors. The entire saga of an initiative known as the “Buffalo billion” was littered with cases of Cuomo aides and cronies going to prison (more than one of them) or barely avoiding time behind bars through plea deals. How that many corrupt politicos managed to take the fall without Cuomo himself winding up on trial remains something of a mystery, but it’s no secret in New York that Andrew Cuomo (much like his father before him) has never exactly been seen as being pure as the driven snow.
Speaking as a resident of New York, I’ll just say that I’m kind of torn on this question. From a purely selfish perspective, I wouldn’t mind seeing Cuomo shipped off to Washington so he can’t do any more damage back home. But then we’d all be stuck with his liberal policies and dubious ethics on a national scale. Also, if Cuomo resigns, Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul would step up to become governor, opening the door for a new second fiddle. That could wind up being the state’s current AG, Letitia James, who has been nothing short of a disaster. And it would bring James one step closer to her blatantly obvious desire to become governor herself with an eye on a national office beyond that.
All things considered, maybe we’re all better off if Biden takes a pass on Cuomo. None of his other choices would be quite as inflammatory. Giving it to Doug Jones would basically just be a consolation prize after his tenure in the Senate was cut short. Merrick Garland might be a less optimal choice since Biden is probably still likely to nominate him to the Supreme Court if there’s an opening, if only as a nod to the Obama faithful. Sally Yates would fall into the same category as part of the old Obama team and would probably be a fairly vanilla choice, having already served as the Deputy AG.


hotair--2020-12-13--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

The arrival of Pfizer ’ s vaccine brings the dawn of the post-pandemic era and a well-deserved victory lap on today ’ s Sunday shows by the feds who helped make it happen .
The lead guest : FDA chief Stephen Hahn , who ’ ll chat with “ This Week ” and “ State of the Union ” about the record speed with which the vaccine was developed and approved and why Americans should get the jab as soon as they ’ re eligible .
His boss , HHS director Alex Azar , will address the same topics with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of Operation Warp Speed , Moncef Slaoui , tackles them with “ Fox News Sunday.
” NIH director Francis Collins is also booked for “ Meet the Press ” to convince viewers that the vaccine is safe and effective .
Looming questions for each : How likely are we to face a shortage in the near term as Pfizer and the next company to gain approval , Moderna , ramp up production ?
And why are we reserving half of the initial supply to make sure recipients can get fully vaccinated instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that a much larger group can get partially vaccinated ?
Another guest worth watching is Rick Gates , senior VP of Walgreens .
His is the sort of business where most of us will finally intersect with the vaccine , which makes Walgreens ’ s logistical planning of special importance .
When will its pharmacies begin dosing out shots ?
Will they adhere to the feds ’ recommendations on how to prioritize among recipients or do they have some discretion ?
Gates will chat about it with “ This Week.
” Political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as it always is on Sunday .
Stacey Abrams is the most noteworthy guest , scheduled for “ State of the Union ” to discuss the Georgia Senate runoffs , Biden ’ s campaign visit to the state this Tuesday , and what her embarrassing refusal to concede to Brian Kemp in 2018 has in common with Trump ’ s embarrassing refusal to concede now .
Following her on the same show will be former VP Al Gore , who distinguished himself in 2000 by *not* embarrassingly refusing to concede .
Needless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the president to give up and start packing .
Finally , House minority whip Steve Scalise will sit down with “ Fox News Sunday ” to explain how he plans to try to rebuild his credibility after signing on to the Texas lawsuit that would have destroyed the country had it prevailed .
The full line-up is at the AP .

The arrival of Pfizer’s vaccine brings the dawn of the post-pandemic era and a well-deserved victory lap on today’s Sunday shows by the feds who helped make it happen. The lead guest: FDA chief Stephen Hahn, who’ll chat with “This Week” and “State of the Union” about the record speed with which the vaccine was developed and approved and why Americans should get the jab as soon as they’re eligible. His boss, HHS director Alex Azar, will address the same topics with “Face the Nation” while the head of Operation Warp Speed, Moncef Slaoui, tackles them with “Fox News Sunday.” NIH director Francis Collins is also booked for “Meet the Press” to convince viewers that the vaccine is safe and effective. Looming questions for each: How likely are we to face a shortage in the near term as Pfizer and the next company to gain approval, Moderna, ramp up production? And why are we reserving half of the initial supply to make sure recipients can get fully vaccinated instead of distributing all of it to make sure that a much larger group can get partially vaccinated?
Another guest worth watching is Rick Gates, senior VP of Walgreens. His is the sort of business where most of us will finally intersect with the vaccine, which makes Walgreens’s logistical planning of special importance. When will its pharmacies begin dosing out shots? Will they adhere to the feds’ recommendations on how to prioritize among recipients or do they have some discretion? Gates will chat about it with “This Week.”
Political blather is also on tap this morning, as it always is on Sunday. Stacey Abrams is the most noteworthy guest, scheduled for “State of the Union” to discuss the Georgia Senate runoffs, Biden’s campaign visit to the state this Tuesday, and what her embarrassing refusal to concede to Brian Kemp in 2018 has in common with Trump’s embarrassing refusal to concede now. Following her on the same show will be former VP Al Gore, who distinguished himself in 2000 by *not* embarrassingly refusing to concede. Needless to say, both guests will call on the president to give up and start packing.
Finally, House minority whip Steve Scalise will sit down with “Fox News Sunday” to explain how he plans to try to rebuild his credibility after signing on to the Texas lawsuit that would have destroyed the country had it prevailed. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-12-13--Two Republicans, two different views on the election

The Electoral College likely votes for President-elect Joe Biden on Monday barring some kind of faithless elector scenario keeping him from 270 .
Such scenarios likely fail to happen , despite dreams from outgoing President Donald Trump and his most ardent sycophants .
Yet , Republicans remain split on what exactly happened and Trump ’ s failure in all but one post-election lawsuit .
The fissure is most prevalent in Sunday talk show appearances featuring Louisiana Republican Congressman Steve Scalise and retiring Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander .
Alexander sees the election as over and done with and wants Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks very much like the electors will vote for Joe Biden , ” Alexander told NBC ’ s Meet the Press on Sunday .
“ And when they do , I hope that he puts the country first — I mean , the president — that he takes pride in his considerable accomplishments , that he congratulates the president-elect and he helps him get off to a good start , especially in the middle of this pandemic.
” Alexander wants Trump to do his best imitation of former Vice President Al Gore after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2018 ( as an aside , Alexander bristled at NBC and Abrams in general , who never conceded her loss to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp ) .
“ Let the legal process play out… ” he told Fox News Sunday .
“ If you want to restore trust by millions of people who are still very frustrated and angry about what happened , that ’ s why you ’ ve got to have this whole system play out .
There will be a president sworn in on Jan. 20 , but let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself out.
” His main worry falls along the lines of election integrity perception along with questions on ballot counting timelines .
“ I think if you just discount the fact that millions of people wonder why in some states — Florida , Texas , large states — they had results by 10 o ’ clock that night , and then in other states it was days and weeks , and during those days and weeks you saw massive vote swings , that just seeds a lot of distrust .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess on why Scalise and Alexander have different opinions likely has to do with their positions .
Alexander is retiring and , likely , out of any potential crosshairs from Trump or his supporters .
Scalise is a high-ranking Republican who probably hopes to retain leadership assignments whenever the GOP retakes Congress .
Trump ’ s spectre over the Republican Party remains large unless he ends up indicted and convicted or attempts some sort of new party under his helm .
Loyalty over mean tweets or phone calls appears as Scalise ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his ilk end up winning their last-ditch lawsuits before the Electoral College vote .
Time for him to finally concede , although it ’ s doubtful he ’ ll do so given his recent social media tantrums .
So…expect more drama until 2024 .
Yay…not .

The Electoral College likely votes for President-elect Joe Biden on Monday barring some kind of faithless elector scenario keeping him from 270. Such scenarios likely fail to happen, despite dreams from outgoing President Donald Trump and his most ardent sycophants.
Yet, Republicans remain split on what exactly happened and Trump’s failure in all but one post-election lawsuit. The fissure is most prevalent in Sunday talk show appearances featuring Louisiana Republican Congressman Steve Scalise and retiring Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander.
Alexander sees the election as over and done with and wants Trump to end his fight.
“It looks very much like the electors will vote for Joe Biden,” Alexander told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “And when they do, I hope that he puts the country first — I mean, the president — that he takes pride in his considerable accomplishments, that he congratulates the president-elect and he helps him get off to a good start, especially in the middle of this pandemic.”
Alexander wants Trump to do his best imitation of former Vice President Al Gore after the 2000 election instead of Stacey Abrams from 2018 (as an aside, Alexander bristled at NBC and Abrams in general, who never conceded her loss to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp).
“Al Gore took 37 days, I believe, to contest before he finally conceded. And then he made the best speech of his life respecting the result, which is what I hope the president will do if the electors vote for Joe Biden on Monday, which it is apparent they will.”
Scalise takes the opposite approach.
“Let the legal process play out…” he told Fox News Sunday. “If you want to restore trust by millions of people who are still very frustrated and angry about what happened, that’s why you’ve got to have this whole system play out. There will be a president sworn in on Jan. 20, but let’s let this legal process play itself out.”
His main worry falls along the lines of election integrity perception along with questions on ballot counting timelines.
“I think if you just discount the fact that millions of people wonder why in some states — Florida, Texas, large states — they had results by 10 o’clock that night, and then in other states it was days and weeks, and during those days and weeks you saw massive vote swings, that just seeds a lot of distrust. That’s got to get resolved.”
The best guess on why Scalise and Alexander have different opinions likely has to do with their positions. Alexander is retiring and, likely, out of any potential crosshairs from Trump or his supporters. Scalise is a high-ranking Republican who probably hopes to retain leadership assignments whenever the GOP retakes Congress. Trump’s spectre over the Republican Party remains large unless he ends up indicted and convicted or attempts some sort of new party under his helm. Loyalty over mean tweets or phone calls appears as Scalise’s endgame.
It’s doubtful Trump and his ilk end up winning their last-ditch lawsuits before the Electoral College vote. Time for him to finally concede, although it’s doubtful he’ll do so given his recent social media tantrums. So…expect more drama until 2024. Yay…not.


hotair--2020-12-13--United Kingdom and European Union have no trade deal...yet

The clock is getting closer to midnight in Europe with no trade deal in sight between the EU and Great Britain .
Prime Minister Boris Johnson and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promise to keep negotiating with the former feeling more pessimistic about the outcome .
“ As things stand , and this was basically what Ursula and I agreed , we are still very far apart on some key things , ” the Prime Minister told Sky News admitting he expected ‘ No Deal ’ to happen .
“ But where there is life there is hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be walking away from talks , I think people would expect us to go the extra mile.
” Monday morning appears as the extra mile although whether that ends up extended remains questionable due to the fluidity of the situation .
Theresa May ’ s Brexit framework fell apart in Parliament in 2019 although both groups finally reached terms in early 2020 .
The pandemic likely played a factor in the holdup on the trade deal , however , it ’ s not likely given the drama on the framework .
Whether a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but depends on which facet of Britain ’ s political-philosophical layer cake people read along with their frustration with Johnson .
“ A deal is in the interests of both sides , ” Andrew Rawnsley wrote in typically leftward The Observer on Sunday .
“ This is why , despite the gloomy noises coming out of both London and Brussels , some of the smart money is still betting on an agreement .
The hope is that Mr Johnson will grasp just how much a catastrophe Brexit could cost him personally…Boris Johnson has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strive to secure the thin deal available .
That will steadily make Britain poorer than it would have been , but at least it avoids the calamity of a crash-out.
” Tories appear to fear the same as Labour .
“ There are no cabinet heavyweights to warn the prime minister of the dire consequences of taking the UK to the edge of no deal , just yes-men and women who owe their political advancement to him , ” Editors at conservative-aligned The Sunday Times warned this morning .
“ Nobody is warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car industry , the nightmare for many farmers and the potential loss of investment and jobs in large parts of the rest of the economy , or of the fact that a no-deal exit is not only about short-term disruption but also long-term economic pain .
Mr Johnson ’ s assertion that Britain will “ prosper mightily ” in the event of no deal runs counter to all the evidence , including the government ’ s own.
” Classical Liberals are more skeptical about the impact of a No Deal Brexit .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the difference between a pretty thin trade deal and ‘ no deal ’ is not as stark as some might suggest , ” John Ashmore wrote at CapX.co .
“ That reflects the big shift in negotiating aims under Boris Johnson , whose deal is a world away from the kind of perma-alignment proposed by Theresa May ’ s government ( a fact many ‘ soft ’ Brexiteers now wistfully acknowledge ) .
And though the most ardent Brexiteers will see any agreement as a fearful capitulation , even with a deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market and customs union , rid of the ghastly Common Agricultural Policy and outside the system of free movement .
Whether you welcome that or not , these are undoubtedly substantial changes.
” One other thing worth noting from Ashmore in CapX , along with a piece in The Economist , is the future of Great Britain ’ s regulatory policy .
“ [ Johnson ’ s desire to eliminate tariffs ] will do little to soothe the headaches that arise from leaving the single market , ” The Economist opined on Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throw off the eu ’ s system of regulation will instead replicate it in miniature , creating a Brussels-on-Thames .
Chemical firms , foreign airlines , lawyers and internet companies—all will face new burdens if they wish to keep doing business in Britain.
” A final thought from Ashmore .
“ The fact is we could have been far more laissez-faire while still in the EU , and that we will ( more ’ s the pity ) still be a typical high-tax , high-regulation Western economy once we have left .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the source of all red tape , but our own politicians don ’ t need much encouragement to stick their oar in.
” Observations worth noting as the trade deal deadline gets closer and closer .

The clock is getting closer to midnight in Europe with no trade deal in sight between the EU and Great Britain. Prime Minister Boris Johnson and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promise to keep negotiating with the former feeling more pessimistic about the outcome.
“As things stand, and this was basically what Ursula and I agreed, we are still very far apart on some key things,” the Prime Minister told Sky News admitting he expected ‘No Deal’ to happen. “But where there is life there is hope. The UK certainly won’t be walking away from talks, I think people would expect us to go the extra mile.”
Monday morning appears as the extra mile although whether that ends up extended remains questionable due to the fluidity of the situation. Theresa May’s Brexit framework fell apart in Parliament in 2019 although both groups finally reached terms in early 2020. The pandemic likely played a factor in the holdup on the trade deal, however, it’s not likely given the drama on the framework.
Whether a trade deal matters is up for debate but depends on which facet of Britain’s political-philosophical layer cake people read along with their frustration with Johnson.
“A deal is in the interests of both sides,” Andrew Rawnsley wrote in typically leftward The Observer on Sunday. “This is why, despite the gloomy noises coming out of both London and Brussels, some of the smart money is still betting on an agreement. The hope is that Mr Johnson will grasp just how much a catastrophe Brexit could cost him personally…Boris Johnson has a choice to make. He can strive to secure the thin deal available. That will steadily make Britain poorer than it would have been, but at least it avoids the calamity of a crash-out.”
Tories appear to fear the same as Labour.
“There are no cabinet heavyweights to warn the prime minister of the dire consequences of taking the UK to the edge of no deal, just yes-men and women who owe their political advancement to him,” Editors at conservative-aligned The Sunday Times warned this morning. “Nobody is warning of the potentially catastrophic damage to the car industry, the nightmare for many farmers and the potential loss of investment and jobs in large parts of the rest of the economy, or of the fact that a no-deal exit is not only about short-term disruption but also long-term economic pain. Mr Johnson’s assertion that Britain will “prosper mightily” in the event of no deal runs counter to all the evidence, including the government’s own.”
Classical Liberals are more skeptical about the impact of a No Deal Brexit.
“For all the high drama, though, the difference between a pretty thin trade deal and ‘no deal’ is not as stark as some might suggest,”
John Ashmore wrote at CapX.co. “That reflects the big shift in negotiating aims under Boris Johnson, whose deal is a world away from the kind of perma-alignment proposed by Theresa May’s government (a fact many ‘soft’ Brexiteers now wistfully acknowledge). And though the most ardent Brexiteers will see any agreement as a fearful capitulation, even with a deal we will be out of the single market and customs union, rid of the ghastly Common Agricultural Policy and outside the system of free movement. Whether you welcome that or not, these are undoubtedly substantial changes.”
One other thing worth noting from Ashmore in CapX, along with a piece in The Economist, is the future of Great Britain’s regulatory policy.
“[Johnson’s desire to eliminate tariffs] will do little to soothe the headaches that arise from leaving the single market,” The Economist opined on Sunday. “A project that promised to throw off the eu’s system of regulation will instead replicate it in miniature, creating a Brussels-on-Thames. Chemical firms, foreign airlines, lawyers and internet companies—all will face new burdens if they wish to keep doing business in Britain.”
A final thought from Ashmore. “The fact is we could have been far more laissez-faire while still in the EU, and that we will (more’s the pity) still be a typical high-tax, high-regulation Western economy once we have left. We might like to think of Brussels as the source of all red tape, but our own politicians don’t need much encouragement to stick their oar in.”
Observations worth noting as the trade deal deadline gets closer and closer.