hotair--2020-02-11--Jussie Smollett indicted on six counts of disorderly conduct (Kim Foxx questions the timing)

Jussie Smollett might finally face some real justice for dragging the country through a hate crime hoax .
Today , Smollett was indicted on six counts of disorderly conduct related to the false police reports he made last year .
A special Cook County grand jury handed down the new indictment on Tuesday , following a six-month investigation by special prosecutor Dan Webb .
In a statement , Webb ’ s office said Smollett filed four separate false police reports claiming he was the victim of a hate crime .
“ The grand jury ’ s investigation revealed that Jussie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate crime attack , and thereafter made numerous false statements to Chicago Police Department officers on multiple occasions , reporting a heinous hate crime that he , in fact , knew had not occurred , ” Webb said in a statement .
The State ’ s Attorney ’ s office initially filed 16 felony charges against Smollett but last March all of those charges were dropped and Smollett was set free so long as he agreed to a few hours of community service and surrendered his $ 10,000 bail .
The decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by many observers .
State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx denied she had done anything out of the ordinary saying that , apart from the celebrity aspect of the case , Smollett was treated like anyone else .
An internal letter was revealed seeking similar cases that Foxx could offer to the media to back up her claim .
But the National District Attorney ’ s Association and the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association both published statements critical of Foxx ’ s handling of the case .
The Illinois group ’ s letter said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly unusual , not a statutory diversion program , and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State ’ s Attorney initiated diversionary programs.
” Foxx ’ s response was to suggest that her critics were targeting her because she is black .
Finally , last June , a special prosecutor was appointed to look into the case , including Foxx ’ s handling of it .
So was the dismissal of charges against Jussie Smollett business as usual as Kim Foxx claimed ?
Not according to the special prosecutor .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smollett the special prosecutor pointed out that the State ’ s Attorney ’ s office never could back up it ’ s claim that Smollett was treated just like other defendants .
Not could it explain what new evidence led to the sudden dismissal of charges [ emphasis added ] : Another major factor in the OSP ’ s [ Office of the Special Prosecutor ’ s ] determination that further prosecution of Mr. Smollett is in the interests of justice is that the CCSAO [ Cook County State ’ s Attorney ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide the OSP with documentary evidence that shows that , in dismissing the Smollett case on the terms presented in court on March 26 , 2019 , the CCSAO relied on other dispositions of similar cases prior to the Smollett case that would justify this disposition .
This issue was important to the OSP because on the day the Smollett case was resolved in court , March 26 , 2019 , the CCSAO issued a written press release in which it told the public that the Smollett case was being resolved under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any defendant with similar circumstances .
As a result , the OSP sought to obtain all documentary evidence within the CCSAO that would identify prior similar case files that were relied on by the CCSAO that would support this public statement .
The CCSAO was unable to provide this documentary evidence… The CCSAO decision-makers overseeing the Smollett resolution decision have not identified any new evidence they learned of between the time of indictment and dismissal of the indictment that changed their view that the evidence against Mr. Smollett was strong .
Does this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her office is about to be indicted as well ?
The Special Prosecutor says that part of the case is still ongoing : Regarding the investigation related to Judge Toomin ’ s second directive to the OSP , to determine whether any person or office involved in the Smollett case engaged in wrongdoing , including the CCSAO or individuals in that office , the OSP has reached no conclusions .
This aspect of the OSP ’ s investigation continues , and the OSP ’ s findings will ultimately be set forth ina final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the benefit of the Cook County Board of Commissioners , pursuant to Judge Toomin ’ s August 23 , 2019 , Order .
That ’ s obviously very bad news for Kim Foxx who is in the midst of running for reelection .
In fact , a spokesperson for Foxx questioned the timing of the Smollett indictment : “ James Comey-like timing ” is a not-so-subtle signal to progressives that the special prosecutor is about to cost her the election .
Just yesterday the Chicago Sun Times endorsed Foxx ’ s re-election run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smollett case : From the moment Smollett was charged with lying to the Chicago police about some faked-up mugging outside his Near North Side apartment , Foxx should have hung up the phone on any politically connected attorney trying to plead the actor ’ s case .
And Foxx ’ s office should not have allowed Smollett to walk until he did the bare minimum — admit in writing that he had made it all up .
The police deserved better than that .
We ’ ll have to wait on a report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to learn all that transpired .
There is no doubt the Smollett case was the one great pratfall of Foxx ’ s first term .
We endorse her all the same .
It would be an injustice to allow a single high-profile mistake to overshadow her accomplishments .
Hopefully Smollett will finally go to jail and Kim Foxx will lose her re-election campaign over how she a ) handled the case and b ) lied to the public about it .
But we ’ ll have to see if voters care and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man who still claims he was a victim .

Jussie Smollett might finally face some real justice for dragging the country through a hate crime hoax. Today, Smollett was indicted on six counts of disorderly conduct related to the false police reports he made last year.
A special Cook County grand jury handed down the new indictment on Tuesday, following a six-month investigation by special prosecutor Dan Webb. In a statement, Webb’s office said Smollett filed four separate false police reports claiming he was the victim of a hate crime. “The grand jury’s investigation revealed that Jussie Smollett planned and participated in a staged hate crime attack, and thereafter made numerous false statements to Chicago Police Department officers on multiple occasions, reporting a heinous hate crime that he, in fact, knew had not occurred,” Webb said in a statement.
The State’s Attorney’s office initially filed 16 felony charges against Smollett but last March all of those charges were dropped and Smollett was set free so long as he agreed to a few hours of community service and surrendered his $10,000 bail. The decision to dismiss the charges was immediately judged suspicious by many observers.
State’s Attorney Kim Foxx denied she had done anything out of the ordinary saying that, apart from the celebrity aspect of the case, Smollett was treated like anyone else. An internal letter was revealed seeking similar cases that Foxx could offer to the media to back up her claim.
But the National District Attorney’s Association and the Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association both published statements critical of Foxx’s handling of the case. The Illinois group’s letter said in part, “This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs.” Foxx’s response was to suggest that her critics were targeting her because she is black. Finally, last June, a special prosecutor was appointed to look into the case, including Foxx’s handling of it.
So was the dismissal of charges against Jussie Smollett business as usual as Kim Foxx claimed? Not according to the special prosecutor. In a letter explaining the new charges against Smollett the special prosecutor pointed out that the State’s Attorney’s office never could back up it’s claim that Smollett was treated just like other defendants. Not could it explain what new evidence led to the sudden dismissal of charges [emphasis added]:
Another major factor in the OSP’s [Office of the Special Prosecutor’s] determination that further prosecution of Mr. Smollett is in the interests of justice is that the CCSAO [Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office] has been unable to provide the OSP with documentary evidence that shows that, in dismissing the Smollett case on the terms presented in court on March 26, 2019, the CCSAO relied on other dispositions of similar cases prior to the Smollett case that would justify this disposition. This issue was important to the OSP because on the day the Smollett case was resolved in court, March 26, 2019, the CCSAO issued a written press release in which it told the public that the Smollett case was being resolved under the same criteria that would be available for any defendant with similar circumstances. As a result, the OSP sought to obtain all documentary evidence within the CCSAO that would identify prior similar case files that were relied on by the CCSAO that would support this public statement. The CCSAO was unable to provide this documentary evidence… The CCSAO decision-makers overseeing the Smollett resolution decision have not identified any new evidence they learned of between the time of indictment and dismissal of the indictment that changed their view that the evidence against Mr. Smollett was strong.
Does this mean that Kim Foxx or someone in her office is about to be indicted as well? The Special Prosecutor says that part of the case is still ongoing:
Regarding the investigation related to Judge Toomin’s second directive to the OSP, to determine whether any person or office involved in the Smollett case engaged in wrongdoing,including the CCSAO or individuals in that office, the OSP has reached no conclusions. This aspect of the OSP’s investigation continues, and the OSP’s findings will ultimately be set forth ina final written report to the Court and for the benefit of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to Judge Toomin’s August 23, 2019, Order.
That’s obviously very bad news for Kim Foxx who is in the midst of running for reelection. In fact, a spokesperson for Foxx questioned the timing of the Smollett indictment:
“The Cook County State’s Attorney’s office charged Jussie Smollett with multiple counts, and today the Special Prosecutor did the same. What’s questionable here is the James Comey-like timing of that charging decision, just 35 days before an election, which can only be interpreted as the further politicization of the justice system, something voters in the era of Donald Trump should consider offensive,” the Foxx campaign wrote.
“James Comey-like timing” is a not-so-subtle signal to progressives that the special prosecutor is about to cost her the election. Just yesterday the Chicago Sun Times endorsed Foxx’s re-election run even while admitting she badly bungled the Smollett case:
From the moment Smollett was charged with lying to the Chicago police about some faked-up mugging outside his Near North Side apartment, Foxx should have hung up the phone on any politically connected attorney trying to plead the actor’s case. And Foxx’s office should not have allowed Smollett to walk until he did the bare minimum — admit in writing that he had made it all up. The police deserved better than that. We’ll have to wait on a report by a special prosecutor, Dan Webb, to learn all that transpired. There is no doubt the Smollett case was the one great pratfall of Foxx’s first term. We endorse her all the same. It would be an injustice to allow a single high-profile mistake to overshadow her accomplishments.
Hopefully Smollett will finally go to jail and Kim Foxx will lose her re-election campaign over how she a) handled the case and b) lied to the public about it. But we’ll have to see if voters care and if a jury will convict a famous man who still claims he was a victim.
Update: Here’s a local news report from CBS Chicago.


hotair--2020-02-11--New Hampshire election thread: Live results

Last week ’ s attempt at live results didn ’ t go well thanks to the historic full-spectrum incompetence of @ @ @ @ @ Tonight ’ s should go better .
Here are the numbers , tabulated minute by @ @ @ @ @ ; just keep this tab open and refresh at will .
Polls close at 7 @ @ @ @ @ parts of the state but voting will continue in others until 8 p.m .
ET @ @ @ @ @ have an official call within that hour .

Last week’s attempt at live results didn’t go well thanks to the historic full-spectrum incompetence of the Iowa Democratic Party. Tonight’s should go better. Here are the numbers, tabulated minute by minute via Decision Desk HQ; just keep this tab open and refresh at will. Polls close at 7 p.m. ET in *some* parts of the state but voting will continue in others until 8 p.m. ET. Hopefully we’ll have an official call within that hour.


hotair--2020-02-11--<span class='red'>New Hampshire analysis thread: We're probably going to have an outcome tonight. Pr

I mean , you never know with these people .
I ’ m cautiously optimistic that New Hampshire Democrats can execute a straightforward “ Who ’ s your first choice for president ?
” ballot count with reasonable accuracy in the span of a few hours .
Either way , it ’ s Bernie ’ s race to lose .
Last week , in the first flush of news that Buttigieg had overperformed in Iowa , Mayor Pete got a bounce in one tracking poll of New Hampshire that pushed him into the lead by a point for a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s debate , when Amy Klobuchar landed a few haymakers that pulled him back towards the pack and vaulted Klobuchar herself past Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden into third place .
The last few polls of the state have been notably consistent : Bernie ’ s approaching 30 percent of the vote and leads by seven or eight points , with Buttigieg in the low 20s and Klobuchar possibly in the mid-teens .
They ’ ll probably finish in that order tonight — especially since Klobuchar may benefit from Joe Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to South Carolina before voting is finished in New Hampshire today .
Any centrist undecideds who were torn between him and Klobuchar now have an incentive to tilt towards her , which may push her up further .
And may also push Biden down .
In fact , there ’ s a nonzero chance that Grandpa Joe , the national frontrunner since day one , may finish in the single digits in New Hampshire this evening .
If he does , the Biden 2020 death watch will dominate media coverage of the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond .
But let ’ s not get ahead of ourselves .
New Hampshire produced one of the most momentous polling errors in modern political history not long ago , as some of you may remember .
I remember 2008 well — Obama fresh off an upstart win in Iowa and suddenly dominating in polls of NH , seemingly poised to run the table and make quick work of Hillary Clinton .
Here ’ s what the final few days of polling in that race looked like , in reverse chronological order .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ You don ’ t see an 11-point miss in the polling average very often .
That ’ s about what it would take to deny Bernie a win — but like I say , Biden ’ s early departure from the state adds an element of unpredictability tonight .
If thousands and thousands of New Hampshire Dems who were planning to vote for Joe now switch to Pete or Amy at the last moment , it ’ s anyone ’ s guess how this shakes out .
Klobuchar ’ s probably too far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
There ’ s another element of unpredictability tonight .
That ’ s the semi-open nature of New Hampshire ’ s primary , which allows independents to vote in either party ’ s election .
Any Republican-leaning indie in NH who wants to try to influence the Democratic nomination is free to do so .
The question is whether they ’ ll be mischievous about it , attempting to boost the weakest general-election candidate in the name of clearing Trump ’ s path to reelection , or if they ’ ll be earnest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electable centrist in the name of stopping Bernie ’ s socialist revolution from advancing .
There ’ ll be some of both at the polls tonight .
Maybe they cancel each other out , with the first group breaking for Bernie and the second breaking for Buttigieg and Klobuchar .
But if there ’ s more of one than the other , the expected results may change meaningfully .
For the four non-Bernie candidates , tonight ’ s calculus is simple : Finish as strongly as you can and don ’ t worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centrist lane will be a muddle for awhile no matter what happens ( unless Biden comes out of nowhere to finish first or second , which is hiiiiighly unlikely ) and the progressive lane will be a muddle *at best* , if Warren finishes surprisingly well .
Her campaign is talking tough , promising a long race… Behind the scenes , Warren advisers are girding for a long , drawn-out fight for the nomination .
Three sources close to Warren ’ s campaign say that her path forward is a version of slow-and-steady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay in a consistent second or third place while her opponents rise and fall , especially in big states like California and Texas , then she can accumulate delegates heading into the convention without necessarily racking up big first-place victories , the thinking goes .
Hanging out in second place also lets the front-runners beat each other up , while she stays above the fray .
The campaign believes it is well-positioned for a long national fight , having already dispatched more than 1,000 staffers across 31 states , with 80 % focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January memo from campaign manager Roger Lau .
Unlike some of her rivals , who have been laser-focused on Iowa and New Hampshire , Warren has always taken the long view when it comes to a national campaign .
“ We have the delegate strategy , ” says communications director Kristen Orthman .
“ Which is how you win a nomination.
” …but it ’ s impossible to believe she ’ ll hang around if she finishes fourth or worse tonight and in Nevada and South Carolina .
Even if she succeeds in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she ’ s all but guaranteed to still finish behind Bernie in those races .
How does she end up with the nomination if she ’ s third in delegates at a contested convention ?
If the idea is for her to be a compromise candidate between a socialist wing of the party that backs Sanders and a centrist wing that backs Buttigieg or Bloomberg or whoever , it seems to me it ’ s more likely we ’ d get a unity ticket comprised of Sanders and the moderate challenger than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters in either wing didn ’ t much like .
As for Bernie , what he wants from tonight is slightly more complicated — a victory , of course , but ideally also a photo finish between Buttigieg and Klobuchar to keep both of them in the race followed by Biden far behind .
The longer the centrist vote remains splintered , the better for Sanders .
I think he ’ d prefer that Warren finish fifth since that might force her out of the race sooner , freeing up her voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d expect New Hampshire to clarify which candidate or candidates have a credible shot at the nomination but tonight may create a giant muddle , particularly if Bernie underperforms .
And particularly since Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg are about to become factors in the 48 states yet to vote .
Polls close at 7 p.m .
ET in some parts of the state and at 8 p.m. in the rest .
Updates will follow at the top of the page .
One more very important number to bear in mind tonight : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa , possibly exceeding even the blockbuster showing of the 2008 caucus , but they didn ’ t get it .
That ’ s made them nervous since they ’ re counting on intense enthusiasm among their base to beat Trump this fall and figured they ’ d see hard evidence of it on caucus night .
If turnout disappoints tonight too , they ’ re going to start panicking that the great anti-Trump wave they ’ re counting on in November might not materialize after all .
Turnout in the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250,000 ; turnout in the 2008 NH Democratic primary , the Obama/Clinton death match , was a hair over 284,000 .
Those are the benchmarks for tonight .
I ’ ll leave you with this , from the early exit polls .
Hoo boy .
Not good for Bernie , also not good for the party .
Could it be that there ’ s a big crossover Republican vote , pushing down the total share of liberals/young voters ?
Lotta late deciders too .
Maybe the odds of another massive polling miss in @ @ @ @ @ @ @

New Hampshire analysis thread: We're probably going to have an outcome tonight. Probably. Update: Klomentum? Update: Yang out; Update: Fiasc-Joe? Update: Big turnout; Update: Bernie wins, says NBC
Update: Our friends at Decision Desk HQ have also called the race for Sanders, which is a good note to end on here. More tomorrow! And start thinking about the next debate in Nevada. It should be a bloodbath.
Update: The fight for Nevada has begun, and Bernie’s already taken a hard punch from the powerful Culinary Union there:
NEW: In a new flyer, @Culinary226 warns members that @BernieSanders would "end" their much-loved union health care. The union has not announced whether it will endorse, but the flyer appears to be part of a coordinated campaign ahead of the caucus. https://t.co/jCdAbjHfyd — Megan Messerly (@meganmesserly) February 12, 2020
Who’s mobilizing labor against Bernie? One wonders if the hidden hand of Harry Reid is at work here, pulling strings on behalf of the Democratic establishment to try to stop Sanders before his momentum is unstoppable.
Update: It’s Bernie’s night, says NBC:
NBC News projects that Bernie Sanders has won the New Hampshire primary — Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) February 12, 2020
ABC’s decision desk is also now projecting for Bernie.
Update: Skelley was right about turnout. With 83 percent reporting Democrats are over 250,000 total votes, which is on par with total turnout in the 2016 primary. They’re about 35,000 votes away from matching 2008 turnout. An important caveat, though: Both of those primaries came in years in which there was a competitive Republican primary too. That gave right-leaning independents in New Hampshire an incentive to vote in the GOP primary those years. There was no such incentive this year, which freed them up to cross over and vote in the Democrats’ election. So maybe big turnout isn’t quite as impressive as it seems at first blush.
Update: Hoo boy. With 80 percent in, Bernie’s lead is down to about 1.6 points.
Update: There’s truth to this:
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1227432444485390339
That’s counterintuitive because the rap on Bernie in 2016 was that he was “the white candidate,” the guy who could clean up in lily-white states like New Hampshire but then get decimated in states with large black or Latino populations who preferred Hillary. Apart from Biden, though, there’s no candidate this year like Clinton with strong appeal to minority constituents. If anything, Bernie himself has more cross-racial appeal than most of the field, including and especially his two centrist challengers tonight, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. They’re “white candidates” more than he is, and Nevada is likely to prove it. Which means Klomentum is apt to be short-lived.
Update: Bernie’s lead is still a smidge under two points with 76 percent reporting. The final RCP average of New Hampshire had him winning by 7.6 points. If not for Klomentum (or, as some are calling it, the “Klobucharge”) tonight, Buttigieg may well have pulled this upset.
Update: With almost 74 percent in, Decision Desk has Bernie’s lead over Buttigieg slipping slightly under two points, with Sanders now a hair under 26 percent. It looks like he’ll win but there’s a chance he takes no more than a quarter of the electorate.
Update: FiveThirtyEight’s Geoffrey Skelley notes that Dems are on pace for a good night in terms of turnout, which will calm some of their jitters after Iowa: “Looking at places that are 100 percent reporting and comparing their turnout in 2008 and 2016, the 2020 Democratic primary is now only 1 percent behind turnout in 2008 and is about 14 percent ahead of the 2016 primary.”
Update: Keeping an eye on the Decision Desk results and, with two-thirds of precincts reporting, Bernie’s lead over Buttigieg is now down to about two points. Hmmm!
Update: This is a fair assessment of where Bernie’s at after tonight. No one’s impressed by a primary win when the winning share is 27 percent, especially when the same guy did twice as well against the eventual nominee in New Hampshire four years ago. But:
Sanders is winning, but not by the kind of numbers that will convince reluctant Dems to join the bandwagon. Advantages he DOES have: Gigantic organization, credibility with labor (which Pete does NOT have), strength with non-white voters (which Amy and Pete do not have). — Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) February 12, 2020
And another advantage: Bernie has his “lane” mostly to himself now. Not so the centrists.
Update: I think it was a mistake for Biden to announce this morning that he’d leave New Hampshire while voting was going on, since it gave fencesitters a reason to prefer Buttigieg or Klobuchar. But watching this clip I can see why he did it. He wanted some sort of triumphant appearance tonight, not a funereal concession. South Carolina made that easy for him.
https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1227420288440262658
Update: Good point by Josh Kraushaar. The GOP’s 2016 format allowed Trump to pile up an insurmountable lead. The Democrats’ 2020 format is different.
I'm repeating myself, but the biggest difference between the 2016 Rs and the 2020 Ds is that there's no winner-take-all in the Dem race. Gives Dems more time to consolidate behind a Sanders alternative, even after Super Tuesday. — Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) February 12, 2020
Update: Decision Desk HQ is way ahead of the other outlets in tabulating results and has the race tightening — slightly — with 58 percent reporting. It’s Bernie at 26 percent, Buttigieg at 23.5, and Klobuchar at 20.
Update: “Well I thought I’d support him, but I just don’t think he’s got what it takes anymore.”
Update: At 9:13 ET, with 46 percent reporting, Dave Wasserman is ready to make a call:
I've seen enough. Projection: Bernie Sanders wins the NH Democratic primary. — Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) February 12, 2020
Update: Okay, this is bizarre. The report of Steyer dropping out appears to be untrue:
I just called Steyer's team, this isn't true. Steyer is not dropping out https://t.co/NabNLOuc1J — Zach Montellaro (@ZachMontellaro) February 12, 2020
Makes sense — like I say, he’s well positioned in South Carolina. How the hell did this phony report of him quitting get going?
Update: Dave Wasserman is now projecting that Klobuchar won’t catch Sanders or Buttigieg for second. It’s a two-man race.
Update: Tulsi Gabbard is telling supporters she’ll go on to South Carolina. Lord knows why. This is surprising, though:
https://twitter.com/abbyfridmannTV/status/1227407255303327747
Steyer’s spent a bundle in South Carolina and is polling near 20 percent! And Biden, the frontrunner, may be about to collapse. Why would he bail now instead of taking a shot there?
Update: Disaster.
There’s a five-alarm fire for Joe Biden in the exit polls. The base of his campaign is electability. And among electability voters in NH, who should be Biden’s core constituency, the former vice president is running fourth. https://t.co/bbSKcZlJXi via @business @bpolitics — Derek Wallbank (@dwallbank) February 12, 2020
There’s no telling how poor Biden’s national polling will be next week. If he’s in third or even fourth, how does he possibly win South Carolina?
Update: A third of the vote is now in and the top three remain separated by seven points or so, with Buttigieg squarely in between Sanders and Klobuchar. An obvious what-if: What if Klobuchar had whiffed at last Friday’s debate? Clearly she’s gained a bunch of moderate votes that would have gone elsewhere. How many of them would have gone to Buttigieg? Enough to push him past Bernie tonight?
Update: Michael Bennet — who, yes, is technically running for president — is no longer running for president. Tulsi Gabbard is also likely to drop out tonight, as she spent the last several months in New Hampshire hoping to convince Republican-leaning independents to turn out for her and give her a boost. It’s not happening.
Update: Man.
MSNBC projecting Warren and Biden will be shut out of delegates in NH. — Philip Klein (@philipaklein) February 12, 2020
Update: Here’s Yang’s farewell. When was the last time a random dude ran for president, did well enough to make most of the debates, and left the race with pretty much everyone liking him?
Andrew Yang ends his presidential campaign pic.twitter.com/NK14K7p5bS — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) February 12, 2020
Update: Bernie’s lead has held very steady at around five points over the last 45 minutes. Lots still to count but there’s more suspense about who’ll finish second than who’ll win.
Update: Twenty percent of precincts are reporting now and Warren and Biden are still in single digits. The Biden death watch will begin aggressively tomorrow but don’t overlook Warren’s failure:
These are just ugly numbers for Biden/Warren. But Biden can at least claim the state isn't racially diverse. Warren is literally from next door. — (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) February 12, 2020
Right, and Biden’s still got a shot at some sort of encouraging result in South Carolina. I think Warren might take one more shot in Nevada, but if it doesn’t happen for her in the caucus then I think she’s done. She’s not going to pull some mammoth upset in South Carolina. There’d be no point in competing there.
As for Biden, I wonder if Democratic donors will treat Klobuchar’s surge tonight as their cue to dig deep and kick in. She’s a more comfortable centrist alternative for them than Buttigieg because she’s a known quantity.
Update: At 8 p.m. ET, CNN is reporting that Andrew Yang is set to suspend his campaign. He was hoping for a slingshot effect from Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s at three percent with around 15 percent reporting tonight, not enough. Tough night for the Yang Gang, although they can take comfort in the fact that he outlasted supposed heavy hitters like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. And given the way Biden’s going tonight, he may have only barely missed outlasting Joe.
BuzzFeed has a postmortem of his campaign with some choice quotes from the man himself. “There’s also a competitive part of me too — like I can’t believe I lost to these people.”
The Daily Beast asked Yang if he’d provide his staffers with Universal Basic Income, the plan he’s proposed for America that would pay everyone $1,000 per month. Yang said he wasn’t sure his campaign had the resources, which is a fitting conclusion to the big UBI scheme.
Update: If Klobuchar does finish a strong third behind Buttigieg, complicating his attempt to consolidate the center, it’ll be the second presidential cycle in a row in which a debate seemed to materially change the course of the race in New Hampshire. In 2016 it was Chris Christie’s kill shot of a rising Marco Rubio that seemed to stop Rubio cold.
Update: With 10 percent in, Bernie leads by five points over Buttigieg, with Klobuchar less than two points behind for second. Warren and Biden are both in single digits. This could be genuinely gruesome for both, especially Joe.
The two progressive candidates, Sanders and Warren, are combining for 38 percent right now. The three moderates, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden, are combining for 51 percent.
Update: Hoo boy. We might be headed for a Democratic panic tomorrow over turnout.
From the results I'm seeing, turnout in NH looks a little lower or on par with 2016 — G. Elliott Morris (@gelliottmorris) February 12, 2020
Update: Verrrrry early, but Dave Wasserman is watching the numbers and is always worth paying attention to:
First Concord, NH precinct to report (state capital): Klobuchar 477
Buttigieg 378
Sanders 238
Warren 205
Biden 118 Wow. — Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) February 12, 2020
Breaking: the Amy Klobuchar NH surge is real. — Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) February 12, 2020
Remember that Klomentum isn’t a bad result for Bernie. To the contrary, keeping centrists divided among alternatives for as long as possible is important to his chances. In fact, according to FiveThirtyEight’s model, a second-place finish for Klobuchar tonight would maximize Sanders’s chances at the nomination.
***
I mean, you never know with these people. I’m cautiously optimistic that New Hampshire Democrats can execute a straightforward “Who’s your first choice for president?” ballot count with reasonable accuracy in the span of a few hours.
Tentatively hopeful.
Warily encouraged.
Either way, it’s Bernie’s race to lose. Last week, in the first flush of news that Buttigieg had overperformed in Iowa, Mayor Pete got a bounce in one tracking poll of New Hampshire that pushed him into the lead by a point for a single day. Then came Friday night’s debate, when Amy Klobuchar landed a few haymakers that pulled him back towards the pack and vaulted Klobuchar herself past Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden into third place. The last few polls of the state have been notably consistent: Bernie’s approaching 30 percent of the vote and leads by seven or eight points, with Buttigieg in the low 20s and Klobuchar possibly in the mid-teens. They’ll probably finish in that order tonight — especially since Klobuchar may benefit from Joe Biden’s odd decision to bug out and head to South Carolina before voting is finished in New Hampshire today. Any centrist undecideds who were torn between him and Klobuchar now have an incentive to tilt towards her, which may push her up further.
And may also push Biden down. In fact, there’s a nonzero chance that Grandpa Joe, the national frontrunner since day one, may finish in the single digits in New Hampshire this evening. If he does, the Biden 2020 death watch will dominate media coverage of the race for the rest of this week and beyond.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. New Hampshire produced one of the most momentous polling errors in modern political history not long ago, as some of you may remember. I remember 2008 well — Obama fresh off an upstart win in Iowa and suddenly dominating in polls of NH, seemingly poised to run the table and make quick work of Hillary Clinton. Here’s what the final few days of polling in that race looked like, in reverse chronological order. The actual result is on top:
You don’t see an 11-point miss in the polling average very often. That’s about what it would take to deny Bernie a win — but like I say, Biden’s early departure from the state adds an element of unpredictability tonight. If thousands and thousands of New Hampshire Dems who were planning to vote for Joe now switch to Pete or Amy at the last moment, it’s anyone’s guess how this shakes out. Klobuchar’s probably too far back to catch Bernie. Is Buttigieg?
There’s another element of unpredictability tonight. That’s the semi-open nature of New Hampshire’s primary, which allows independents to vote in either party’s election. Any Republican-leaning indie in NH who wants to try to influence the Democratic nomination is free to do so. The question is whether they’ll be mischievous about it, attempting to boost the weakest general-election candidate in the name of clearing Trump’s path to reelection, or if they’ll be earnest about it, attempting to boost an electable centrist in the name of stopping Bernie’s socialist revolution from advancing. There’ll be some of both at the polls tonight. Maybe they cancel each other out, with the first group breaking for Bernie and the second breaking for Buttigieg and Klobuchar. But if there’s more of one than the other, the expected results may change meaningfully.
For the four non-Bernie candidates, tonight’s calculus is simple: Finish as strongly as you can and don’t worry about where everyone else finishes. The centrist lane will be a muddle for awhile no matter what happens (unless Biden comes out of nowhere to finish first or second, which is hiiiiighly unlikely) and the progressive lane will be a muddle *at best*, if Warren finishes surprisingly well. Her campaign is talking tough, promising a long race…
Behind the scenes, Warren advisers are girding for a long, drawn-out fight for the nomination. Three sources close to Warren’s campaign say that her path forward is a version of slow-and-steady wins the race. If Warren can stay in a consistent second or third place while her opponents rise and fall, especially in big states like California and Texas, then she can accumulate delegates heading into the convention without necessarily racking up big first-place victories, the thinking goes. Hanging out in second place also lets the front-runners beat each other up, while she stays above the fray. The campaign believes it is well-positioned for a long national fight, having already dispatched more than 1,000 staffers across 31 states, with 80% focused on grassroots organizing, according to a January memo from campaign manager Roger Lau. Unlike some of her rivals, who have been laser-focused on Iowa and New Hampshire, Warren has always taken the long view when it comes to a national campaign. “We have the delegate strategy,” says communications director Kristen Orthman. “Which is how you win a nomination.”
…but it’s impossible to believe she’ll hang around if she finishes fourth or worse tonight and in Nevada and South Carolina. Even if she succeeds in pulling off a string of third-place finishes, she’s all but guaranteed to still finish behind Bernie in those races. How does she end up with the nomination if she’s third in delegates at a contested convention? If the idea is for her to be a compromise candidate between a socialist wing of the party that backs Sanders and a centrist wing that backs Buttigieg or Bloomberg or whoever, it seems to me it’s more likely we’d get a unity ticket comprised of Sanders and the moderate challenger than the nomination of someone like Warren whom voters in either wing didn’t much like.
As for Bernie, what he wants from tonight is slightly more complicated — a victory, of course, but ideally also a photo finish between Buttigieg and Klobuchar to keep both of them in the race followed by Biden far behind. The longer the centrist vote remains splintered, the better for Sanders. I think he’d prefer that Warren finish fifth since that might force her out of the race sooner, freeing up her voters to switch to him. Normally we’d expect New Hampshire to clarify which candidate or candidates have a credible shot at the nomination but tonight may create a giant muddle, particularly if Bernie underperforms. And particularly since Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg are about to become factors in the 48 states yet to vote.
Polls close at 7 p.m. ET in some parts of the state and at 8 p.m. in the rest. Updates will follow at the top of the page. One more very important number to bear in mind tonight: Turnout. Democrats were expecting blowout turnout in Iowa, possibly exceeding even the blockbuster showing of the 2008 caucus, but they didn’t get it. That’s made them nervous since they’re counting on intense enthusiasm among their base to beat Trump this fall and figured they’d see hard evidence of it on caucus night. If turnout disappoints tonight too, they’re going to start panicking that the great anti-Trump wave they’re counting on in November might not materialize after all. Turnout in the 2016 Democratic NH primary was a shade over 250,000; turnout in the 2008 NH Democratic primary, the Obama/Clinton death match, was a hair over 284,000. Those are the benchmarks for tonight.
I’ll leave you with this, from the early exit polls. Hoo boy. Not good for Bernie, also not good for the party.
NBC exit poll: 11% of voters 18-29 in New Hampshire (was 19% in 2016). (corrected from earlier) — Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) February 11, 2020
Could it be that there’s a big crossover Republican vote, pushing down the total share of liberals/young voters?
Lotta late deciders too. Maybe the odds of another massive polling miss in NH are lower than I thought.


hotair--2020-02-11--All four federal prosecutors in Roger Stone case resign after DOJ insists on lower sentencing recomm

All four federal prosecutors in Roger Stone case resign after DOJ insists on lower sentencing recommendation

The right thing to do .
No one can stop Trump from handing out corrupt pardons to his sleazy cronies but a prosecutor can and should refuse to revisit what he believes is the proper sentencing recommendation just because it gave the president the sads .
People should keep resigning until Bill Barr himself has to go into court and inform the judge personally that he ’ s been notified by a tweet that the original sentence was too harsh .
Ed speculated this morning that Stone ( and Mike Flynn , and probably Paul Manafort ) will be pardoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I used to think Trump would wait until after the election but now I think he ’ s going to do this soon , possibly before the month is out .
That ’ s the “ lesson ” he learned from impeachment : No matter what he does , the party will have his back .
All the yammering this past week from Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander about Trump supposedly learning to behave better from the “ ordeal ” of impeachment is already being exposed as the nonsense it is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate vote .
They ’ ll never hold him to account .
There ’ s no way he waits until November to spring Stone and Flynn now .
But that ’ s also why I believe the DOJ when they say Trump didn ’ t intervene directly to get Stone ’ s sentencing recommendation changed .
Right , he didn ’ t need to .
He ’ d already tweeted about the alleged injustice of it and he ’ s planning to let Stone out of jail anyway sooner rather than later .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it made the boss unhappy and so the DOJ leadership now feels obliged to scramble to show fealty .
The resignations are coming faster than the media can keep up .
Since the NYT reported that , a third prosecutor has resigned from the case : The DOJ ’ s explanation for wanting the sentencing recommendation lowered is that prosecutors on the Stone case allegedly lied to them about the sentence they planned to request for him .
“ The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an official to Fox News .
“ The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.
” WaPo also claims that there were disagreements between DOJ brass and the front-line prosecutors handling the matter , which is interesting in itself : As Monday ’ s court deadline neared for prosecutors to give a sentencing recommendation , it was still unclear what the office would do , after days of tense internal debates on the subject , according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some previously from Mueller ’ s team , argued for a prison sentence on the higher end , while their bosses wanted to calculate the guidelines differently to get to a lower sentence .
The debate centered around whether they should seek more prison time for obstruction that impedes the administration of justice , these people said… Mary McCord , a former prosecutor and acting assistant attorney general for the department ’ s National Security Division , said decisions related to the sentencing of such high-profile political figures would not be made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office and Justice Department headquarters , and that it was is hard to imagine the department was truly taken aback .
Ken White , a former assistant U.S. Attorney , also finds it far-fetched : Yeah , I ’ d be curious to know how often DOJ brass intervene to demand leniency on behalf of a poor misunderstood defendant because their own prosecutors , who ’ ve already obtained a conviction , are being hard-asses about the sentence .
I ’ d also be curious to know if there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Zed briefed their bosses on one sentencing recommendation and then turned around in court and made a completely different recommendation .
Any emails attesting to that ?
Texts ?
If Barr and his team were prepared to accept the political fallout of changing the sentencing recommendation because they had been ( supposedly ) misled , why didn ’ t Barr fire the three of them before they resigned ?
Surely lying to superiors , especially in a high-profile case , is grounds for dismissal .
I assume the MAGA view of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are Mueller guys and therefore the hidden hand of Mueller is at work here , somehow squeezing the acting U.S. Attorney presiding over the case , Timothy Shea .
But Shea is a former close advisor to Barr , per WaPo ; with a friend as highly placed as that , and with the power inherent in his position , he ’ s not going to be pushed around by rank-and-file prosecutors .
Did Shea sign off on the harsh sentencing recommendation for Stone ?
All WaPo will say is that he hadn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final hours before the sentencing recommendation was due .
If anyone got muscled here by a heavy hand , I wonder if it was Shea by first siding with the sentence Kravis et al .
wanted and then getting an earful about it afterward from Barr .
The most charitable interpretation of all this for the DOJ apart from the “ Mueller guys gone rogue !
” theory is that they wanted a lighter sentence for Stone because they believed that a harsher one would only make a Trump pardon that much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , he ’ ll serve one with good behavior , perhaps .
Maybe the president will let him serve a sentence that short , as Trump knows that a corrupt pardon is a political liability for him ( which is why Flynn hasn ’ t been pardoned yet ) .
Whereas if Stone gets seven years and has to serve three , maybe Trump will decide that his big win on impeachment has given him enough political capital to start pardoning people immediately .
Conceivably , and paradoxically , DOJ leaders may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a lighter sentence given the risk of a Trump pardon than he ’ d do with a heavier one .
But we ’ re giving the leadership a *lot* of credit ethically and morally if we assume that .
Occam ’ s Razor suggests that they ’ re intervening here because they know the president will be displeased if his friend gets a harsh sentence and want to minimize the risk of that to whatever extent possible .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s another comment from Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Collins , that he learned a very particular lesson from the trial and it wasn ’ t “ play nice from now on .
”

The right thing to do. No one can stop Trump from handing out corrupt pardons to his sleazy cronies but a prosecutor can and should refuse to revisit what he believes is the proper sentencing recommendation just because it gave the president the sads. People should keep resigning until Bill Barr himself has to go into court and inform the judge personally that he’s been notified by a tweet that the original sentence was too harsh.
Ed speculated this morning that Stone (and Mike Flynn, and probably Paul Manafort) will be pardoned shortly after the election. I disagree. I used to think Trump would wait until after the election but now I think he’s going to do this soon, possibly before the month is out. That’s the “lesson” he learned from impeachment: No matter what he does, the party will have his back. All the yammering this past week from Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander about Trump supposedly learning to behave better from the “ordeal” of impeachment is already being exposed as the nonsense it is, less than a week after the final Senate vote. They’ll never hold him to account. There’s no way he waits until November to spring Stone and Flynn now.
But that’s also why I believe the DOJ when they say Trump didn’t intervene directly to get Stone’s sentencing recommendation changed. Right, he didn’t need to. He’d already tweeted about the alleged injustice of it and he’s planning to let Stone out of jail anyway sooner rather than later. The recommendation is academic except insofar as it made the boss unhappy and so the DOJ leadership now feels obliged to scramble to show fealty.
Hours after the Justice Department said that it would lower Mr. Stone’s guidelines, a prosecutor on the case, Jonathan Kravis, told the court he had resigned “and therefore no longer represents the government in this matter.” And a member of Mr. Mueller’s team who helped lead the prosecution of Mr. Stone, Aaron Zelinsky, withdrew from the case. He also resigned from a special assignment with the United States attorney’s office in Washington, though he will continue to work for the Justice Department in Baltimore.
The resignations are coming faster than the media can keep up. Since the NYT reported that, a third prosecutor has resigned from the case:
Adam Jed becomes the third Stone prosecutor to withdraw, days before sentencing. pic.twitter.com/P1gT1LUlqL — Andrew Prokop (@awprokop) February 11, 2020
And then a fourth:
The DOJ’s explanation for wanting the sentencing recommendation lowered is that prosecutors on the Stone case allegedly lied to them about the sentence they planned to request for him. “The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the Stone case last night,” said an official to Fox News. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.” WaPo also claims that there were disagreements between DOJ brass and the front-line prosecutors handling the matter, which is interesting in itself:
As Monday’s court deadline neared for prosecutors to give a sentencing recommendation, it was still unclear what the office would do, after days of tense internal debates on the subject, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Front-line prosecutors, some previously from Mueller’s team, argued for a prison sentence on the higher end, while their bosses wanted to calculate the guidelines differently to get to a lower sentence. The debate centered around whether they should seek more prison time for obstruction that impedes the administration of justice, these people said… Mary McCord, a former prosecutor and acting assistant attorney general for the department’s National Security Division, said decisions related to the sentencing of such high-profile political figures would not be made without initial consultation between a U.S. attorney’s office and Justice Department headquarters, and that it was is hard to imagine the department was truly taken aback.
Ken White, a former assistant U.S. Attorney, also finds it far-fetched:
I've been doing this for a while an "DoJ shocked at how harsh local AUSA is being" is . . . new to me.https://t.co/wOaN6ALwgR — IncitementToResurrectionHat (@Popehat) February 11, 2020
Yeah, I’d be curious to know how often DOJ brass intervene to demand leniency on behalf of a poor misunderstood defendant because their own prosecutors, who’ve already obtained a conviction, are being hard-asses about the sentence.
I’d also be curious to know if there’s any hard evidence that Kravis, Zelinsky, and Zed briefed their bosses on one sentencing recommendation and then turned around in court and made a completely different recommendation. Any emails attesting to that? Texts? If Barr and his team were prepared to accept the political fallout of changing the sentencing recommendation because they had been (supposedly) misled, why didn’t Barr fire the three of them before they resigned? Surely lying to superiors, especially in a high-profile case, is grounds for dismissal.
I assume the MAGA view of this will be that Zelinsky and Kravis are Mueller guys and therefore the hidden hand of Mueller is at work here, somehow squeezing the acting U.S. Attorney presiding over the case, Timothy Shea. But Shea is a former close advisor to Barr, per WaPo; with a friend as highly placed as that, and with the power inherent in his position, he’s not going to be pushed around by rank-and-file prosecutors. Did Shea sign off on the harsh sentencing recommendation for Stone? All WaPo will say is that he hadn’t made a decision yet in the final hours before the sentencing recommendation was due. If anyone got muscled here by a heavy hand, I wonder if it was Shea by first siding with the sentence Kravis et al. wanted and then getting an earful about it afterward from Barr.
The most charitable interpretation of all this for the DOJ apart from the “Mueller guys gone rogue!” theory is that they wanted a lighter sentence for Stone because they believed that a harsher one would only make a Trump pardon that much more likely. If he gets three years, he’ll serve one with good behavior, perhaps. Maybe the president will let him serve a sentence that short, as Trump knows that a corrupt pardon is a political liability for him (which is why Flynn hasn’t been pardoned yet). Whereas if Stone gets seven years and has to serve three, maybe Trump will decide that his big win on impeachment has given him enough political capital to start pardoning people immediately. Conceivably, and paradoxically, DOJ leaders may have thought Stone would do more time with a lighter sentence given the risk of a Trump pardon than he’d do with a heavier one.
But we’re giving the leadership a *lot* of credit ethically and morally if we assume that. Occam’s Razor suggests that they’re intervening here because they know the president will be displeased if his friend gets a harsh sentence and want to minimize the risk of that to whatever extent possible.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s another comment from Trump this afternoon proving again, contra Alexander and Collins, that he learned a very particular lesson from the trial and it wasn’t “play nice from now on.”


hotair--2020-02-11--First DHS, now DoJ: Trump administration opens new front in legal war against sanctuary cities

“ It looks like the administration is declaring war on sanctuary cities , ” Fox Business host David Asman remarked yesterday , but that ’ s only partially true .
Donald Trump declared war on the sanctuary-city movement as far back as 2015 , and has repeatedly promised to prosecute it all during his presidency .
Over the last few weeks , however , the Trump administration has finally started to fight a few battles in court and through regulation .
Attorney General William P. Barr announced Monday that the Justice Department would sue two so-called “ sanctuary ” jurisdictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — over policies he considers overly friendly to those in the country unlawfully , as part of a renewed effort to get cities and states on board with the Trump administration ’ s crackdown on illegal immigration .
In separate complaints filed in federal court , the Justice Department sought to block a New Jersey policy that limits how state and local authorities can share information with federal immigration officials and to stop a King County , Wash. , directive that prevents immigration authorities from using an international airport there for deportations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Barr announced the lawsuits in a speech to the National Sheriffs ’ Association , saying they were part of “ a significant escalation in the federal government ’ s efforts to confront the resistance of ‘ sanctuary cities.
’ ” He said he also was reviewing the practice of some state and local prosecutors who charge criminals with lesser offenses to avoid deportation , and giving non-sanctuary jurisdictions priority when it comes to awarding certain grant money .
This follows moves by DHS to exclude New York from two of its traveler-convenience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get official identification .
The justification was that DHS relies on state IDs to develop trusted-traveler programs , and deliberately allowing those already in the US illegally undermines the security of those programs for everyone else .
Andrew Cuomo has threatened to sue , but Barr hints in this speech that New York won ’ t be the last state excluded from the program : The department is filing a complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with DHS .
We are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County , Washington , for the policy I mentioned a moment ago that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport .
Further , we are reviewing the practices , policies , and laws of other jurisdictions across the country .
This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws , in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use all lawful means to obtain the information it needs to carry out its mission .
That includes the use of federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions .
We have taken and will take all appropriate action in federal court to ensure compliance with these federal subpoenas .
Last but not least , we are meticulously reviewing the actions of certain district attorneys who have adopted policies of charging foreign nationals with lesser offenses for the express purpose of avoiding the federal immigration consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In pursuing their personal ambitions and misguided notions of equal justice , these district attorneys are systematically violating the rule of law and may even be unlawfully discriminating against American citizens .
Ironically , this issue has conservatives arguing for federal supremacy and progressives arguing for state sovereignty .
However , the Constitution clearly gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization , rather than to the states , and for pretty obvious reasons .
As Barr notes , the Supremacy Clause means that federal law in an area within federal jurisdiction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local policies .
The issue goes deeper than that , though ; states are refusing to recognize legitimate federal warrants to protest policy they don ’ t like , which is a violation of their oaths of office .
The Washington Post attempts to indirectly justify it by attacking the policy : And … so ?
It might not be great policy , but enforcement is still a policy decision .
That decision belongs to the federal government in accordance with federal statute , and states are obliged to comply with legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t matter what overall statistics can be shown to prove except in elections where policy differences are hashed out by the voters .
People who break the law — immigration or otherwise — are subject to prosecution for it .
If this administration is too enthusiastic about it for some voters , they can choose another president in November .
For the moment , though , Trump is president and is choosing to enforce the law according to his priorities and is doing so in an entirely legal manner .
States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctuary policies have long been a cost-free way to pander to progressives in their communities .
The Trump administration has belatedly begun to change that calculation .
It ’ s about time they did , so that we can stop using stunts as a substitute for actual policy debate and a better approach to immigration enforcement policy .
Until those costs get applied across the board , no one has an incentive to bargain .

“It looks like the administration is declaring war on sanctuary cities,” Fox Business host David Asman remarked yesterday, but that’s only partially true. Donald Trump declared war on the sanctuary-city movement as far back as 2015, and has repeatedly promised to prosecute it all during his presidency. Over the last few weeks, however, the Trump administration has finally started to fight a few battles in court and through regulation.
Attorney General William Barr launched a new volley yesterday:
Attorney General William P. Barr announced Monday that the Justice Department would sue two so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions — including the state of New Jersey — over policies he considers overly friendly to those in the country unlawfully, as part of a renewed effort to get cities and states on board with the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. In separate complaints filed in federal court, the Justice Department sought to block a New Jersey policy that limits how state and local authorities can share information with federal immigration officials and to stop a King County, Wash., directive that prevents immigration authorities from using an international airport there for deportations. King County includes the city of Seattle. Barr announced the lawsuits in a speech to the National Sheriffs’ Association, saying they were part of “a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of ‘sanctuary cities.’ ” He said he also was reviewing the practice of some state and local prosecutors who charge criminals with lesser offenses to avoid deportation, and giving non-sanctuary jurisdictions priority when it comes to awarding certain grant money.
This follows moves by DHS to exclude New York from two of its traveler-convenience programs after the state allowed illegal aliens to get official identification. The justification was that DHS relies on state IDs to develop trusted-traveler programs, and deliberately allowing those already in the US illegally undermines the security of those programs for everyone else. Andrew Cuomo has threatened to sue, but Barr hints in this speech that New York won’t be the last state excluded from the program:
The department is filing a complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS. We are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy I mentioned a moment ago that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport. Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country. This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States. We are robustly supporting DHS in its effort to use all lawful means to obtain the information it needs to carry out its mission. That includes the use of federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions. We have taken and will take all appropriate action in federal court to ensure compliance with these federal subpoenas. Last but not least, we are meticulously reviewing the actions of certain district attorneys who have adopted policies of charging foreign nationals with lesser offenses for the express purpose of avoiding the federal immigration consequences of those nationals’ criminal conduct. In pursuing their personal ambitions and misguided notions of equal justice, these district attorneys are systematically violating the rule of law and may even be unlawfully discriminating against American citizens.
Ironically, this issue has conservatives arguing for federal supremacy and progressives arguing for state sovereignty. However, the Constitution clearly gives the federal government jurisdiction over immigration and naturalization, rather than to the states, and for pretty obvious reasons. As Barr notes, the Supremacy Clause means that federal law in an area within federal jurisdiction trumps (so to speak) state and local policies. The issue goes deeper than that, though; states are refusing to recognize legitimate federal warrants to protest policy they don’t like, which is a violation of their oaths of office.
The Washington Post attempts to indirectly justify it by attacking the policy:
Determining a link between illegal immigration and other crimes has proven difficult statistically, though some research shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than those who are native born.
And … so? It might not be great policy, but enforcement is still a policy decision. That decision belongs to the federal government in accordance with federal statute, and states are obliged to comply with legal orders that come from it. It doesn’t matter what overall statistics can be shown to prove except in elections where policy differences are hashed out by the voters. People who break the law — immigration or otherwise — are subject to prosecution for it. If this administration is too enthusiastic about it for some voters, they can choose another president in November. For the moment, though, Trump is president and is choosing to enforce the law according to his priorities and is doing so in an entirely legal manner.
States and cities are howling about this because sanctuary policies have long been a cost-free way to pander to progressives in their communities. The Trump administration has belatedly begun to change that calculation. It’s about time they did, so that we can stop using stunts as a substitute for actual policy debate and a better approach to immigration enforcement policy. Until those costs get applied across the board, no one has an incentive to bargain.


hotair--2020-02-11--Man who drove through GOP voter registration tent did it to 'take a stand' against Trump

Yesterday I wrote about Gregory Timm , the 27-year-old man who drove his van though a GOP voter registration tent set up in a Florida parking lot last weekend .
There were six volunteers staffing the tent at the time and two of them had to move quickly out of the way to avoid being hit .
Timm was arrested a few hours after the incident at his home but , as of yesterday , police still hadn ’ t revealed what motivated him .
Today , the police report has been released and it makes it very clear what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : According to JSO investigators who tracked him down , Timm admitted to purposefully driving into the tent because “ someone had to take a stand.
” Timm told investigators he saw the registration tent after he went to pick up food and cigarettes and a nearby Walmart , according to JSO .
He then showed investigators a video he recorded while driving towards the tent , according to JSO , but the video cut out before he hit the tent .
According to the report , Timm said he was upset that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part.
” … The suspect told investigators he does not like President Trump and that was part of the reason he wanted to run over the tent , according to the arrest report .
Timm told the officers who arrested him that the registration tent was , “ like someone sh**ting on your grave.
” Politico has published the full police report which you can read here .
This isn ’ t much of a surprise .
What else could have motivated someone to drive through a registration tent plastered with Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this information almost immediately .
And yet , as of yesterday , they refused to say anything about Timm ’ s motive in the case .
Timm apparently claimed he wasn ’ t trying to hurt anyone but an eyewitness claimed he missed hitting some of the volunteers by less than a foot as they quickly moved out of his way .
He deserves to have the book thrown at him for this stunt .
And it ’ s worth noting that he recorded the entire thing , before and after , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was something he ’ d want to share with others who would approve of what he ’ d done .
Finally , this story is getting some media attention ( Politico has done 2 stories , the Post covered it yesterday ) but when I wrote about it yesterday I suggested maybe one reason the media ’ s reaction had been a bit tepid was that the police hadn ’ t made clear his motive .
Now that the police have done that , albeit belatedly , this incident ought to get some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually very interested in acts of political violence .

Yesterday I wrote about Gregory Timm, the 27-year-old man who drove his van though a GOP voter registration tent set up in a Florida parking lot last weekend. There were six volunteers staffing the tent at the time and two of them had to move quickly out of the way to avoid being hit. Timm was arrested a few hours after the incident at his home but, as of yesterday, police still hadn’t revealed what motivated him. Today, the police report has been released and it makes it very clear what motivated Timm was animosity toward the president:
According to JSO investigators who tracked him down, Timm admitted to purposefully driving into the tent because “someone had to take a stand.” Timm told investigators he saw the registration tent after he went to pick up food and cigarettes and a nearby Walmart, according to JSO. He then showed investigators a video he recorded while driving towards the tent, according to JSO, but the video cut out before he hit the tent. According to the report, Timm said he was upset that the video ended before “the good part.”… The suspect told investigators he does not like President Trump and that was part of the reason he wanted to run over the tent, according to the arrest report.
Timm told the officers who arrested him that the registration tent was, “like someone sh**ting on your grave.” Politico has published the full police report which you can read here.
This isn’t much of a surprise. What else could have motivated someone to drive through a registration tent plastered with Trump’s name. The police clearly had this information almost immediately. And yet, as of yesterday, they refused to say anything about Timm’s motive in the case.
Timm apparently claimed he wasn’t trying to hurt anyone but an eyewitness claimed he missed hitting some of the volunteers by less than a foot as they quickly moved out of his way. He deserves to have the book thrown at him for this stunt. And it’s worth noting that he recorded the entire thing, before and after, on his phone. Timm clearly thought this was something he’d want to share with others who would approve of what he’d done.
Finally, this story is getting some media attention (Politico has done 2 stories, the Post covered it yesterday) but when I wrote about it yesterday I suggested maybe one reason the media’s reaction had been a bit tepid was that the police hadn’t made clear his motive. Now that the police have done that, albeit belatedly, this incident ought to get some serious attention from media outlets that are usually very interested in acts of political violence.


hotair--2020-02-11--Tragically, the first "ceasefire weekend" in Baltimore of 2020 went about as well as you'd expect

As we ’ ve previously discussed here , the violent crime and gang violence situation in Baltimore Maryland hasn ’ t shown any signs of slowing down since the new year began .
Charm City recorded an average of more than one murder per day through the month of January .
Admirably , community leaders and the local churches once again teamed up last week to attempt another “ ceasefire weekend , ” imploring the gangs to stay inside and stop the bloodshed for just 72 hours .
Unfortunately , it appears that the gangs aren ’ t in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From Friday through Sunday , fifteen people were shot with three of them not surviving their injuries .
( CBS Baltimore ) Though this weekend was the first Baltimore Ceasefire Weekend of 2020 , the city still saw violence , with 12 people shot between Friday and Saturday evening , and three more shot Sunday .
Three of the victims have died .
The latest shooting reported was at around 10:40 p.m. Sunday night , when officers responded to the unit block of York Court .
When they arrived they found the victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already .
Officers went to that hospital and found a 29-year-old man who had been shot in the neck .
He has since been stabilized .
The somewhat clinical CBS report continues on , reading like a military summary from a battlefield .
Police respond to reports of gunshots or violence .
They find one or more people with gunshot wounds to various parts of their bodies .
Most are transported to one of the city ’ s hospitals .
Many are listed as “ expected to survive ” while other ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community organizers who have been trying to recreate the occasional success they had last year aren ’ t giving up .
They include mothers who have lost their children to the bloodshed in the streets as well as pastors from local churches .
The trouble is that they appear to have very little influence over the behavior of the gangs .
And the police haven ’ t been able to put a dent in the murder numbers for several years .
That may be about to change .
In the next week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definition cameras will begin circling the skies over Baltimore 24/7 .
We ’ ve written about this project here before .
The planes and the infrastructure to support them are being provided at no cost to the taxpayers .
The whole thing is being paid for by a pair of wealthy philanthropists from Texas .
The technology on these planes is really incredible .
From a great height , they can cover the entire city and record details as small as license plate numbers on vehicles .
Once a report of a possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to pinpoint the location on the map and use the data from the plane to see everyone who was in the area .
They will also be able to track them back to where they came from and to their final destination after the attack .
Who knows ?
Once the word gets out on the street that there ’ s an eye in the sky , the gang bangers may think twice before pulling the trigger .
We ’ ll close with this short video report from NBC News demonstrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be able to do .
Cross your fingers .
Help may finally be on the way for Baltimore ’ s residents .

As we’ve previously discussed here, the violent crime and gang violence situation in Baltimore Maryland hasn’t shown any signs of slowing down since the new year began. Charm City recorded an average of more than one murder per day through the month of January. Admirably, community leaders and the local churches once again teamed up last week to attempt another “ceasefire weekend,” imploring the gangs to stay inside and stop the bloodshed for just 72 hours. Unfortunately, it appears that the gangs aren’t in the mood to listen this time around. From Friday through Sunday, fifteen people were shot with three of them not surviving their injuries. (CBS Baltimore)
Though this weekend was the first Baltimore Ceasefire Weekend of 2020, the city still saw violence, with 12 people shot between Friday and Saturday evening, and three more shot Sunday. Three of the victims have died. The latest shooting reported was at around 10:40 p.m. Sunday night, when officers responded to the unit block of York Court. When they arrived they found the victim had been taken to an area hospital already. Officers went to that hospital and found a 29-year-old man who had been shot in the neck. He has since been stabilized.
The somewhat clinical CBS report continues on, reading like a military summary from a battlefield. Police respond to reports of gunshots or violence. They find one or more people with gunshot wounds to various parts of their bodies. Most are transported to one of the city’s hospitals. Many are listed as “expected to survive” while other’s aren’t so lucky.
The community organizers who have been trying to recreate the occasional success they had last year aren’t giving up. They include mothers who have lost their children to the bloodshed in the streets as well as pastors from local churches. The trouble is that they appear to have very little influence over the behavior of the gangs. And the police haven’t been able to put a dent in the murder numbers for several years.
That may be about to change. In the next week, a series of surveillance planes with high definition cameras will begin circling the skies over Baltimore 24/7. We’ve written about this project here before. The planes and the infrastructure to support them are being provided at no cost to the taxpayers. The whole thing is being paid for by a pair of wealthy philanthropists from Texas.
The technology on these planes is really incredible. From a great height, they can cover the entire city and record details as small as license plate numbers on vehicles. Once a report of a possible shooting is received, the police will be able to pinpoint the location on the map and use the data from the plane to see everyone who was in the area. They will also be able to track them back to where they came from and to their final destination after the attack. Who knows? Once the word gets out on the street that there’s an eye in the sky, the gang bangers may think twice before pulling the trigger.
We’ll close with this short video report from NBC News demonstrating how the technology works and what they should be able to do. Cross your fingers. Help may finally be on the way for Baltimore’s residents.


hotair--2020-02-11--Wow: Plurality of Utahns feel positive about Romney's vote to remove Trump

It ’ s high time Utah broke free from this country and went its own way .
I ’ ll fully support their right to do so .
As long as they grant me a green card .
This poll by Scott Rasmussen for the Deseret News is … odd , in that it attempts to capture reaction to Romney ’ s impeachment vote by offering a variety of positive and negative words instead of a traditional “ Do you support or oppose it ?
” question .
Are you proud , encouraged , or pleased to have Romney as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted to remove Trump , asked Rasmussen , or are you disappointed , embarrassed , or angry ?
That was apparently his way of trying to capture the small but meaningful cohort of voters who may not have agreed with Romney on the merits but nonetheless respected the political courage he showed in crossing Trump .
I would have guessed 40/60 or thereabouts in a state this red , even allowing for the fact that Utah is more skeptical of Trump than the average Republican state .
Wrong .
As you might expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ split 83/13 on positive versus negative reaction to Romney ’ s vote .
Republicans split 31/60 — which is much more positive than you ’ d expect given how Republicans nationally felt about impeachment ( just seven percent said Trump should be removed in the latest YouGov poll ) but still a two-to-one ratio of negative to positive .
Romney ’ s overall approval rating also dropped ( slightly ) too while Trump ’ s approval rating rose ( slightly ) .
As for the more salient question of what this means for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost evenly , 36/37 , on whether his vote makes it more or less likely that they ’ ll vote for him .
But that result also has a sharp partisan divide , of course : Just 23 percent of Republicans are now more likely to vote for Romney versus 56 percent who are less likely .
The reason the overall margin is tight is because many Democrats are now more likely to vote for him than they used to be .
Or at least to say that they ’ re more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Utah Dems are crossing the aisle to vote for Mitt in 2024 , whether or not they ’ re marginally more “ likely ” to do so .
The 2012 election showed us what lefties think of Romney when something meaningful is on the line .
And in the meantime , a 23/56 split within his own party — the party that dominates the state — is good news for potential primary challengers .
This poll is encouraging for him in the sense that the bottom hasn ’ t dropped out of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to rebuild bridges .
Might not be easy !
Is Mike Lee going to be censured retroactively too for going nuclear on Trump ’ s aides after the Iran briefing last month ?
What about for the various times Lee has voted against Trump on war powers ?
What about the fact that Lee votes with Trump overall less often than Romney does ?
What about the time Lee led the charge on the convention floor in 2016 to try to deny Trump the delegates he needed for the nomination ?
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Romney is fine but surely we can ’ t finish with him .
One way to process the Rasmussen data above is to look back a few weeks to how impeachment was polling in Utah before Romney made up his mind .
In January the Salt Lake Tribune found Utahns decisively opposed to removing Trump , 35/59 , with all but five percent of that latter group claiming they were “ strongly ” opposed to it .
To turn around a few weeks later and have 49 percent reacting positively to Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negatively is a testament to the esteem in which Romney is held and/or the public ’ s grudging respect for how difficult it was for a Republican senator to cast a vote this momentous in a spot like that .
I guess all of those news stories over the past week quoting Utahns as seeming mildly approving , or at least understanding , of his decision weren ’ t as far off the mark as I assumed .
Exit quotation from Politico : “ Sens .
Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) and Ben @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JetBlue flight from Palm Beach to DCA on Monday morning .
Romney received a round of applause from passengers as he was waiting to deplane , per our tipster .
”

It’s high time Utah broke free from this country and went its own way. I’ll fully support their right to do so.
As long as they grant me a green card.
This poll by Scott Rasmussen for the Deseret News is … odd, in that it attempts to capture reaction to Romney’s impeachment vote by offering a variety of positive and negative words instead of a traditional “Do you support or oppose it?” question. Are you proud, encouraged, or pleased to have Romney as your senator now that he’s voted to remove Trump, asked Rasmussen, or are you disappointed, embarrassed, or angry? That was apparently his way of trying to capture the small but meaningful cohort of voters who may not have agreed with Romney on the merits but nonetheless respected the political courage he showed in crossing Trump.
I would have guessed 40/60 or thereabouts in a state this red, even allowing for the fact that Utah is more skeptical of Trump than the average Republican state. Wrong.
As you might expect, partisan reaction differed dramatically. Democrats split 83/13 on positive versus negative reaction to Romney’s vote. Republicans split 31/60 — which is much more positive than you’d expect given how Republicans nationally felt about impeachment (just seven percent said Trump should be removed in the latest YouGov poll) but still a two-to-one ratio of negative to positive. Romney’s overall approval rating also dropped (slightly) too while Trump’s approval rating rose (slightly).
As for the more salient question of what this means for his next Senate race, Utahns split almost evenly, 36/37, on whether his vote makes it more or less likely that they’ll vote for him. But that result also has a sharp partisan divide, of course: Just 23 percent of Republicans are now more likely to vote for Romney versus 56 percent who are less likely. The reason the overall margin is tight is because many Democrats are now more likely to vote for him than they used to be. Or at least to say that they’re more likely.
But c’mon. No Utah Dems are crossing the aisle to vote for Mitt in 2024, whether or not they’re marginally more “likely” to do so. The 2012 election showed us what lefties think of Romney when something meaningful is on the line. And in the meantime, a 23/56 split within his own party — the party that dominates the state — is good news for potential primary challengers. This poll is encouraging for him in the sense that the bottom hasn’t dropped out of his support but clearly he has work to do to rebuild bridges.
Might not be easy!
https://twitter.com/BrandonBeckham/status/1225968751415189504
Is Mike Lee going to be censured retroactively too for going nuclear on Trump’s aides after the Iran briefing last month? What about for the various times Lee has voted against Trump on war powers? What about the fact that Lee votes with Trump overall less often than Romney does? What about the time Lee led the charge on the convention floor in 2016 to try to deny Trump the delegates he needed for the nomination?
A lot of heretics need excommunication. Starting with Romney is fine but surely we can’t finish with him.
One way to process the Rasmussen data above is to look back a few weeks to how impeachment was polling in Utah before Romney made up his mind. In January the Salt Lake Tribune found Utahns decisively opposed to removing Trump, 35/59, with all but five percent of that latter group claiming they were “strongly” opposed to it. To turn around a few weeks later and have 49 percent reacting positively to Romney’s vote versus 40 percent reacting negatively is a testament to the esteem in which Romney is held and/or the public’s grudging respect for how difficult it was for a Republican senator to cast a vote this momentous in a spot like that. I guess all of those news stories over the past week quoting Utahns as seeming mildly approving, or at least understanding, of his decision weren’t as far off the mark as I assumed.
Exit quotation from Politico: “Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) on a JetBlue flight from Palm Beach to DCA on Monday morning. Romney received a round of applause from passengers as he was waiting to deplane, per our tipster.”


hotair--2020-02-11--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Granite State polling, Bernie rolling, Strzok-Page trolling, Stone pard

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Granite State polling, Bernie rolling, Strzok-Page trolling, Stone pardon tolling, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
What does the Iowa caucus say about the Democrats ’ ability to govern ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel plans say about his ability to win north of the Mason-Dixon line ?
• The DoJ originally demanded 7-9 years in prison for Roger Stone , but they backpedaled furiously when Trump called it a “ miscarriage of justice.
” Kurt Schlichter joins me to discuss presidential pardons and justice in the case , and we ’ ll talk about his new book Collapse as well .
• Will FBI Lovebirds : Undercovers get to play at CPAC ?
Phelim McAleer gives us the latest on his fundraising efforts , plus the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. What does the Iowa caucus say about the Democrats’ ability to govern? And what does Joe Biden’s travel plans say about his ability to win north of the Mason-Dixon line?
The DoJ originally demanded 7-9 years in prison for Roger Stone, but they backpedaled furiously when Trump called it a “miscarriage of justice.” Kurt Schlichter joins me to discuss presidential pardons and justice in the case, and we’ll talk about his new book Collapse as well.
Will FBI Lovebirds: Undercovers get to play at CPAC? Phelim McAleer gives us the latest on his fundraising efforts, plus the latest on the controversy surrounding the project.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-02-11--Putin Prank: Russians mock a portrait of the President in an elevator

The Moscow Times reported this prank yesterday .
The concept for the clip was simple .
A man placed a large , official looking portrait of President Vladimir Putin in the elevator of his building along with a camera that recorded people ’ s reactions as the elevator doors opened .
He then edited together the highlights to create this clip .
The reactions are great .
One older man gave the painting the Russian equivalent of a raspberry .
A young woman filming with her phone said , “ This is the worst thing that could happen to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman was more blunt , “ Holy f*** !
What idiot put that up ?
” Then there are the two young women who decide to take a selfie with one of them bowing in mock-supplication before the portrait .
Several of the people seem convinced they are being watched by the portrait itself .
Others note the camera in the elevator and appear to restrain themselves .
Here ’ s the shorter version of the clip published by the Moscow Times : The prankster behind it isn ’ t named in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That seems rather bold given that this clip has now attracted millions of views from around the world .
I guess he ’ s not too worried but maybe he should be .
Yesterday the New York Post reported on the gruesome death of a Putin critic in France : An outspoken blogger who routinely attacked Russia and Chechnya has been found dead in a French hotel with his throat slit and 100 stab wounds — and police suspect a “ political motivation , ” according to reports… The murder “ bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motivation , ” a source close to the investigation told AFP .
There ’ s a slightly longer version of the clip published by Radio Free Europe .
In this version the faces of the people on the elevator are blurred .
I also located the original clip which is even longer .
This is in Russian and there are no subtitles available but you can still understand most of the reactions : The prankster has also released a follow-up clip today which includes additional reactions that weren ’ t in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s supreme leader for life has seen this and , if so , how he reacted to this prank .
Finally , lots of people reacting to the clip on Twitter and YouTube are demanding an American version of the prank with a portrait of Trump instead of Putin .
I suspect one of the late night hosts is already working on it .

The Moscow Times reported this prank yesterday. The concept for the clip was simple. A man placed a large, official looking portrait of President Vladimir Putin in the elevator of his building along with a camera that recorded people’s reactions as the elevator doors opened. He then edited together the highlights to create this clip.
The reactions are great. One older man gave the painting the Russian equivalent of a raspberry. A young woman filming with her phone said, “This is the worst thing that could happen to our building after the renovation.” An older woman was more blunt, “Holy f***! What idiot put that up?” Then there are the two young women who decide to take a selfie with one of them bowing in mock-supplication before the portrait. Several of the people seem convinced they are being watched by the portrait itself. Others note the camera in the elevator and appear to restrain themselves. Here’s the shorter version of the clip published by the Moscow Times:
The prankster behind it isn’t named in the clip but you do see his face. That seems rather bold given that this clip has now attracted millions of views from around the world. I guess he’s not too worried but maybe he should be. Yesterday the New York Post reported on the gruesome death of a Putin critic in France:
An outspoken blogger who routinely attacked Russia and Chechnya has been found dead in a French hotel with his throat slit and 100 stab wounds — and police suspect a “political motivation,” according to reports… The murder “bears all the characteristics of having a political motivation,” a source close to the investigation told AFP.
There’s a slightly longer version of the clip published by Radio Free Europe. In this version the faces of the people on the elevator are blurred. I also located the original clip which is even longer. This is in Russian and there are no subtitles available but you can still understand most of the reactions:
The prankster has also released a follow-up clip today which includes additional reactions that weren’t in the first video. I wonder if Russia’s supreme leader for life has seen this and, if so, how he reacted to this prank.
Finally, lots of people reacting to the clip on Twitter and YouTube are demanding an American version of the prank with a portrait of Trump instead of Putin. I suspect one of the late night hosts is already working on it.


hotair--2020-02-11--Law to protect children from transgender intervention fails in South Dakota

Some depressing news out of the Mount Rushmore State this week .
State legislators there had been working on new legislation designed to protect children who are gender-confused from having invasive “ gender correcting ” medical procedures performed on them with the permission of their parents .
These include hormone therapy unnatural to their growing bodies , puberty blockers , and even surgery .
The legislation had already passed in the House , but a state senate committee somehow decided to kill the bill before it could even make it to a floor vote .
( Associated Press ) Legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing puberty blockers and gender confirmation surgery to transgender children under 16 failed to get enough support Monday in a Senate committee .
A Republican-dominated Senate committee voted 5-2 to kill the proposal , likely ensuring the issue won ’ t be considered by the Legislature again this year .
Proponents already had amended the bill to get rid of criminal charges for doctors who provide gender confirmation treatments , including puberty blockers , hormone therapy and surgery .
But it would have allowed children to sue if they later regretted the treatments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a depressing turn of events .
As the AP article notes , while there are similar pieces of legislation being considered in at least ten other states , South Dakota had been considered one of the states both conservative and sensible enough to put such a law in place and create a template for the rest of the country .
Committee members offered little by way of explanation other than to say they were “ unsure if the legislature should be delving into the issue.
” While I appreciate and applaud examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private affairs of citizens , that hardly seems to be the case here .
States regularly pass laws regulating medical treatment and practices and their vested interest in keeping children who may have fallen under destructive influences should have made this a doubly compelling argument in favor of passage .
This is particularly true in the rapidly growing number of cases we ’ ve been seeing of rapid onset or socialized gender dysphoria , where children are likely being influenced by their peers or even their parents into thought patterns that never would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turning into a tragic epidemic that ’ s being spread on social media and liberal news sites .
The fundamental rule in medical science is First Do No Harm .
How people are finding doctors willing to inject unnatural hormones into otherwise physically healthy children , block the natural onset of puberty or even mutilate them through irreversible surgery is a mystery .
There is clearly room for government oversight of and restrictions on these practices .
The fact that the majority in South Dakota couldn ’ t find a path through this @ @ @ @ @

Some depressing news out of the Mount Rushmore State this week. State legislators there had been working on new legislation designed to protect children who are gender-confused from having invasive “gender correcting” medical procedures performed on them with the permission of their parents. These include hormone therapy unnatural to their growing bodies, puberty blockers, and even surgery. The legislation had already passed in the House, but a state senate committee somehow decided to kill the bill before it could even make it to a floor vote. (Associated Press)
Legislation aimed at stopping South Dakota physicians from providing puberty blockers and gender confirmation surgery to transgender children under 16 failed to get enough support Monday in a Senate committee. A Republican-dominated Senate committee voted 5-2 to kill the proposal, likely ensuring the issue won’t be considered by the Legislature again this year. Proponents already had amended the bill to get rid of criminal charges for doctors who provide gender confirmation treatments, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery. But it would have allowed children to sue if they later regretted the treatments.
This is, as I said, a depressing turn of events. As the AP article notes, while there are similar pieces of legislation being considered in at least ten other states, South Dakota had been considered one of the states both conservative and sensible enough to put such a law in place and create a template for the rest of the country. Committee members offered little by way of explanation other than to say they were “unsure if the legislature should be delving into the issue.”
While I appreciate and applaud examples of small-government conservatism and restraint in the private affairs of citizens, that hardly seems to be the case here. States regularly pass laws regulating medical treatment and practices and their vested interest in keeping children who may have fallen under destructive influences should have made this a doubly compelling argument in favor of passage.
This is particularly true in the rapidly growing number of cases we’ve been seeing of rapid onset or socialized gender dysphoria, where children are likely being influenced by their peers or even their parents into thought patterns that never would have cropped up otherwise. This is turning into a tragic epidemic that’s being spread on social media and liberal news sites.
The fundamental rule in medical science is First Do No Harm. How people are finding doctors willing to inject unnatural hormones into otherwise physically healthy children, block the natural onset of puberty or even mutilate them through irreversible surgery is a mystery. There is clearly room for government oversight of and restrictions on these practices. The fact that the majority in South Dakota couldn’t find a path through this minefield is beyond depressing.