hotair--2020-02-13--BART system ridership has declined by 10 million over 5 years

I ’ ve written before about the problems on BART trains which include rising crime and a substantial increase in the number of homeless people using the trains as a moving shelter ( and occasionally a bathroom ) .
Not surprisingly , those and other problems have led to a substantial decrease in ridership .
Though trains continue to fill during rush hour , fewer people are riding BART to museums , parks or shopping centers .
Outside the peak commute times , ridership plummeted — from 62.2 million in 2015 to 52.7 million last year… A recent BART survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help explain the evening and weekend drops in ridership .
Nearly a third — 29 % — of respondents said they take BART less often on weekends than they did a year ago .
The primary reasons : They ’ re not traveling to places served by the rail system , and weekend rail service is too sparse .
Yet they also cited misgivings about crime , filth and homeless people seeking shelter on the rail system , which , according to the survey , were a bigger deterrent than service delays , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend track repair .
In short , people don ’ t want to ride the trains unless they have to do so for work .
The article notes there are other reasons for this , including the popularity of ride-share services and the decline of gas prices even as fares have gone up ( 5 % on January 1st of this year ) .
But the reports of crime , drugs and filth are certainly playing a role in the decline .
In fact , in response to an article blaming the decline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mercury News received responses from readers saying that wasn ’ t the reason : The quality of riding on a BART train has been degrading for years .
It is not the service provided by BART ; it ’ s the quality of the rider experience .
It feels less safe and less clean .
There are more homeless people occupying the cars .
We used to take BART to Giants games , but now we drive or don ’ t go at all .
Going on a non-work-related trip is discretionary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unclean , then that is a factor in deciding if the entire event is worth doing .
This is especially true for evening events .
Last year BART did a tally and concluded there were 292 homeless people for every 100 train cars .
Another reader wrote : Last Friday at the Richmond Station parking garage , there were four elevators .
One was broken , one had a large pool of vomit at the elevator entrance and inside , and on the sixth floor ( top level ) , there was tons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elevator doors .
So walk through vomit to get on the elevator and bird poop to get off .
And there was no agent in the booth , and no visible police or security .
Separately , the double-tall pay gate made me feel like I was entering and exiting a prison .
And one more : Just yesterday the Chronicle reported on a violent attack on a stranger that took place on a BART train : A man was beaten with a chain in an unprovoked attack aboard a BART train during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with injuries that required hospital treatment , officials said .
The unidentified victim was on a Daly City-bound train approaching Lake Merritt Station shortly after 6 p.m. when another man allegedly asked for directions and then hit him , according to BART spokesman Jim Allison .
The man responsible hasn ’ t been caught .
Why would anyone who doesn ’ t have to be on the train for work want to risk it ?
Here ’ s one part of the five-part series on BART produced by NBC Bay Area back in @ @

I’ve written before about the problems on BART trains which include rising crime and a substantial increase in the number of homeless people using the trains as a moving shelter (and occasionally a bathroom). Not surprisingly, those and other problems have led to a substantial decrease in ridership.
Though trains continue to fill during rush hour, fewer people are riding BART to museums, parks or shopping centers. Outside the peak commute times, ridership plummeted — from 62.2 million in 2015 to 52.7 million last year… A recent BART survey of 662 commuters in five counties may help explain the evening and weekend drops in ridership. Nearly a third — 29% — of respondents said they take BART less often on weekends than they did a year ago. The primary reasons: They’re not traveling to places served by the rail system, and weekend rail service is too sparse. Yet they also cited misgivings about crime, filth and homeless people seeking shelter on the rail system, which, according to the survey, were a bigger deterrent than service delays, the cost of fares or disruptions from weekend track repair.
In short, people don’t want to ride the trains unless they have to do so for work. The article notes there are other reasons for this, including the popularity of ride-share services and the decline of gas prices even as fares have gone up (5% on January 1st of this year). But the reports of crime, drugs and filth are certainly playing a role in the decline. In fact, in response to an article blaming the decline on ride-share companies like Uber, the Mercury News received responses from readers saying that wasn’t the reason:
The quality of riding on a BART train has been degrading for years. It is not the service provided by BART; it’s the quality of the rider experience. It feels less safe and less clean. There are more homeless people occupying the cars. We used to take BART to Giants games, but now we drive or don’t go at all. Going on a non-work-related trip is discretionary, so if the trip feels unsafe or unclean, then that is a factor in deciding if the entire event is worth doing. This is especially true for evening events.
Last year BART did a tally and concluded there were 292 homeless people for every 100 train cars. Another reader wrote:
Last Friday at the Richmond Station parking garage, there were four elevators. One was broken, one had a large pool of vomit at the elevator entrance and inside, and on the sixth floor (top level), there was tons of pigeon poop in front of the elevator doors. So walk through vomit to get on the elevator and bird poop to get off. And there was no agent in the booth, and no visible police or security. Separately, the double-tall pay gate made me feel like I was entering and exiting a prison.
And one more:
A few days ago, my aunt took Uber from Oakland to the mid-Peninsula instead of taking BART because last time she was on BART, she was disturbed by an almost-naked crazy man on the train.
Just yesterday the Chronicle reported on a violent attack on a stranger that took place on a BART train:
A man was beaten with a chain in an unprovoked attack aboard a BART train during Tuesday evening commuting hours, leaving him with injuries that required hospital treatment, officials said. The unidentified victim was on a Daly City-bound train approaching Lake Merritt Station shortly after 6 p.m. when another man allegedly asked for directions and then hit him, according to BART spokesman Jim Allison. The attack was unprovoked, a witness told police.
The man responsible hasn’t been caught. Why would anyone who doesn’t have to be on the train for work want to risk it? Here’s one part of the five-part series on BART produced by NBC Bay Area back in November:


hotair--2020-02-13--Impeachment-um? Trump, RNC raise $60M in January

If Democrats thought that impeachment would damage the president , they now have sixty million reasons to rethink their strategy for the past year .
Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee combined up for a $ 60 million haul in January , swelling the campaign cash on hand to over $ 200 million .
This breaks a record set by Barack Obama and the DNC eight years ago — by doubling it : The immense figures give Trump a strong financial advantage over Democrats , whose donors are more splintered as the party sorts out a crowded primary field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Bernie Sanders outpaced Democrats when he raised $ 25 million in January .
Trump ’ s reelection organization has fundraised more aggressively than any previous presidential reelection campaign at this stage , allowing the campaign to spend early on advertising and field efforts months before Democrats pick their nominee .
Within hours of the fundraising announcement , the President left the White House to visit his campaign staff and RNC officials at the campaign ’ s headquarters in Rosslyn , Virginia — the first time Trump has crossed the river into Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
A campaign official told CNN the visit had been in the works for a while and that the President was greeting campaign staff and RNC officials and getting a general update on the effort to reelect him .
While the Trump campaign is technically headquartered in New York , the campaign ’ s senior officials and the vast majority of its staff works out of the Rosslyn office .
All told , pro-Trump entities have raised more than $ 525 million since the start of 2019 , which Trump campaign and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment process and say is positioning them for victory in November .
At the very least , impeachment doesn ’ t appear to be slowing the flow of cash into Trump/RNC coffers .
We ’ ll get back to that in a moment , but let ’ s recall the analogous month from the last time an incumbent president fundraised in the January before the election .
Not only did Trump more than double up Obama , he raised almost the same amount Obama had in the whole quarter preceding it : President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Democratic allies raised a combined $ 29.1 million in January , accelerating the fundraising pace as the White House race draws closer .
… Obama and Democrats supporting him raised more than $ 68 million in the final three months of last year , pushing the shared fundraising by his campaign and the Democratic National Committee to over $ 200 million for 2011 .
A campaign spokesman said the January total included donations to the campaign , the DNC , and the joint fundraising committees , one shared with the DNC and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of several battleground states .
In other words , these are yuuuuge numbers in any context .
Coming at the same time as Trump ’ s impeachment trial , they demonstrate that the attacks failed to land in any significant manner or undermine his support .
One could read this as an explicit rebuke of impeachment , in fact .
Nor is that the only potential signal of a rebuke .
For the first time in two years , the National Republican Congressional Committee outraised its Democratic counterpart in a monthly haul : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the first time in two years , a feat party operatives say is a sign that they are finally getting the hang of digital fundraising after years of being savaged by Democrats and ActBlue .
The NRCC ’ s $ 12.6 million January haul is its highest non-March haul in years .
( The GOP campaign arm hosts its annual fundraising dinner every March . )
Transfers from members and their leadership PACs were under $ 1 million , according to the committee .
But $ 6.8 million of that total came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phones and online — about $ 2 million more than December grassroots donations to the committee .
This could be the impeachment boost that House Republicans were waiting for , or it could be fleeting now that the trial has concluded .
For comparison , the DCCC raised $ 12.1 million in January with $ 5.8 million of that coming from grassroots donations .
But Democrats shouldn ’ t be too worried yet .
One month doesn ’ t make a trend , and they certainly have a massive cash-on-hand advantage .
Plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money .
But the NRCC needs to see some kind of uptick to stay in the game .
House Republicans have already seen success from their attempts to grow their digital operation by investing in Google and Facebook ads to grow their email lists and consulting with Trump ’ s fundraising team .
Their online fundraising total in 2019 was $ 22.6 million , up from $ 5.8 million in 2017 , a 390 percent increase .
Meanwhile , the DCCC raised $ 38 million online in the off-year .
Is this also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests it as a possibility , while noting that the improved online fundraising mechanics are playing a big role in the NRCC ’ s competitiveness .
That may be too focused on the trees rather than the forest , however .
If impeachment was working for Democrats , these fundraising numbers would be drying up as voters walk away from the GOP .
Instead , Republicans appear to be finding more voters , more donors , and their voter base seems much more energized in January .
Maybe it ’ s not backfire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democrats just spent a year on impeachment and got nothing at all out of it .
Except , of course , an energized opponent base .

If Democrats thought that impeachment would damage the president, they now have sixty million reasons to rethink their strategy for the past year. Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee combined up for a $60 million haul in January, swelling the campaign cash on hand to over $200 million. This breaks a record set by Barack Obama and the DNC eight years ago — by doubling it:
The immense figures give Trump a strong financial advantage over Democrats, whose donors are more splintered as the party sorts out a crowded primary field. In contrast to Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders outpaced Democrats when he raised $25 million in January. Trump’s reelection organization has fundraised more aggressively than any previous presidential reelection campaign at this stage, allowing the campaign to spend early on advertising and field efforts months before Democrats pick their nominee. Within hours of the fundraising announcement, the President left the White House to visit his campaign staff and RNC officials at the campaign’s headquarters in Rosslyn, Virginia — the first time Trump has crossed the river into Virginia to visit the campaign’s offices there. A campaign official told CNN the visit had been in the works for a while and that the President was greeting campaign staff and RNC officials and getting a general update on the effort to reelect him. While the Trump campaign is technically headquartered in New York, the campaign’s senior officials and the vast majority of its staff works out of the Rosslyn office. All told, pro-Trump entities have raised more than $525 million since the start of 2019, which Trump campaign and RNC officials attributed in part to the impeachment process and say is positioning them for victory in November.
At the very least, impeachment doesn’t appear to be slowing the flow of cash into Trump/RNC coffers. We’ll get back to that in a moment, but let’s recall the analogous month from the last time an incumbent president fundraised in the January before the election. Not only did Trump more than double up Obama, he raised almost the same amount Obama had in the whole quarter preceding it:
President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and its Democratic allies raised a combined $29.1 million in January, accelerating the fundraising pace as the White House race draws closer. … Obama and Democrats supporting him raised more than $68 million in the final three months of last year, pushing the shared fundraising by his campaign and the Democratic National Committee to over $200 million for 2011. A campaign spokesman said the January total included donations to the campaign, the DNC, and the joint fundraising committees, one shared with the DNC and the other with the state Democratic parties of several battleground states.
In other words, these are yuuuuge numbers in any context. Coming at the same time as Trump’s impeachment trial, they demonstrate that the attacks failed to land in any significant manner or undermine his support. One could read this as an explicit rebuke of impeachment, in fact.
Nor is that the only potential signal of a rebuke. For the first time in two years, the National Republican Congressional Committee outraised its Democratic counterpart in a monthly haul:
The NRCC outraised the DCCC last month for the first time in two years, a feat party operatives say is a sign that they are finally getting the hang of digital fundraising after years of being savaged by Democrats and ActBlue. The NRCC’s $12.6 million January haul is its highest non-March haul in years. (The GOP campaign arm hosts its annual fundraising dinner every March.) Transfers from members and their leadership PACs were under $1 million, according to the committee. But $6.8 million of that total came from grassroots donations, via mail, phones and online — about $2 million more than December grassroots donations to the committee. This could be the impeachment boost that House Republicans were waiting for, or it could be fleeting now that the trial has concluded. For comparison, the DCCC raised $12.1 million in January with $5.8 million of that coming from grassroots donations. But Democrats shouldn’t be too worried yet. One month doesn’t make a trend, and they certainly have a massive cash-on-hand advantage. Plus Democratic incumbents are raising unprecedented amounts of money. But the NRCC needs to see some kind of uptick to stay in the game. House Republicans have already seen success from their attempts to grow their digital operation by investing in Google and Facebook ads to grow their email lists and consulting with Trump’s fundraising team. Their online fundraising total in 2019 was $22.6 million, up from $5.8 million in 2017, a 390 percent increase. Meanwhile, the DCCC raised $38 million online in the off-year.
Is this also impeachmentum? Politico’s Morning Score suggests it as a possibility, while noting that the improved online fundraising mechanics are playing a big role in the NRCC’s competitiveness. That may be too focused on the trees rather than the forest, however. If impeachment was working for Democrats, these fundraising numbers would be drying up as voters walk away from the GOP. Instead, Republicans appear to be finding more voters, more donors, and their voter base seems much more energized in January.
Maybe it’s not backfire — but it’s very clear that Democrats just spent a year on impeachment and got nothing at all out of it. Except, of course, an energized opponent base.


hotair--2020-02-13--Blogger Chen Qiushi reported on the reality of the coronavirus outbreak, now he has disappeared

When the coronavirus began to spread in Wuhan , a doctor named Li Wenliang issued the first warning about an outbreak .
Chinese authorities responded by showing up at his house in the middle of the night and forcing him to sign a document stating that he had broken the law by spreading rumors online .
Dr. Li later died from the virus he had warned about .
But Dr. Li isn ’ t the only voice China has attempted to silence as it tries to maintain control over information about the virus .
When the outbreak began , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epicenter and began filming scenes of the empty streets and overcrowded hospitals .
He posted nearly 100 short clips on Chinese social media and gave many Chinese people a close up view of what was happening inside the quarantine zone .
As you can probably guess , that didn ’ t go over well with Chinese authorities .
In a video posted on January 30 , Chen said that after six days covering the outbreak as a citizen journalist his name and face had been flagged by authorities .
As a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewable on Chinese social media .
He also said authorities had been talking to his parents , trying to get his location .
“ I am scared , ” Chen said .
He continued , “ I have the virus in front of me .
Behind me is China ’ s law enforcement.
” But he vowed that so long as he was alive he would continue to report what he had seen first hand .
Then he broke into tears .
“ F**k you , I ’ m not even scared of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scared of the Chinese Communist Party ?
” Last week , Chen ’ s posts dried up .
His mother broke the silence with a video post in the small hours of Friday .
She said Chen was unreachable and appealed for help in finding him .
Later that evening , his friend and well-known mixed martial artist Xu Xiaodong said in a live broadcast on YouTube that Chen had been forcibly quarantined for 14 days , considered the maximum incubation period for the virus .
He said Chen had been healthy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday , Xu tweeted that despite pleading with authorities for a call with Chen , he and others haven ’ t been able to get in touch .
While no one saw what happened to Chen , another man named Fang Bin who had published video showing piles of bodies awaiting cremation , also filmed the arrival of authorities at his home late at night .
He posted that video as well : The footage posted on YouTube offered a glimpse into how the security apparatus is working overtime to keep a lid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
“ Why are there so many of you ?
” Fang asked .
“ If I open the door , you ’ ll take me away !
” Chen re-posted that video on his Twitter feed — one of his last tweets before his disappearance .
Today , China announced a new standard for estimating the number of people infected with the coronavirus ( now called COVID-19 ) .
Under the news standard , the number of people infected jumped to nearly 60,000 and the number of deaths jumped to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a video describing some of Chen ’ s reporting and subsequent disappearance .
Below that is Chen ’ s video in which he claims not to be afraid of the virus or the Communist Party .

When the coronavirus began to spread in Wuhan, a doctor named Li Wenliang issued the first warning about an outbreak. Chinese authorities responded by showing up at his house in the middle of the night and forcing him to sign a document stating that he had broken the law by spreading rumors online. Dr. Li later died from the virus he had warned about. But Dr. Li isn’t the only voice China has attempted to silence as it tries to maintain control over information about the virus.
When the outbreak began, a video blogger named Chen Qiushi went to the epicenter and began filming scenes of the empty streets and overcrowded hospitals. He posted nearly 100 short clips on Chinese social media and gave many Chinese people a close up view of what was happening inside the quarantine zone. As you can probably guess, that didn’t go over well with Chinese authorities.
In a video posted on January 30, Chen said that after six days covering the outbreak as a citizen journalist his name and face had been flagged by authorities. As a result, his video clip were no longer viewable on Chinese social media. He also said authorities had been talking to his parents, trying to get his location.
“I am scared,” Chen said. He continued, “I have the virus in front of me. Behind me is China’s law enforcement.” But he vowed that so long as he was alive he would continue to report what he had seen first hand. Then he broke into tears. “F**k you, I’m not even scared of death, you think I’m scared of the Chinese Communist Party?”
A few days later, Chen disappeared:
Last week, Chen’s posts dried up. His mother broke the silence with a video post in the small hours of Friday. She said Chen was unreachable and appealed for help in finding him. Later that evening, his friend and well-known mixed martial artist Xu Xiaodong said in a live broadcast on YouTube that Chen had been forcibly quarantined for 14 days, considered the maximum incubation period for the virus. He said Chen had been healthy and showed no signs of infection. On Sunday, Xu tweeted that despite pleading with authorities for a call with Chen, he and others haven’t been able to get in touch.
While no one saw what happened to Chen, another man named Fang Bin who had published video showing piles of bodies awaiting cremation, also filmed the arrival of authorities at his home late at night. He posted that video as well:
The footage posted on YouTube offered a glimpse into how the security apparatus is working overtime to keep a lid on public anger about the spread of the virus. “Why are there so many of you?” Fang asked. “If I open the door, you’ll take me away!” Chen re-posted that video on his Twitter feed — one of his last tweets before his disappearance.
Today, China announced a new standard for estimating the number of people infected with the coronavirus (now called COVID-19). Under the news standard, the number of people infected jumped to nearly 60,000 and the number of deaths jumped to just under 1,400.
Here’s a video describing some of Chen’s reporting and subsequent disappearance. Below that is Chen’s video in which he claims not to be afraid of the virus or the Communist Party.


hotair--2020-02-13--Maryland solves the world's ills by moving to ban the release of... balloons.

If you happen to live in Maryland and are planning a children ’ s birthday party or other outdoor celebration in the near future , you may want to keep an eye on this story .
At least if you plan on buying any helium-filled balloons .
The senate in the Old Line State has now passed legislation that would criminalize the intentional release of helium balloons .
This is ostensibly being done to reduce plastic waste in the oceans and protect marine life .
If the House also passes it and Larry Hogan signs off , perpetrators of balloon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( CBS Baltimore ) This wouldn ’ t be the first such ban to be made into law .
As CBS notes , Queen Anne ’ s County banned balloon releases last year .
A bit to the north of there , Suffolk , East Hampton and Southampton counties , all in New York State , each passed the same type of ban in recent years .
While it may sound rather silly to some people , I ’ m actually not all that opposed to banning the release of non-biodegradable plastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t imagine the number of them reaching the ocean could be all that high , but perhaps it is .
Volunteers with a group called Ocean Conservancy claim to have picked up 93,913 balloons from the ocean in a single year .
That ’ s a lot of plastic .
There ’ s also no question that quite a few species of marine life wind up mistaking balloons for food or getting tangled up in the strings and ribbons that are attached to them .
This generally turns out to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I remain generally annoyed at nanny state policies regulating every aspect of human life , this is an issue that affects everyone eventually , so there ’ s probably an argument to be made in favor of such regulation .
I understand some of the opposing arguments .
Every time we start banning the production or sale of certain products , that industry takes a hit .
There are plastic bag companies that are already going out of business because their products are being banned in so many places .
But if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve been receiving warnings about how bad plastic is for the environment since the sixties and we should have known this was coming .
And plastic bags are probably a far bigger problem than balloons .
So will Larry Hogan sign the ban into law , assuming the House passes it ?
I can ’ t find any record of him commenting on it yet , but I wouldn ’ t be surprised .
Hogan is a Republican , but he ’ s not your typical GOP leader .
He signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t shied away from other eco-warrior issues .
If this idea is popular with voters in Maryland , he ’ ll probably go along with it .
( He didn ’ t get a 69 % approval rating by accident . )

If you happen to live in Maryland and are planning a children’s birthday party or other outdoor celebration in the near future, you may want to keep an eye on this story. At least if you plan on buying any helium-filled balloons. The senate in the Old Line State has now passed legislation that would criminalize the intentional release of helium balloons. This is ostensibly being done to reduce plastic waste in the oceans and protect marine life. If the House also passes it and Larry Hogan signs off, perpetrators of balloon releases could be facing a stiff fine. (CBS Baltimore)
A bill that would ban balloon releases statewide has passed in the Maryland Senate. SB28 would prohibit balloon releases in the state except for those used for scientific or government purposes. People who “knowingly and intentionally” organize or take part in balloon releases would face a penalty of up to $250.
This wouldn’t be the first such ban to be made into law. As CBS notes, Queen Anne’s County banned balloon releases last year. A bit to the north of there, Suffolk, East Hampton and Southampton counties, all in New York State, each passed the same type of ban in recent years.
While it may sound rather silly to some people, I’m actually not all that opposed to banning the release of non-biodegradable plastic or mylar balloons. I originally didn’t imagine the number of them reaching the ocean could be all that high, but perhaps it is. Volunteers with a group called Ocean Conservancy claim to have picked up 93,913 balloons from the ocean in a single year. That’s a lot of plastic.
There’s also no question that quite a few species of marine life wind up mistaking balloons for food or getting tangled up in the strings and ribbons that are attached to them. This generally turns out to be a fatal situation sooner or later. While I remain generally annoyed at nanny state policies regulating every aspect of human life, this is an issue that affects everyone eventually, so there’s probably an argument to be made in favor of such regulation.
I understand some of the opposing arguments. Every time we start banning the production or sale of certain products, that industry takes a hit. There are plastic bag companies that are already going out of business because their products are being banned in so many places. But if we’re going to be honest, we’ve been receiving warnings about how bad plastic is for the environment since the sixties and we should have known this was coming. And plastic bags are probably a far bigger problem than balloons.
So will Larry Hogan sign the ban into law, assuming the House passes it? I can’t find any record of him commenting on it yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised. Hogan is a Republican, but he’s not your typical GOP leader. He signed a fracking ban back in 2017 and hasn’t shied away from other eco-warrior issues. If this idea is popular with voters in Maryland, he’ll probably go along with it. (He didn’t get a 69% approval rating by accident.)


hotair--2020-02-13--Biden to supporters: Don't panic

Biden to supporters: Don't panic -- unless Bernie wins the nomination

Has Team Biden taken a realistic approach to a primary calendar front-loaded with small , unrepresentative states for Democrats ?
Or has Joe Biden morphed into Chip Diller just as the Faber College parade turns into a stampede ?
Mainly the former , at least for now .
But the latter may not be all that far off : Biden came in fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in the New Hampshire primary .
No candidate who performed so poorly in the first two states has gone on to become the Democratic nominee .
His message going forward so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of his campaign silences black voters — arguably the most influential voting bloc in the Democratic Party .
“ We ’ re moving into an especially important phase because up until now , we haven ’ t heard from the most committed constituency of the Democratic Party — the African American community — and the fastest-growing segment of the society — the Latino community , ” he said Tuesday at a rally .
“ So when you hear all the pundits and experts and cable TV talkers talk about the race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t over , man .
We ’ re just getting started.
’ ” On a conference all with reporters Wednesday , Rep. Cedric L. Richmond ( D-La . )
, Biden ’ s campaign co-chairman , argued that the momentum some candidates are experiencing won ’ t carry them through to Nevada and South Carolina .
“ I wouldn ’ t trade positions with anybody else in the race , ” said Richmond , a member of the Congressional Black Caucus .
“ Let ’ s imagine if the states were in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole conversation would be different .
So I don ’ t believe that the momentum here relates and carries forward , because we ’ re in different states , different demographics.
” To some extent , this is true .
Democrats have long complained about opening in Iowa and New Hampshire , especially of late as identity politics becomes more central to their electoral pitch .
That ’ s not quite what Biden ’ s doing with African-American voters — he ’ s not billing himself as a Clintonian “ black president ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to matter in this instance .
The current primary schedule handicaps them in pushing one of their main themes , and if you count Nevada , it handicaps them for three weeks .
That ’ s the main reason for complaints about the “ representative ” nature of the early states .
The argument for front-loading these states is that they are small enough to require the kind of personal-retail politicking that allows them to cull the field .
That didn ’ t work out so well this time , did it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover for a very bad performance out of the gate for Biden .
He might not have had his optimal demographic mix in Iowa and New Hampshire , but it ’ s not as though he just came up a bit short of victory in either state .
Biden was the former VP of a very popular administration and a long-time party leader , and yet he couldn ’ t do better than fourth or fifth place in states he carried on the ticket with Barack Obama .
He finished ten points behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire , for Pete ’ s sake … pardon the pun .
That should be some reason for panic , but Team Biden wants to shift the panic focus to who ’ s winning rather than who ’ s losing : Shellshocked by two big losses , Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign tried to reassure donors , surrogates and the press about his path forward Wednesday while counterattacking nearly every one of his rivals .
“ Elected officials across the country understand there will be down-ballot carnage to the Democratic Party if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Cedric Richmond , the campaign ’ s co-chair , warned .
“ If Bernie Sanders were atop of the ticket , we would be in jeopardy of losing the House , we would not win the Senate back.
” Richmond , a member of the Congressional Black Caucus , also took aim at Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar for their anemic support among African Americans and criticized billionaire Michael Bloomberg for having been a Republican .
In separate calls arranged with donors , reporters and surrogates , his campaign leadership emphasized Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latino voters and cast his losses in New Hampshire on Tuesday and in Iowa Feb. 3 as less-than-lethal because of their predominantly white electorates .
They also laid out plans to put Biden on television to elevate his national visibility .
Biden ’ s message of status quo ante nostalgia isn ’ t working out so well .
A new message as the Guardian Against the Socialist Horde might , especially because that anxiety is getting wider among Democrats these days .
There are other options for that — Amy Klobuchar attempted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lane last week in New Hampshire — but probably none so potentially able to succeed at it .
That may take him farther than his demographic argument .
If it ’ s identity politics on which Biden ’ s counting to salvage himself and stop Bernie Sanders , NBC has some bad news for him : Latinos contributed almost $ 23.7 million to Democratic presidential candidates last year , much of it in small-dollar donations averaging $ 15.75 , according to an in-depth analysis of campaign finance data by Plus Three , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Democratic presidential candidates .
It shared its latest findings with NBC News ahead of their release .
According to the data , Sanders , an independent senator from Vermont , dominates in the race for Latinos ’ dollars , snagging $ 8.3 million in 2019 , or 36 percent of all contributions .
Sanders leads in just about every state , except Sen. Amy Klobuchar ’ s home state , Minnesota , where she beats him by about $ 3,000 .
He also leads in most major cities .
The analysis also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race , Latino contributions aren ’ t yet shifting to other candidates .
Candidates don ’ t appear to be trying to scoop up donors who endorsed their rivals , and Latino contributions are slowing .
Biden ’ s people-of-color firewall may not hold up as well as he thinks , in other words .
All is decidedly not well , at the very least .
The stampede is closer than you imagine , Chip .

Has Team Biden taken a realistic approach to a primary calendar front-loaded with small, unrepresentative states for Democrats? Or has Joe Biden morphed into Chip Diller just as the Faber College parade turns into a stampede?
Mainly the former, at least for now. But the latter may not be all that far off:
Biden came in fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in the New Hampshire primary. No candidate who performed so poorly in the first two states has gone on to become the Democratic nominee. His message going forward so far is that drawing conclusions about the end of his campaign silences black voters — arguably the most influential voting bloc in the Democratic Party. “We’re moving into an especially important phase because up until now, we haven’t heard from the most committed constituency of the Democratic Party — the African American community — and the fastest-growing segment of the society — the Latino community,” he said Tuesday at a rally. “So when you hear all the pundits and experts and cable TV talkers talk about the race, tell them, ‘It ain’t over, man. We’re just getting started.’” On a conference all with reporters Wednesday, Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-La.), Biden’s campaign co-chairman, argued that the momentum some candidates are experiencing won’t carry them through to Nevada and South Carolina. “I wouldn’t trade positions with anybody else in the race,” said Richmond, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Let’s imagine if the states were in the reverse order. . . . This whole conversation would be different. So I don’t believe that the momentum here relates and carries forward, because we’re in different states, different demographics.”
To some extent, this is true. Democrats have long complained about opening in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially of late as identity politics becomes more central to their electoral pitch. That’s not quite what Biden’s doing with African-American voters — he’s not billing himself as a Clintonian “black president” candidate — but it’s close enough to matter in this instance. The current primary schedule handicaps them in pushing one of their main themes, and if you count Nevada, it handicaps them for three weeks. That’s the main reason for complaints about the “representative” nature of the early states.
The argument for front-loading these states is that they are small enough to require the kind of personal-retail politicking that allows them to cull the field. That didn’t work out so well this time, did it?
Still, this is a thin cover for a very bad performance out of the gate for Biden. He might not have had his optimal demographic mix in Iowa and New Hampshire, but it’s not as though he just came up a bit short of victory in either state. Biden was the former VP of a very popular administration and a long-time party leader, and yet he couldn’t do better than fourth or fifth place in states he carried on the ticket with Barack Obama. He finished ten points behind the mayor of South Bend in New Hampshire, for Pete’s sake … pardon the pun.
That should be some reason for panic, but Team Biden wants to shift the panic focus to who’s winning rather than who’s losing:
Shellshocked by two big losses, Joe Biden’s presidential campaign tried to reassure donors, surrogates and the press about his path forward Wednesday while counterattacking nearly every one of his rivals. “Elected officials across the country understand there will be down-ballot carnage to the Democratic Party if we elect the wrong person,” Rep. Cedric Richmond, the campaign’s co-chair, warned. “If Bernie Sanders were atop of the ticket, we would be in jeopardy of losing the House, we would not win the Senate back.” Richmond, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, also took aim at Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar for their anemic support among African Americans and criticized billionaire Michael Bloomberg for having been a Republican. In separate calls arranged with donors, reporters and surrogates, his campaign leadership emphasized Biden’s support among African American and Latino voters and cast his losses in New Hampshire on Tuesday and in Iowa Feb. 3 as less-than-lethal because of their predominantly white electorates. They also laid out plans to put Biden on television to elevate his national visibility.
Biden’s message of status quo ante nostalgia isn’t working out so well. A new message as the Guardian Against the Socialist Horde might, especially because that anxiety is getting wider among Democrats these days. There are other options for that — Amy Klobuchar attempted to carve out her own niche in this lane last week in New Hampshire — but probably none so potentially able to succeed at it.
That may take him farther than his demographic argument. If it’s identity politics on which Biden’s counting to salvage himself and stop Bernie Sanders, NBC has some bad news for him:
Latinos contributed almost $23.7 million to Democratic presidential candidates last year, much of it in small-dollar donations averaging $15.75, according to an in-depth analysis of campaign finance data by Plus Three, a technology company that researched Latinos’ contributions to Democratic presidential candidates. It shared its latest findings with NBC News ahead of their release. According to the data, Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, dominates in the race for Latinos’ dollars, snagging $8.3 million in 2019, or 36 percent of all contributions. Sanders leads in just about every state, except Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s home state, Minnesota, where she beats him by about $3,000. He also leads in most major cities. The analysis also finds that, as candidates leave the race, Latino contributions aren’t yet shifting to other candidates. Candidates don’t appear to be trying to scoop up donors who endorsed their rivals, and Latino contributions are slowing.
Biden’s people-of-color firewall may not hold up as well as he thinks, in other words. All is decidedly not well, at the very least. The stampede is closer than you imagine, Chip.


hotair--2020-02-13--Former clerk: I was repeatedly sexually harassed by "liberal lion" Judge Stephen Reinhardt

It ’ s not news that outspoken liberals are capable of egregious # MeToo behavior .
Harvey Weinstein ’ s on trial right now for conduct more egregious than what Reinhardt ’ s accused of by former clerk Olivia Warren .
It ’ s not news either to hear of sexual harassment happening on the federal bench , not even on Reinhardt ’ s circuit .
Illustrious “ conservatarian ” Alex Kozinski opted for retirement a few years ago when allegations of his own habit of harassment finally went public .
But the lack of novelty shouldn ’ t deter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s prepared testimony .
It ’ s bad , alleging not just casual lechery but nasty verbal abuse .
The lingering question , as it always is in these cases : How many more are there ?
How many people knew ?
Judge Reinhardt routinely and frequently made disparaging statements about my physical appearance , my views about feminism and women ’ s rights , and my relationship with my husband ( including our sexual relationship ) .
Often , these remarks included expressing surprise that I even had a husband because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man would be attracted to .
In that vein , Judge Reinhardt often speculated that my husband must be a “ wimp , ” or possibly gay .
Judge Reinhardt would use both words and gestures to suggest that my “ wimp ” husband must either lack a penis , or not be able to get an erection in my presence .
He implied that my marriage had not been consummated .
I was subjected on a weekly , and sometimes daily , basis to these types of comments about my husband , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman who no man would marry—which he attributed both to my being a feminist and to my physical appearance , including my “ short ” stature .
Judge Reinhardt made these comments to me when we were alone , and also in front of other members of chambers at times .
Note the last bit about him supposedly saying this in front of others .
“ Short ” was allegedly a euphemism Reinhardt used to describe women he found unattractive .
Warren claims he made her look at photos of other women candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attractiveness , reserving a special shelf in his office for photos of himself with his prettiest clerks .
She also says he was a hardcore # MeToo skeptic , especially towards Kozinski ’ s accusers .
He disparaged one , allegedly , by sneering that she was too unattractive to ogle — then , later , said the same thing to Warren about her own prior experiences with harassment .
In an effort to appeal to his humanity , I tried to describe instances when I personally had been harassed and how those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I recounted included : learning on my last day of an internship after college that there had been a bet among colleagues in the office about whether I would sleep with my male supervisor ; being chased down York Avenue by a stranger while screaming until a cab driver stopped to help me ; and working as a paralegal at a law firm when an intoxicated associate came by my cubicle one night , placed his arms over it , and blocked my exit until I picked up the phone and told him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not leave .
I explained to the judge that I had not reported these incidents , but that they had still hurt and frightened me , and affected the way I moved through the world .
Judge Reinhardt became enraged .
He yelled at me to stop speaking , and said that none of what I had just said was true .
He explained to me that I had never been sexually harassed because no one had ever been sexually attracted to me .
He said that to the extent that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was because men wanted to silence me and used harassment to do so—which , he added , was within their rights to free speech .
He passed away in March 2018 .
How many people knew ?
Warren claims she was warned by a former Reinhardt clerk before accepting the job that she should prepare for “ your grandfather ’ s sexism , ” and that someone else told her that he preferred when women candidates wore skirts .
She confided in a different Reinhardt clerk — a man — after the judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the other clerk supposedly said he never saw any misconduct , but he also never broached the subject with Warren again .
She has a theory why : [ I ] t is not only the judge him or herself from whom retribution is feared .
Judges have networks of former law clerks to whom the judge ’ s reputation is inextricably intertwined with their own : these former clerks have made their name , in part , by reference to the reputation of the judge for whom they clerked .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selfish to want to protect the judge ’ s reputation at all costs .
Judge Reinhardt ’ s clerks are dazzling , particularly to a young lawyer committed to public service .
The Reinhardt clerks are legal luminaries in the field of public interest law whose accomplishments befit having clerked for a liberal lion : law school faculty , politicians , and prominent members of the civil rights and criminal defense bars .
I was terrified of offending them ; I still am .
I draw attention to this fact because it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law clerks—the possibility of immediate retaliation by the judge is supplemented by the possibility of long-term retaliation by those devoted to protecting his reputation and remaining in his good graces .
A Reinhardt clerkship is one of the most stellar credentials a left-wing lawyer could have , a notch below a Supreme Court clerkship .
To the extent that Warren has now complicated his legacy , she ’ s also complicated the value of that credential to others .
Overnight , thanks to her testimony , perceptions of ex-clerks will shift from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enabler.
” That ’ s damaging to anyone but especially to someone whose ideology claims special enlightenment about women ’ s rights .
So maybe she ’ s not wrong to fear reprisals .
She says she tried to use standard channels for reporting misconduct but got the runaround when she did .
On top of worrying about retaliation , she likely also had to wrestle with the culture of secrecy that surrounds the judiciary .
There ’ s a reason why there are never leaks to the media about forthcoming Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though each justice has multiple clerks and administrative staff .
The bench jealously guards its mystique and its alleged impartiality by inculcating an ethic of silence about its process .
Go figure that that might make subordinates less likely to report improper “ process ” as well .
Now we wait to see if any other Reinhardt clerks have anything to say .

It’s not news that outspoken liberals are capable of egregious #MeToo behavior. Harvey Weinstein’s on trial right now for conduct more egregious than what Reinhardt’s accused of by former clerk Olivia Warren.
It’s not news either to hear of sexual harassment happening on the federal bench, not even on Reinhardt’s circuit. Illustrious “conservatarian” Alex Kozinski opted for retirement a few years ago when allegations of his own habit of harassment finally went public.
But the lack of novelty shouldn’t deter you from spending some time with Warren’s prepared testimony. It’s bad, alleging not just casual lechery but nasty verbal abuse. The lingering question, as it always is in these cases: How many more are there? How many people knew?
Judge Reinhardt routinely and frequently made disparaging statements about my physical appearance, my views about feminism and women’s rights, and my relationship with my husband (including our sexual relationship). Often, these remarks included expressing surprise that I even had a husband because I was not a woman who any man would be attracted to. In that vein, Judge Reinhardt often speculated that my husband must be a “wimp,” or possibly gay. Judge Reinhardt would use both words and gestures to suggest that my “wimp” husband must either lack a penis, or not be able to get an erection in my presence. He implied that my marriage had not been consummated. I was subjected on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis to these types of comments about my husband, our relationship, and my being a woman who no man would marry—which he attributed both to my being a feminist and to my physical appearance, including my “short” stature. Judge Reinhardt made these comments to me when we were alone, and also in front of other members of chambers at times.
Note the last bit about him supposedly saying this in front of others. “Short” was allegedly a euphemism Reinhardt used to describe women he found unattractive.
Warren claims he made her look at photos of other women candidates for clerkships and rate them by their attractiveness, reserving a special shelf in his office for photos of himself with his prettiest clerks. She also says he was a hardcore #MeToo skeptic, especially towards Kozinski’s accusers. He disparaged one, allegedly, by sneering that she was too unattractive to ogle — then, later, said the same thing to Warren about her own prior experiences with harassment.
In an effort to appeal to his humanity, I tried to describe instances when I personally had been harassed and how those incidents had harmed me. The anecdotes I recounted included: learning on my last day of an internship after college that there had been a bet among colleagues in the office about whether I would sleep with my male supervisor; being chased down York Avenue by a stranger while screaming until a cab driver stopped to help me; and working as a paralegal at a law firm when an intoxicated associate came by my cubicle one night, placed his arms over it, and blocked my exit until I picked up the phone and told him that I would dial 911 if he did not leave. I explained to the judge that I had not reported these incidents, but that they had still hurt and frightened me, and affected the way I moved through the world. Judge Reinhardt became enraged. He yelled at me to stop speaking, and said that none of what I had just said was true. He explained to me that I had never been sexually harassed because no one had ever been sexually attracted to me. He said that to the extent that I believed I was sexually harassed, it was because men wanted to silence me and used harassment to do so—which, he added, was within their rights to free speech.
He passed away in March 2018.
How many people knew? Warren claims she was warned by a former Reinhardt clerk before accepting the job that she should prepare for “your grandfather’s sexism,” and that someone else told her that he preferred when women candidates wore skirts. She confided in a different Reinhardt clerk — a man — after the judge’s death about what went on and the other clerk supposedly said he never saw any misconduct, but he also never broached the subject with Warren again. She has a theory why:
[I]t is not only the judge him or herself from whom retribution is feared. Judges have networks of former law clerks to whom the judge’s reputation is inextricably intertwined with their own: these former clerks have made their name, in part, by reference to the reputation of the judge for whom they clerked. This group therefore has reasons both devoted and selfish to want to protect the judge’s reputation at all costs. Judge Reinhardt’s clerks are dazzling, particularly to a young lawyer committed to public service. The Reinhardt clerks are legal luminaries in the field of public interest law whose accomplishments befit having clerked for a liberal lion: law school faculty, politicians, and prominent members of the civil rights and criminal defense bars. I was terrified of offending them; I still am. I draw attention to this fact because it is yet another barrier to reporting harassment for law clerks—the possibility of immediate retaliation by the judge is supplemented by the possibility of long-term retaliation by those devoted to protecting his reputation and remaining in his good graces.
A Reinhardt clerkship is one of the most stellar credentials a left-wing lawyer could have, a notch below a Supreme Court clerkship. To the extent that Warren has now complicated his legacy, she’s also complicated the value of that credential to others. Overnight, thanks to her testimony, perceptions of ex-clerks will shift from “liberal legal all-star” to “suspected enabler.” That’s damaging to anyone but especially to someone whose ideology claims special enlightenment about women’s rights.
So maybe she’s not wrong to fear reprisals.
She says she tried to use standard channels for reporting misconduct but got the runaround when she did. On top of worrying about retaliation, she likely also had to wrestle with the culture of secrecy that surrounds the judiciary. There’s a reason why there are never leaks to the media about forthcoming Supreme Court opinions before those opinions are handed down, even though each justice has multiple clerks and administrative staff. The bench jealously guards its mystique and its alleged impartiality by inculcating an ethic of silence about its process. Go figure that that might make subordinates less likely to report improper “process” as well.
Now we wait to see if any other Reinhardt clerks have anything to say.


hotair--2020-02-13--Yovanovitch sounds the alarm: Trump's foreign policy is "amoral"

Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was presented with the Trainor Award for Excellence in the Conduct of Diplomacy at Georgetown University Wednesday .
As she accepted the award , she delivered her first public remarks since testifying against President Trump last November during impeachment hearings .
Let ’ s just say she ’ s still not a fan of how the Trump administration or the State Department is handling foreign policy .
Yovanovitch was relieved of her position in May 2019 as she was caught up in the Ukraine corruption story .
It is alleged that two Guiliani associates , Lev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump that she was bad-mouthing him overseas as she served .
During a dinner with Parnas and Fruman , Trump demanded Yovanovitch be removed .
That dinner was in April 2018 so it was thirteen months later that she was replaced by Bill Taylor .
She ’ s a hero to The Resistance now .
The audience at the award ceremony rewarded her with several standing ovations as she trashed the administration .
The auditorium was packed and Bill Taylor was there for her , too .
She cautioned the audience – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would “ be blunt ” .
No one should have been surprised about that warning .
Like many others , she didn ’ t really have the gumption to actually name-check President Trump so she spoke in general terms .
By doing so , she also threw state department officials ( mostly career employees like herself ) under the bus .
If only everyone could be as enlightened as she and her cohorts on the left are , you know .
Without explicitly naming the president or other officials in the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hollowing out ” of the department in which she spent her career .
She lamented damaging budget cuts to other agencies and international organizations working toward American foreign policy goals .
“ It ’ s not about a handout for foreign friends ; it ’ s about enlightened self-interest , ” she said .
“ For example , it ’ s hard to see how cutting funds to the World Health Organization in the middle of the coronavirus crisis keeps Americans safer.
” I assume that criticism about cutting funds to the WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 budget submitted to Congress .
In the budget , half of the funding for the WHO is cut .
The Trump budget calls for a cut of more than 21 percent from the federal budget for foreign aid .
Democrats in the House say that is a non-starter .
In the Trump era , Democrats are in favor of more spending for foreign aid while traditionally it is a Republican issue .
Trump ’ s America First initiatives require cuts in foreign spending and focusing on domestic initiatives .
President Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She served at the pleasure of the president as an American ambassador .
She was a holdover from the Obama administration .
For the life of me , I don ’ t understand why Trump has allowed so many holdovers to remain in place , especially those who are obviously not supportive of his policies .
Every new administration purges the previous administration ’ s people and replaces them with their own people .
Yovanovitch is a hero to The Resistance now and received a very soft landing in Washington with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof that she is heralded for her behavior .
In the political world , especially in a presidential election year , her behavior is celebrated .
I don ’ t imagine her remarks will please current leadership at the state department .
The retired career foreign service officer , as she did in her testimony before the House during the impeachment inquiry , cautioned that the department was being “ hollowed out ” and helmed by “ senior leaders ( who ) lack policy vision , moral clarity and leadership skills.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decisions emanating from the top with little discussion , ” Yovanovitch said Wednesday .
“ Vacancies at all levels go unfilled and officers are increasingly wondering whether it is safe to express concerns about policy , even behind closed doors.
” “ We need to re-empower our diplomats to do their job .
We can ’ t be afraid to share our expertise or challenge false assumptions , ” Yovanovitch said .
“ Working off of facts is not the trademark of the deep state but of the deeply committed state in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters , ” she added , referring to the former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul .
McFaul was Ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration .
He is a frequent guest on cable television and a vocal critic of anything President does in foreign policy .
The fact that Yovanovitch quotes him is indicative of her attitude toward the current administration .
What all of this boils down to is that Yovanovitch believes she is the smartest person in the room and her opinions should be heeded , even by the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , when all else fails , she criticizes the administration in personal terms – “ amoral ” , and a lack of trustworthiness .
She speaks of “ threats ” and “ fear ” , which is code for Trump ’ s a bully .
Most of all , she is a creature of the swamp , of the status quo .
She ’ s a career employee of the state department and she thinks she should be the decider of foreign policy .
She forgot she works for the president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ This is what intellectual courage looks like .
This is what a moral compass looks like.
” Those are the words of Joel Hellman , the dean of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown .
In other words , the bad Orange Man and his people at the state department are not moral or in possession of intellectual courage .
Yovanovitch is a good example of a career employee who forgot her job description .
Unelected bureaucrats shouldn ’ t be rewarded for such unprofessional behavior .

Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was presented with the Trainor Award for Excellence in the Conduct of Diplomacy at Georgetown University Wednesday. As she accepted the award, she delivered her first public remarks since testifying against President Trump last November during impeachment hearings. Let’s just say she’s still not a fan of how the Trump administration or the State Department is handling foreign policy.
Yovanovitch was relieved of her position in May 2019 as she was caught up in the Ukraine corruption story. It is alleged that two Guiliani associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, reported to President Trump that she was bad-mouthing him overseas as she served. During a dinner with Parnas and Fruman, Trump demanded Yovanovitch be removed. That dinner was in April 2018 so it was thirteen months later that she was replaced by Bill Taylor.
She’s a hero to The Resistance now. The audience at the award ceremony rewarded her with several standing ovations as she trashed the administration. The auditorium was packed and Bill Taylor was there for her, too. She cautioned the audience – largely consisting of students – that she would “be blunt”. No one should have been surprised about that warning. Like many others, she didn’t really have the gumption to actually name-check President Trump so she spoke in general terms. By doing so, she also threw state department officials (mostly career employees like herself) under the bus. If only everyone could be as enlightened as she and her cohorts on the left are, you know.
Without explicitly naming the president or other officials in the Trump administration, Ms. Yovanovitch lamented a general “hollowing out” of the department in which she spent her career. She lamented damaging budget cuts to other agencies and international organizations working toward American foreign policy goals. “It’s not about a handout for foreign friends; it’s about enlightened self-interest,” she said. “For example, it’s hard to see how cutting funds to the World Health Organization in the middle of the coronavirus crisis keeps Americans safer.”
I assume that criticism about cutting funds to the WHO is in response to Trump’s 2021 budget submitted to Congress. In the budget, half of the funding for the WHO is cut. The Trump budget calls for a cut of more than 21 percent from the federal budget for foreign aid. Democrats in the House say that is a non-starter. In the Trump era, Democrats are in favor of more spending for foreign aid while traditionally it is a Republican issue. Trump’s America First initiatives require cuts in foreign spending and focusing on domestic initiatives.
President Trump was fully within his rights to fire Yovanovitch. She served at the pleasure of the president as an American ambassador. She was a holdover from the Obama administration. For the life of me, I don’t understand why Trump has allowed so many holdovers to remain in place, especially those who are obviously not supportive of his policies. Every new administration purges the previous administration’s people and replaces them with their own people. Yovanovitch is a hero to The Resistance now and received a very soft landing in Washington with a job at Georgetown. This award is proof that she is heralded for her behavior. In the political world, especially in a presidential election year, her behavior is celebrated. I don’t imagine her remarks will please current leadership at the state department.
The retired career foreign service officer, as she did in her testimony before the House during the impeachment inquiry, cautioned that the department was being “hollowed out” and helmed by “senior leaders (who) lack policy vision, moral clarity and leadership skills.” “The policy process has been replaced by the decisions emanating from the top with little discussion,” Yovanovitch said Wednesday. “Vacancies at all levels go unfilled and officers are increasingly wondering whether it is safe to express concerns about policy, even behind closed doors.” “We need to re-empower our diplomats to do their job. We can’t be afraid to share our expertise or challenge false assumptions,” Yovanovitch said. “Working off of facts is not the trademark of the deep state but of the deeply committed state in the words of Ambassador McFaul. Truth matters,” she added, referring to the former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.
McFaul was Ambassador to Russia in the Obama administration. He is a frequent guest on cable television and a vocal critic of anything President does in foreign policy. The fact that Yovanovitch quotes him is indicative of her attitude toward the current administration. What all of this boils down to is that Yovanovitch believes she is the smartest person in the room and her opinions should be heeded, even by the president. She wanted to be in control. So, when all else fails, she criticizes the administration in personal terms – “amoral”, and a lack of trustworthiness. She speaks of “threats” and “fear”, which is code for Trump’s a bully. Most of all, she is a creature of the swamp, of the status quo. She’s a career employee of the state department and she thinks she should be the decider of foreign policy. She forgot she works for the president, he doesn’t work for her.
“To be blunt: An amoral, keep-’em-guessing foreign policy that substitutes threats, fear and confusion for trust cannot work over the long haul, especially in our social media-savvy, interconnected world,” Yovanovitch said. “At some point, the once-unthinkable will become the soon-inevitable: that our allies, who have as much right to act in their own self-interest as we do, will seek out more reliable partners, partners whose interests might not align well with ours.”
“This is what intellectual courage looks like. This is what a moral compass looks like.” Those are the words of Joel Hellman, the dean of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. In other words, the bad Orange Man and his people at the state department are not moral or in possession of intellectual courage. Yovanovitch is a good example of a career employee who forgot her job description. Unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t be rewarded for such unprofessional behavior.


hotair--2020-02-13--Manchin: You bet I might endorse Trump's re-election

Will a man who voted to have Donald Trump removed from office turn around and campaign to get Trump another four years as president ?
Joe Manchin disappointed his Senate Republican friends by not crossing the aisle to vote for acquittal , not even on the ludicrous second article on obstruction .
However , Manchin now tells Politico that he wants to let bygones be bygones .
Besides , Manchin notes , Trump tried his best to oust Manchin from office .
Now … they ’ re even ?
“ I don ’ t rule anything out .
I really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Manchin said in an interview in his office amid a series of attacks from the president .
“ I ’ m always going to be for what ’ s best for my country .
Everybody can change .
Maybe the president will change , you know ?
Maybe that uniter will come out , versus the divider.
” While it may defy logic that Manchin could support a president he voted to kick out of office , Manchin sees things differently .
Trump did everything he could to defeat Manchin in 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It might take Trump longer to forget Manchin ’ s vote , but the third-term senator is hopeful as always .
“ It ’ s not different when he wanted to have lunch the week after I was elected .
And he said : ‘ I knew we couldn ’ t beat you.
’ And I said : ‘ it wasn ’ t for lack of trying.
’ Boom , it ’ s over , let it go .
I did .
I ’ m asking him to do the same thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He tried to remove me.
” So … does that make Manchin ’ s removal vote just payback ?
It ’ s tough to take it seriously as a principled decision after Manchin ’ s comments above .
Impeachment and removal are meant for only the most serious cases in which a president is manifestly unfit for office after the commission of “ high crimes and misdemeanors.
” It was most certainly not meant to settle partisan scores or to act as a substitute for a parliamentary vote of no confidence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ president either has made the determination that the incumbent shouldn ’ t be president at all , or that senator has abused his office for his own personal or partisan purposes .
Manchin then goes on to make it worse : Yet by the State of the Union address last week , a day before the impeachment vote , Manchin had made his decision .
And Trump ’ s partisan performance didn ’ t help make the president ’ s case .
“ I saw the State of the Union , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who we are.
’ There ’ s so many good things that we can do better , ” Manchin said .
Oh , please .
State of the Union addresses are always partisan affairs , which is why opposition parties demand an official response to them .
No one tried to impeach Barack Obama for telling Republicans “ I won — twice ” in his 2015 SOTU , to take just one example .
If a partisan speech to Congress made one unfit for office , no one could run for re-election on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an absurd rationalization , and it ’ s worse as a precedent going forward as well .
Manchin should be embarrassed to make this argument .
He should be equally embarrassed to suggest he might endorse Trump in 2020 , especially because of its nakedly self-interested position .
He ’ s not endorsing Trump to get another four years of a president he just voted to remove .
Manchin is talking about endorsing Trump to keep his own political career viable in 2024 .
Manchin knows that West Virginia voters will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support Trump .
All this posturing does is to serve Manchin ’ s desire to eat his cake and have it too .
He voted with Chuck Schumer to remove Trump based on rank partisanship , and now he wants to play footsie with Trump to make himself look more bipartisan for his deep-red Republican constituents back home .
This is as far from “ principled ” as it gets .

Will a man who voted to have Donald Trump removed from office turn around and campaign to get Trump another four years as president? Joe Manchin disappointed his Senate Republican friends by not crossing the aisle to vote for acquittal, not even on the ludicrous second article on obstruction. However, Manchin now tells Politico that he wants to let bygones be bygones.
Besides, Manchin notes, Trump tried his best to oust Manchin from office. Now … they’re even?
“I don’t rule anything out. I really don’t rule anything out,” Manchin said in an interview in his office amid a series of attacks from the president. “I’m always going to be for what’s best for my country. Everybody can change. Maybe the president will change, you know? Maybe that uniter will come out, versus the divider.” While it may defy logic that Manchin could support a president he voted to kick out of office, Manchin sees things differently. Trump did everything he could to defeat Manchin in 2018 and Manchin forgave him a week later. It might take Trump longer to forget Manchin’s vote, but the third-term senator is hopeful as always. “It’s not different when he wanted to have lunch the week after I was elected. And he said: ‘I knew we couldn’t beat you.’ And I said: ‘it wasn’t for lack of trying.’ Boom, it’s over, let it go. I did. I’m asking him to do the same thing I did,” Manchin said. “He tried to remove me.”
So … does that make Manchin’s removal vote just payback? It’s tough to take it seriously as a principled decision after Manchin’s comments above. Impeachment and removal are meant for only the most serious cases in which a president is manifestly unfit for office after the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It was most certainly not meant to settle partisan scores or to act as a substitute for a parliamentary vote of no confidence. Any Senator who votes to remove a president either has made the determination that the incumbent shouldn’t be president at all, or that senator has abused his office for his own personal or partisan purposes.
Manchin then goes on to make it worse:
Yet by the State of the Union address last week, a day before the impeachment vote, Manchin had made his decision. And Trump’s partisan performance didn’t help make the president’s case. “I saw the State of the Union, and I said: ‘It’s not who we are.’ There’s so many good things that we can do better,” Manchin said.
Oh, please. State of the Union addresses are always partisan affairs, which is why opposition parties demand an official response to them. No one tried to impeach Barack Obama for telling Republicans “I won — twice” in his 2015 SOTU, to take just one example. If a partisan speech to Congress made one unfit for office, no one could run for re-election on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. This is an absurd rationalization, and it’s worse as a precedent going forward as well. Manchin should be embarrassed to make this argument.
He should be equally embarrassed to suggest he might endorse Trump in 2020, especially because of its nakedly self-interested position. He’s not endorsing Trump to get another four years of a president he just voted to remove. Manchin is talking about endorsing Trump to keep his own political career viable in 2024. Manchin knows that West Virginia voters will be irate over that vote because they overwhelmingly support Trump.
All this posturing does is to serve Manchin’s desire to eat his cake and have it too. He voted with Chuck Schumer to remove Trump based on rank partisanship, and now he wants to play footsie with Trump to make himself look more bipartisan for his deep-red Republican constituents back home. This is as far from “principled” as it gets.


hotair--2020-02-13--"French Oscars" hand 12 nominations to infamous child rapist

The annual César Awards , more commonly known as the “ French Oscars , ” are coming up in a couple of weeks and , as usual , it appears that the panel of judges still haven ’ t caught on to the whole # MeToo thing that ’ s been going on .
When the big show takes place , the majority of the nominations have been given to convicted rapist and child predator Roman Polanski .
He apparently released yet another film named “ An Officer and a Spy ” ( or “ J ’ accuse ” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get enough of it .
Thankfully , there are at least some folks across the pond who understand what an obscenity this is and are going public about it .
( Raw Story ) “ 12 César nominations for Roman Polanski ’ s ‘ J ’ accuse ’ .
12 , like the number of women who accuse him of pedo-criminal rape , ” feminist groups wrote in an open letter to the French press on Monday , referring to other accusations of sex assault levelled at the director over the years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ film industry has given its open and unconditional support to a fugitive rapist , who has admitted he drugged and raped a 13-year-old child and has fled US justice .
Two years after # MeToo , while Harvey Weinstein faces a possible life sentence in the United States , here in France we acclaim and celebrate a fugitive pedo-criminal rapist , ” they added , vowing to stage protests outside the Salle Pleyel in Paris , where the Césars will be awarded on February 28 .
The hashtag # BoycottCesars was soon making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Academy is turning a blind eye to the objections .
They ’ ve been getting an earful , however , from celebrities such as Adèle Haenel , who published her own story of being sexually assaulted when filming her first movie at the age of 12 .
( That ’ s roughly the age of the child that Polanski raped , starting the entire criminal case against him . )
Filmmaker Audrey Clinet , who founded a group that showcases the work of female directors , brought up the volume of outrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If you support Adèle Haenel , why would you go watch a film by someone who committed acts of paedophilia ?
” she asks , arguing that French media also have a habit of mischaracterising the crimes involved , most notably when it comes to child abuse… “ We forgot that Haenel was a child at the time [ of the alleged abuse ] ; we ’ re talking about paedophilia , period , ” she says .
Perhaps one of these years the message will finally set in for the César @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t happened yet .
They continue to shower honors on a monster who was convicted of drugging , raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old child .
The list of other women who have come forward telling of their abuse at Polanski ’ s hands is lengthy and continues to grow .
As a closing note , let ’ s all remember to set up a news alert for this award show when it happens in a couple of weeks .
I ’ d be interested to see how many American celebrities are willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being feted in this fashion .

The annual César Awards, more commonly known as the “French Oscars,” are coming up in a couple of weeks and, as usual, it appears that the panel of judges still haven’t caught on to the whole #MeToo thing that’s been going on. When the big show takes place, the majority of the nominations have been given to convicted rapist and child predator Roman Polanski. He apparently released yet another film named “An Officer and a Spy” (or “J’accuse”) and the French critics can’t get enough of it.
Thankfully, there are at least some folks across the pond who understand what an obscenity this is and are going public about it. (Raw Story)
“12 César nominations for Roman Polanski’s ‘J’accuse’. 12, like the number of women who accuse him of pedo-criminal rape,” feminist groups wrote in an open letter to the French press on Monday, referring to other accusations of sex assault levelled at the director over the years. “With these 12 nominations, the film industry has given its open and unconditional support to a fugitive rapist, who has admitted he drugged and raped a 13-year-old child and has fled US justice. Two years after #MeToo, while Harvey Weinstein faces a possible life sentence in the United States, here in France we acclaim and celebrate a fugitive pedo-criminal rapist,” they added, vowing to stage protests outside the Salle Pleyel in Paris, where the Césars will be awarded on February 28.
The hashtag #BoycottCesars was soon making the rounds, but it appears that the Academy is turning a blind eye to the objections. They’ve been getting an earful, however, from celebrities such as Adèle Haenel, who published her own story of being sexually assaulted when filming her first movie at the age of 12. (That’s roughly the age of the child that Polanski raped, starting the entire criminal case against him.)
Filmmaker Audrey Clinet, who founded a group that showcases the work of female directors, brought up the volume of outrage, invoking Haenel as an example.
“If you support Adèle Haenel, why would you go watch a film by someone who committed acts of paedophilia?” she asks, arguing that French media also have a habit of mischaracterising the crimes involved, most notably when it comes to child abuse… “We forgot that Haenel was a child at the time [of the alleged abuse]; we’re talking about paedophilia, period,” she says.
Perhaps one of these years the message will finally set in for the César Awards, but it obviously hasn’t happened yet. They continue to shower honors on a monster who was convicted of drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old child. The list of other women who have come forward telling of their abuse at Polanski’s hands is lengthy and continues to grow.
As a closing note, let’s all remember to set up a news alert for this award show when it happens in a couple of weeks. I’d be interested to see how many American celebrities are willing to show up there, knowing that Polanski is being feted in this fashion.


hotair--2020-02-13--Kim Foxx now supports new charges against Smollett

When the special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case brought six new charges against him it immediately brought State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx back into the spotlight .
As John pointed out earlier this week , Foxx questioned the timing of the move , describing it as “ James Comey-like.
” That ’ s obviously because she ’ s up for reelection and the primary is coming in a month or so .
Her opponents have been teeing up the Smollett fiasco as ammunition against her .
( And for good reason , obviously . )
So does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case should move forward ?
Perish the thought !
Foxx has quickly changed her tune in the past 48 hours and is now saying that the new charges are completely proper .
And yet she still can ’ t stop herself from hinting that there ’ s politics underlying all of this .
( CBS Chicago ) “ Our office filed charges in this case .
It was the disposition [ dropping of charges ] that was cause for difference , ” Foxx said .
“ He had the facts and the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuing to avail ourselves to a review of how this case was handled .
As I said from the very beginning we welcome the non political review .
And that ’ s ongoing.
” “ We are certainly cooperating the best we can.
” Well , that certainly sounds positive , cooperative and above board , right ?
And yet , not long after that , she couldn ’ t resist suggesting that there ’ s something fishy going on here .
She “ certainly hopes ” that everyone is focusing on facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all you can do is hope for that , it means that you have doubts .
And if that ’ s not what the indictments are based on , what ’ s left ?
Politics of course .
Meanwhile , the people challenging Foxx for her position in the upcoming primary continue to suggest that she has been heavily influenced by her politically powerful friends .
She ’ s being challenged by former Ald .
Bob Fioretti and former prosecutors Bill Conway and Donna More .
They showed up to a candidates ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not attend ) and made sure to remind everyone how badly the Smollett case was handled .
“ What it establishes is that Foxx was influenced to drop the charges by those who are politically powerful by celebrity , and that ’ s unacceptable , ” More said .
“ Foxx we can ’ t have two justice systems in our county.
” “ Ms .
Foxx has repeatedly not told the truth throughout this entire investigation since her original claim she recused herself from this investigation and from this case , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think we can trust anything Ms. Foxx is saying.
” Fioretti went further and called for Foxx ’ s resignation .
Foxx clearly has no intention of resigning and continues to stick to her primary talking points .
She didn ’ t do anything wrong , there ’ s nothing to see here , and everyone should stop making such a big deal about it .
I don ’ t know how there could be anyone left who can ’ t see that Smollett perpetrated a hate crime hoax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police delivered a solid case to Foxx ’ s office .
The fact that the charges were then dropped is beyond fishy .
But will the voters of Chicago hold Foxx accountable for the embarrassment she brought on the city ?
Don ’ t bet the ranch on it .
“ The Chicago Way ” is a well-known concept for a reason .
And the corrupt in the Windy City are rarely if ever taken to task for their actions .
Just ask the Daley family .

When the special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case brought six new charges against him it immediately brought State’s Attorney Kim Foxx back into the spotlight. As John pointed out earlier this week, Foxx questioned the timing of the move, describing it as “James Comey-like.” That’s obviously because she’s up for reelection and the primary is coming in a month or so. Her opponents have been teeing up the Smollett fiasco as ammunition against her. (And for good reason, obviously.)
So does that mean she doesn’t think the case should move forward? Perish the thought! Foxx has quickly changed her tune in the past 48 hours and is now saying that the new charges are completely proper. And yet she still can’t stop herself from hinting that there’s politics underlying all of this. (CBS Chicago)
“Our office filed charges in this case. It was the disposition [dropping of charges] that was cause for difference,” Foxx said. “He had the facts and the evidence to file charges.” “We are continuing to avail ourselves to a review of how this case was handled. As I said from the very beginning we welcome the non political review. And that’s ongoing.” “We are certainly cooperating the best we can.”
Well, that certainly sounds positive, cooperative and above board, right? And yet, not long after that, she couldn’t resist suggesting that there’s something fishy going on here.
“I certainly hope decision made in this case was based on facts, evidence & the law.” That’s @KimFoxxforSA response to timing of new indictment of @JussieSmollett just 35 days out from Dem. Primary where she hopes to be re-elected. MORE FROM @cbschicago: https://t.co/6Q5MkB4gFR pic.twitter.com/7fdEK5nHcM — Eric Cox (@EricCoxTV) February 12, 2020
She “certainly hopes” that everyone is focusing on facts, evidence and the law. If all you can do is hope for that, it means that you have doubts. And if that’s not what the indictments are based on, what’s left? Politics of course.
Meanwhile, the people challenging Foxx for her position in the upcoming primary continue to suggest that she has been heavily influenced by her politically powerful friends. She’s being challenged by former Ald. Bob Fioretti and former prosecutors Bill Conway and Donna More. They showed up to a candidates’ forum on Tuesday (which Foxx did not attend) and made sure to remind everyone how badly the Smollett case was handled.
“What it establishes is that Foxx was influenced to drop the charges by those who are politically powerful by celebrity, and that’s unacceptable,” More said. “Foxx we can’t have two justice systems in our county.” “Ms. Foxx has repeatedly not told the truth throughout this entire investigation since her original claim she recused herself from this investigation and from this case,” Conway said. “So frankly, I don’t think we can trust anything Ms. Foxx is saying.” Fioretti went further and called for Foxx’s resignation.
Foxx clearly has no intention of resigning and continues to stick to her primary talking points. She didn’t do anything wrong, there’s nothing to see here, and everyone should stop making such a big deal about it.
I don’t know how there could be anyone left who can’t see that Smollett perpetrated a hate crime hoax. And it seems equally obvious that the police delivered a solid case to Foxx’s office. The fact that the charges were then dropped is beyond fishy. But will the voters of Chicago hold Foxx accountable for the embarrassment she brought on the city? Don’t bet the ranch on it. “The Chicago Way” is a well-known concept for a reason. And the corrupt in the Windy City are rarely if ever taken to task for their actions. Just ask the Daley family.