hotair--2020-12-11--The lockdowns have had one effect that should make climate hawks happy

Who says there ’ s no good news coming out of the pandemic ?
Climate alarmists should at least be of good cheer heading into the Christmas season because there ’ s been a predictable side effect from the world being largely stuck in lockdown mode .
Global carbon emissions have plunged considerably in 2020 , though I don ’ t see any of the eco-warriors cheering about it very much .
The amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere is down significantly , though not all countries are contributing to the decrease equally .
The Associated Press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States is leading the way in reducing emissions yet again , though this obviously isn ’ t going to be a long-term trend .
A locked-down pandemic-struck world cut its carbon dioxide emissions this year by 7 % , the biggest drop ever , new preliminary figures show .
The Global Carbon Project , an authoritative group of dozens of international scientists who track emissions , calculated that the world will have put 37 billion U.S. tons ( 34 billion metric tons ) of carbon dioxide in the air in 2020 .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tons ( 36.4 billion metric tons ) in 2019 , according a study published Thursday in the journal Earth System Science Data .
Scientists say this drop is chiefly because people are staying home , traveling less by car and plane , and that emissions are expected to jump back up after the pandemic ends .
Seven percent is a significant drop no matter how you measure it .
But America was well above the global average , registering a drop of 12 % .
Europe was close on our heels , cutting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care to take a guess as to who showed the smallest decrease ?
If you said China , give yourself a cookie .
They only registered a drop of 1.7 % .
The cause for all of this should be fairly obvious .
Automobiles account for approximately 25 % of all carbon emissions caused by human beings .
America is one of the most mobile , car-crazy countries in the world , so with most of the population stuck at home , people are driving far fewer miles .
Europe is similarly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen a significant decrease also .
So what about China ?
Two factors appear to explain their stagnant emissions numbers .
First , they didn ’ t engage in nearly as much of a prolonged lockdown after they unleashed the virus on the world .
Also , it ’ s a less mobile nation and a much larger portion of its carbon emissions come from manufacturing and other industrial processes .
They ’ ve never shown much interest in cutting emissions to begin with and the pandemic hasn ’ t changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States was already leading the world in reducing emissions even before the pandemic struck .
Improvements in drilling technology and a major shift toward the use of natural gas instead of coal or oil led to America making major cuts in carbon emissions and we somehow managed to do that without burdensome new regulations or joining the Paris climate accord .
Of course , Joe Biden has already pledged to put us back into that agreement so we can be told what to do by countries that haven ’ t made anywhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that front .
This news should serve as a useful reminder that regulating industry in the United States isn ’ t the way to address the emissions question .
If that ’ s your primary goal , you should be working on having fewer cars on the road and making them run more cleanly .
But that idea never seems to make it into the Democrats ’ platform , does it ?
It ’ s clearly more fun to try to impose a carbon tax on everyone .

Who says there’s no good news coming out of the pandemic? Climate alarmists should at least be of good cheer heading into the Christmas season because there’s been a predictable side effect from the world being largely stuck in lockdown mode. Global carbon emissions have plunged considerably in 2020, though I don’t see any of the eco-warriors cheering about it very much. The amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere is down significantly, though not all countries are contributing to the decrease equally. The Associated Press reports that, unsurprisingly, the United States is leading the way in reducing emissions yet again, though this obviously isn’t going to be a long-term trend.
A locked-down pandemic-struck world cut its carbon dioxide emissions this year by 7%, the biggest drop ever, new preliminary figures show. The Global Carbon Project, an authoritative group of dozens of international scientists who track emissions, calculated that the world will have put 37 billion U.S. tons (34 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide in the air in 2020. That’s down from 40.1 billion US tons (36.4 billion metric tons) in 2019, according a study published Thursday in the journal Earth System Science Data. Scientists say this drop is chiefly because people are staying home, traveling less by car and plane, and that emissions are expected to jump back up after the pandemic ends.
Seven percent is a significant drop no matter how you measure it. But America was well above the global average, registering a drop of 12%. Europe was close on our heels, cutting emissions by eleven percent. Would you care to take a guess as to who showed the smallest decrease? If you said China, give yourself a cookie. They only registered a drop of 1.7%.
The cause for all of this should be fairly obvious. Automobiles account for approximately 25% of all carbon emissions caused by human beings. America is one of the most mobile, car-crazy countries in the world, so with most of the population stuck at home, people are driving far fewer miles. Europe is similarly in love with their cars, so they’ve seen a significant decrease also.
So what about China? Two factors appear to explain their stagnant emissions numbers. First, they didn’t engage in nearly as much of a prolonged lockdown after they unleashed the virus on the world. Also, it’s a less mobile nation and a much larger portion of its carbon emissions come from manufacturing and other industrial processes. They’ve never shown much interest in cutting emissions to begin with and the pandemic hasn’t changed that a bit.
Conversely, the United States was already leading the world in reducing emissions even before the pandemic struck. Improvements in drilling technology and a major shift toward the use of natural gas instead of coal or oil led to America making major cuts in carbon emissions and we somehow managed to do that without burdensome new regulations or joining the Paris climate accord. Of course, Joe Biden has already pledged to put us back into that agreement so we can be told what to do by countries that haven’t made anywhere near the progress we’ve achieved on that front.
This news should serve as a useful reminder that regulating industry in the United States isn’t the way to address the emissions question. If that’s your primary goal, you should be working on having fewer cars on the road and making them run more cleanly. But that idea never seems to make it into the Democrats’ platform, does it? It’s clearly more fun to try to impose a carbon tax on everyone.


hotair--2020-12-11--Why did TIME magazine name Joe Biden and Kamala Harris the 2020 Person of the Year?

TIME magazine ’ s Person of the Year was named last night and the person is two people – Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
I saw the news alert on my iPad just as I was falling asleep .
Even almost asleep , my eye roll was strong .
Of all the people that could have been chosen , these two were the winners .
Frankly , it defies logic unless you are a liberal ideologue .
The 2020 election campaign theme for Team Biden revolved around candidate Biden as a unifier , a man who would return America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal for Joe Biden , a member of The Swamp for almost fifty years , is different than the definition of normal for outside of the Beltway people .
For instance , in Joe Biden ’ s world , it is normal for his son and brother to trade on the former vice-president ’ s name and make millions of dollars from foreign government entities .
TIME magazine justifies the choice for its recognition because Biden “ stood his ground near the center ” while the far left criticized him as out-of-touch and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his right.
” Biden appeased the far-left by naming Kamala Harris as his running mate .
She was rated the most liberal lawmaker in the U.S. Senate .
Think about that – she has voted in such a way as to be rated as more liberal than an actual socialist like Bernie Sanders .
Kamala Harris has absolutely no history of being a unifier .
She deliberately tried to blow up Senate hearings on President Trump ’ s judicial nominees , including her hideous performance during the Bret Kavanaugh hearing as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about having information against him which she did not , just to see his reaction .
Her behavior was worse than that of Cory “ I am Sparticus ” Booker .
She blamed President Trump for every COVID-19 death and went so far into Trump Derangement Syndrome land as to say she would not take a coronavirus vaccine if it was during the Trump administration .
Last year the Person of the Year was Greta Thunberg , the climate change scold still in her teenage years , the youngest person for the recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the oldest , just as he will be when he is inaugurated in January 2021 .
The Harris-Biden administration is supposed to heal us all , you see , and point our country in the right direction .
They are here to save America .
The whole piece on why TIME chose Biden and Harris is malarkey , liberal , sufficiently woke malarkey .
While TIME has included other presidents ( including Trump in 2016 ) for the distinction , this is the first time the magazine has chosen a vice-president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her own , though ?
If the idea is to recognize historic achievement , the title should have gone to just Kamala on her own .
Her election was historic as the first black and Indian woman to be chosen as a vice-presidential candidate and then to win the election on the presidential ticket .
Joe Biden has no real accomplishments to point to as a shining legacy after more than 40 years in the U.S. Senate .
He ’ s a follower , not a leader .
It seems to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to share the recognition with Status Quo Joe .
When he was asked by TIME about unifying the country , he punted as he always does when asked about specifics on any topic .
His response was “ Trust me.
” Yeah , no .
We ’ ve all learned that we can ’ t trust Joe Biden .
His idea of working with the other side of the aisle was to applaud Obamacare being rammed through Congress with support from only Democrats and telling Obama at the signing ceremony that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved and bragged about the Iran nuclear deal , too , which only empowered that brutal dictatorship and bribed the mullahs with pallets of American taxpayer dollars .
Now we are supposed to believe he is the one to bring the nation together after he spent four years trashing Trump and Republicans like all the other Democrats have done .
The task before the new Administration is immense : a pandemic to confront , an economy to fix , a climate crisis to tackle , alliances to rebuild , deep skepticism to overcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump voters , and an opposition party still very much under Trump ’ s sway .
How to begin to reach out to , much less lead , the Americans who profess to believe that Donald Trump won the election ?
I asked Biden .
His answer was , more or less , Trust me and trust the American people .
“ You ’ re going to see an awful lot of Republicans in the House and the Senate willing to … work with me , ” Biden says .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done my whole career.
” This will be the test of the next four years : Americans who haven ’ t been this divided in more than a century elected two leaders who have bet their success on finding common ground .
The odds may be long .
But it will be among the most critical chapters in the arduous quest for a more perfect union .
TIME magazine ignores the fact that Joe Biden has no new ideas .
His plan to deal with the pandemic is the same as Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the financial success the Trump administration had with the economy before the pandemic struck .
He ’ s bringing back the Obama administration retreads to raise taxes , overregulate businesses , bow in apology to the rest of the world , and bend to the left ’ s demands to keep everyone happy .
He is no longer a moderate , he is willing to say whatever it takes to win .
Let ’ s face it , Biden campaigned for president without leaving his basement because his staff knows he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his mental capacity .
He is applauded for winning the election because he is not the bad Orange Man .
He ’ ll continue to be protected by everyone around him , including the press .
Let ’ s hope he gets a food taster so Kamala doesn ’ t become president before the term is up .

TIME magazine’s Person of the Year was named last night and the person is two people – Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I saw the news alert on my iPad just as I was falling asleep. Even almost asleep, my eye roll was strong. Of all the people that could have been chosen, these two were the winners. Frankly, it defies logic unless you are a liberal ideologue.
The 2020 election campaign theme for Team Biden revolved around candidate Biden as a unifier, a man who would return America back to normal. The definition of normal for Joe Biden, a member of The Swamp for almost fifty years, is different than the definition of normal for outside of the Beltway people. For instance, in Joe Biden’s world, it is normal for his son and brother to trade on the former vice-president’s name and make millions of dollars from foreign government entities. TIME magazine justifies the choice for its recognition because Biden “stood his ground near the center” while the far left criticized him as out-of-touch and he was “misrepresented as a socialist from his right.”
Biden appeased the far-left by naming Kamala Harris as his running mate. She was rated the most liberal lawmaker in the U.S. Senate. Think about that – she has voted in such a way as to be rated as more liberal than an actual socialist like Bernie Sanders. Kamala Harris has absolutely no history of being a unifier. She deliberately tried to blow up Senate hearings on President Trump’s judicial nominees, including her hideous performance during the Bret Kavanaugh hearing as a Supreme Court nominee. She outright lied about having information against him which she did not, just to see his reaction. Her behavior was worse than that of Cory “I am Sparticus” Booker. She blamed President Trump for every COVID-19 death and went so far into Trump Derangement Syndrome land as to say she would not take a coronavirus vaccine if it was during the Trump administration.
Last year the Person of the Year was Greta Thunberg, the climate change scold still in her teenage years, the youngest person for the recognition. This year Joe Biden is one of the oldest, just as he will be when he is inaugurated in January 2021. The Harris-Biden administration is supposed to heal us all, you see, and point our country in the right direction. They are here to save America.
If Donald Trump was a force for disruption and division over the past four years, Biden and Harris show where the nation is heading: a blend of ethnicities, lived experiences, and worldviews that must find a way forward together if the American experiment is to survive.
The whole piece on why TIME chose Biden and Harris is malarkey, liberal, sufficiently woke malarkey. While TIME has included other presidents (including Trump in 2016) for the distinction, this is the first time the magazine has chosen a vice-president. Shouldn’t Kamala been chosen on her own, though? If the idea is to recognize historic achievement, the title should have gone to just Kamala on her own. Her election was historic as the first black and Indian woman to be chosen as a vice-presidential candidate and then to win the election on the presidential ticket. Joe Biden has no real accomplishments to point to as a shining legacy after more than 40 years in the U.S. Senate. He’s a follower, not a leader. It seems to be a slap in the face to Kamala to have to share the recognition with Status Quo Joe.
When he was asked by TIME about unifying the country, he punted as he always does when asked about specifics on any topic. His response was “Trust me.” Yeah, no. We’ve all learned that we can’t trust Joe Biden. His idea of working with the other side of the aisle was to applaud Obamacare being rammed through Congress with support from only Democrats and telling Obama at the signing ceremony that it was a big effing deal. He approved and bragged about the Iran nuclear deal, too, which only empowered that brutal dictatorship and bribed the mullahs with pallets of American taxpayer dollars. Now we are supposed to believe he is the one to bring the nation together after he spent four years trashing Trump and Republicans like all the other Democrats have done.
The task before the new Administration is immense: a pandemic to confront, an economy to fix, a climate crisis to tackle, alliances to rebuild, deep skepticism to overcome with many Americans dubious about unity with Trump voters, and an opposition party still very much under Trump’s sway. How to begin to reach out to, much less lead, the Americans who profess to believe that Donald Trump won the election? I asked Biden. His answer was, more or less, Trust me and trust the American people. “You’re going to see an awful lot of Republicans in the House and the Senate willing to … work with me,” Biden says. “I think that’s what I’ve done my whole career.” This will be the test of the next four years: Americans who haven’t been this divided in more than a century elected two leaders who have bet their success on finding common ground. The odds may be long. But it will be among the most critical chapters in the arduous quest for a more perfect union.
TIME magazine ignores the fact that Joe Biden has no new ideas. His plan to deal with the pandemic is the same as Trump’s. He will destroy the foundation of the financial success the Trump administration had with the economy before the pandemic struck. He’s bringing back the Obama administration retreads to raise taxes, overregulate businesses, bow in apology to the rest of the world, and bend to the left’s demands to keep everyone happy. He is no longer a moderate, he is willing to say whatever it takes to win. Let’s face it, Biden campaigned for president without leaving his basement because his staff knows he’s a gaffe machine and rapidly failing in his mental capacity. He is applauded for winning the election because he is not the bad Orange Man. He’ll continue to be protected by everyone around him, including the press. Let’s hope he gets a food taster so Kamala doesn’t become president before the term is up.


hotair--2020-12-11--Breaking: SCOTUS tosses Texas suit

Breaking: SCOTUS tosses Texas suit

There was never a doubt about the outcome .
The only doubts were ( a ) whether the Court would feel obliged to hear the case before ruling against Texas , on the theory that it has no discretion to reject cases arising out of original jurisdiction , and ( b ) whether it would issue a lengthy opinion attacking the flaws in Texas ’ s complaint or just give it the back of its hand .
We have our answers : Note that Alito and Thomas thought the Court was required to hear the case but even they “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ other relief ” sought by Texas was an injunction to block Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin , and Georgia from awarding their electors to Biden .
Presumably that decision was 9-0 .
This was the easiest ruling these judges will ever issue .
They weren ’ t going to effectively dissolve the United States because Trump can ’ t cope with the fact that he lost and Republican officials can ’ t bear to tell him otherwise .
Just the fact that Ken Paxton and his many allies were willing to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it prevailed , has done damage to the country that ’ ll never be undone .
Like I said earlier , the masks are off .
Lotta reaction to come , no doubt , including from you-know-who .
Stand by for updates .
Update : Ben Sasse cheers the decision : “ Since Election Night , a lot of people have been confusing voters by spinning Kenyan Birther-type , ‘ Chavez rigged the election from the grave ’ conspiracy theories , but every American who cares about the rule of law should take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all three of President Trump ’ s picks — closed the book on the nonsense.
” Update : There ’ s a school of thought that the double whammy of being rejected by SCOTUS and seeing the electoral college elect Biden on Monday will finally convince Trump that the game is over .
I think he ’ s assumed for awhile that the game is over , though .
The question isn ’ t whether he understands that he ’ s lost , it ’ s how spiteful and destructive he wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think Sciutto ’ s right : The worst is yet to come .
The reason he wanted Barrett confirmed immediately , before November 3 , was because he assumed it would stack the deck for him at the Court in case he lost the election and needed SCOTUS to do him a solid by pulling off a coup for him .
He must be genuinely shocked to find that his appointees don ’ t approach their jobs that way .
The key point is that no one involved in this thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not Paxton , not the AGs who joined him , not the Republicans in Congress who signed on .
It ’ s been a giant fraud perpetrated on Trump supporters .
If anything , some people participating in the suit likely signed onto it *because* they knew it wouldn ’ t succeed .
They thought it was a harmless political stunt , a gesture of loyalty to the MAGA base that would go nowhere and cost them nothing .
Trump himself might be the only exception , as it ’ s increasingly hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capable of separating fact from fiction when he wants to believe the fiction .
He may have talked himself into thinking that SCOTUS would deliver for him here .
But everyone else knew better and it ’ s a disgrace that they led his fans to believe otherwise .
Update : A lot of nutty foot-stamping to come , needless to say .
It ’ ll be interesting on Monday to see how congressional Republicans react to the electoral college making Biden ’ s victory official , especially now that SCOTUS has ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around to kinda sorta acknowledging that Biden won , but as the setbacks pile up and the bitterness among Trumpers climbs higher , it becomes more — not less — politically costly for them to admit Biden will be president .
In a rational world the opposite would be true , with people adjusting to reality as the court challenges fade and the electoral process moves towards inauguration .
Trump could give GOP politicians cover by simply saying , “ Okay , it ’ s over , I don ’ t accept it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” but he won ’ t .
This will get worse .
Update : Indeed .
This suit was a con , but it won ’ t be the cons who will suffer for it now that it ’ s been exposed .
Update : As I was saying about who grasped reality here and who didn ’ t : Update : MAGA fave Kurt Schlichter is trying to reality-check the diehards :

There was never a doubt about the outcome.
The only doubts were (a) whether the Court would feel obliged to hear the case before ruling against Texas, on the theory that it has no discretion to reject cases arising out of original jurisdiction, and (b) whether it would issue a lengthy opinion attacking the flaws in Texas’s complaint or just give it the back of its hand.
We have our answers:
Note that Alito and Thomas thought the Court was required to hear the case but even they “would not grant other relief.” The “other relief” sought by Texas was an injunction to block Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia from awarding their electors to Biden. Presumably that decision was 9-0.
This was the easiest ruling these judges will ever issue. They weren’t going to effectively dissolve the United States because Trump can’t cope with the fact that he lost and Republican officials can’t bear to tell him otherwise. Just the fact that Ken Paxton and his many allies were willing to bring this suit, knowing the consequences if it prevailed, has done damage to the country that’ll never be undone. Like I said earlier, the masks are off.
Lotta reaction to come, no doubt, including from you-know-who. Stand by for updates.
Update: Ben Sasse cheers the decision: “Since Election Night, a lot of people have been confusing voters by spinning Kenyan Birther-type, ‘Chavez rigged the election from the grave’ conspiracy theories, but every American who cares about the rule of law should take comfort that the Supreme Court — including all three of President Trump’s picks — closed the book on the nonsense.”
Update: There’s a school of thought that the double whammy of being rejected by SCOTUS and seeing the electoral college elect Biden on Monday will finally convince Trump that the game is over. I think he’s assumed for awhile that the game is over, though. The question isn’t whether he understands that he’s lost, it’s how spiteful and destructive he wants to be on his way out the door. I think Sciutto’s right:
And, no, it’s not over, because this is a propaganda fight, not a credible legal one, which Trump will not give up given his refusal to acknowledge any loss. And many in his party will remain too fearful to contradict him. — Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) December 11, 2020
The worst is yet to come.
Update: Right:
Trump alluded to idea he needed Barrett in place to settle the election outcome well before Election Day and as he was nominating her. She did not rule in his favor in this suit. — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) December 11, 2020
The reason he wanted Barrett confirmed immediately, before November 3, was because he assumed it would stack the deck for him at the Court in case he lost the election and needed SCOTUS to do him a solid by pulling off a coup for him. He must be genuinely shocked to find that his appointees don’t approach their jobs that way.
Update: Also right:
From a wise friend: So, just so I understand what the Alito/Thomas blurb is about, SCOTUS is effectively saying “get the eff off my lawn” while Alito/Thomas are like “you’re welcome to ring the doorbell but no way are we opening the door to you weirdos?” EXACTLY 🔥 — Sarah Isgur (@whignewtons) December 11, 2020
The key point is that no one involved in this thought it would succeed. No one. Not Paxton, not the AGs who joined him, not the Republicans in Congress who signed on. It’s been a giant fraud perpetrated on Trump supporters. If anything, some people participating in the suit likely signed onto it *because* they knew it wouldn’t succeed. They thought it was a harmless political stunt, a gesture of loyalty to the MAGA base that would go nowhere and cost them nothing. Trump himself might be the only exception, as it’s increasingly hard to tell how much he’s capable of separating fact from fiction when he wants to believe the fiction. He may have talked himself into thinking that SCOTUS would deliver for him here. But everyone else knew better and it’s a disgrace that they led his fans to believe otherwise.
Update: A lot of nutty foot-stamping to come, needless to say.
The @TexasGOP is out with a statement in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, all but calling for secession: “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” pic.twitter.com/4bB3gk88t4 — Adam Kelsey (@adamkelsey) December 12, 2020
It’ll be interesting on Monday to see how congressional Republicans react to the electoral college making Biden’s victory official, especially now that SCOTUS has ruled. More Republican senators have gradually come around to kinda sorta acknowledging that Biden won, but as the setbacks pile up and the bitterness among Trumpers climbs higher, it becomes more — not less — politically costly for them to admit Biden will be president. In a rational world the opposite would be true, with people adjusting to reality as the court challenges fade and the electoral process moves towards inauguration. Trump could give GOP politicians cover by simply saying, “Okay, it’s over, I don’t accept it but it is what it is,” but he won’t. This will get worse.
Update: Indeed. This suit was a con, but it won’t be the cons who will suffer for it now that it’s been exposed.
A whole lot of people who got taken in by liars are going to be in a bunch of pain and trying to figure out how this still turns out the way they've been promised it will and none of this ends up well for any of us. — Alex Koppelman (@AlexKoppelman) December 12, 2020
Update: As I was saying about who grasped reality here and who didn’t:
Several Republicans who signed their names to the amicus brief for the Texas lawsuit understood it would likely quickly be shot down by the Supreme Court and only viewed it, like many other things in Trump's world, as a loyalty test. But Trump told people he thought he'd prevail. — Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) December 11, 2020
Update: MAGA fave Kurt Schlichter is trying to reality-check the diehards:


hotair--2020-12-11--Biden ducks reporter when asked if Hunter committed a crime

He gave the kind , fatherly response here , the same comment his team made on his behalf when Hunter announced a few days ago that he was being investigated over his “ tax affairs.
” But this isn ’ t going to hack it forever .
Or will it ?
Once he ’ s president , he ’ ll swat away questions about the DOJ probing Hunter with “ I can ’ t comment on an active investigation.
” Same goes for if Hunter is indicted : “ I can ’ t comment on a pending prosecution.
” After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll hear something of substance .
Watch , then read on .
An obvious question hanging over Biden right now : Will his AG appoint a special counsel to handle the Hunter investigation ?
Even Trump critics like Richard Painter believe one is obviously warranted here — and maybe not just for the Hunter matter .
“ That should not be investigated by someone appointed by the president any more than if one of his cabinet members is accused of something or his national security adviser , ” said Richard W. Painter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush who became a leading critic of Mr. Trump and switched parties .
Mr. Painter said Mr. Biden should establish a permanent special counsel to handle politically sensitive cases and restore faith that the Justice Department is not simply a tool of the president .
“ This is the opportunity for the incoming president and attorney general , whoever he chooses , to say this is exactly why we need an office of special counsel , ” he said .
Tom Cotton also thinks a special counsel is in order , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] he classic situation for a special counsel is when the Justice Department has a profound conflict of interest because ( a ) there is substantial evidence of wrongdoing , and ( b ) the case requires investigating the president , those close to him , or other high administration officials , ” McCarthy wrote .
This case obviously qualifies .
One way Bill Barr could reingratiate himself to Trump and MAGA fans would be to take it upon himself to appoint one , having already elevated John Durham to special-counsel status to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will endure even after Biden takes office .
Although , as a matter of raw politics , you wonder which would be better for the GOP , Hunter being successfully prosecuted for tax evasion or Biden succumbing to the temptation to fire the prosecutor who ’ s chasing him .
The latter can ’ t happen if that prosecutor is a special counsel .
( I mean , it can , but that would require Biden to break a norm that even Trump wouldn ’ t break . )
It ’ d be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meddle with a standard prosecution .
But that would look so corrupt , and so , so , so hypocritical after Democrats ’ complaints about Trump meddling with the DOJ to make sure his cronies enjoyed special treatment , that I think the GOP would get more political mileage out of it than from a successful Hunter prosecution .
Look at it this way : As sleazy as it would be to find that Hunter skirted his tax obligations , a case like that wouldn ’ t necessarily touch Joe Biden .
Whereas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department on Hunter ’ s behalf , that ’ s a nuclear scandal .
But I don ’ t think the Biden White House would do that , precisely because it would make a mockery of his entire “ return to norms ” campaign pitch .
If Biden ’ s going to intervene somehow on Hunter ’ s behalf , I ’ d guess there ’ s a tiny but nonzero chance that he ’ d pardon him late in his term — but even then , probably only if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children first .
I think it ’ s far more likely that Sleepy Joe would grit his teeth and accept the prospect of Hunter having to do some time than enlist his administration to try to prevent that .
Especially with Trump waiting in the wings in 2024 to say , “ See , I told you .
The left points fingers at me but look what they do when they ’ re in charge !
” Whatever happens , “ President ’ s Son Faces New Round of Legal Trouble ” will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months to come .
Team Joe is probably hoping that whatever happens with Hunter happens soon , as it ’ ll be awkward if the decision to charge him is made by the Biden DOJ — and it ’ ll be *really* awkward if the decision *not* to charge him is .
In fact , Biden might be hoping Barr appoints a special counsel in the matter just so that it ’ s out of his administration ’ s hands .
One last point .
I wonder if the Hunter business will lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AG .
His name ’ s been floated before , but more as a longshot alternative to Doug Jones and Sally Yates .
Now that Biden ’ s own son might be prosecuted , he might be looking for someone with a reputation of unimpeachable integrity to handle the matter .
A former federal judge who was nominated to the Supreme Court is an obvious possibility .

He gave the kind, fatherly response here, the same comment his team made on his behalf when Hunter announced a few days ago that he was being investigated over his “tax affairs.”
But this isn’t going to hack it forever.
Or will it? Once he’s president, he’ll swat away questions about the DOJ probing Hunter with “I can’t comment on an active investigation.” Same goes for if Hunter is indicted: “I can’t comment on a pending prosecution.”
After a conviction, maybe then we’ll hear something of substance. Watch, then read on.
An obvious question hanging over Biden right now: Will his AG appoint a special counsel to handle the Hunter investigation? Even Trump critics like Richard Painter believe one is obviously warranted here — and maybe not just for the Hunter matter.
“That should not be investigated by someone appointed by the president any more than if one of his cabinet members is accused of something or his national security adviser,” said Richard W. Painter, a former ethics counsel to President George W. Bush who became a leading critic of Mr. Trump and switched parties. Mr. Painter said Mr. Biden should establish a permanent special counsel to handle politically sensitive cases and restore faith that the Justice Department is not simply a tool of the president. “This is the opportunity for the incoming president and attorney general, whoever he chooses, to say this is exactly why we need an office of special counsel,” he said.
Tom Cotton also thinks a special counsel is in order, as does Andy McCarthy. “[T]he classic situation for a special counsel is when the Justice Department has a profound conflict of interest because (a) there is substantial evidence of wrongdoing, and (b) the case requires investigating the president, those close to him, or other high administration officials,” McCarthy wrote. This case obviously qualifies. One way Bill Barr could reingratiate himself to Trump and MAGA fans would be to take it upon himself to appoint one, having already elevated John Durham to special-counsel status to make sure that Durham’s probe will endure even after Biden takes office.
Although, as a matter of raw politics, you wonder which would be better for the GOP, Hunter being successfully prosecuted for tax evasion or Biden succumbing to the temptation to fire the prosecutor who’s chasing him. The latter can’t happen if that prosecutor is a special counsel. (I mean, it can, but that would require Biden to break a norm that even Trump wouldn’t break.) It’d be easier for him and his AG to meddle with a standard prosecution. But that would look so corrupt, and so, so, so hypocritical after Democrats’ complaints about Trump meddling with the DOJ to make sure his cronies enjoyed special treatment, that I think the GOP would get more political mileage out of it than from a successful Hunter prosecution. Look at it this way: As sleazy as it would be to find that Hunter skirted his tax obligations, a case like that wouldn’t necessarily touch Joe Biden. Whereas if the Biden White House interfered with the Justice Department on Hunter’s behalf, that’s a nuclear scandal.
But I don’t think the Biden White House would do that, precisely because it would make a mockery of his entire “return to norms” campaign pitch. If Biden’s going to intervene somehow on Hunter’s behalf, I’d guess there’s a tiny but nonzero chance that he’d pardon him late in his term — but even then, probably only if Trump sets a precedent of blanket-pardoning his own children first. I think it’s far more likely that Sleepy Joe would grit his teeth and accept the prospect of Hunter having to do some time than enlist his administration to try to prevent that. Especially with Trump waiting in the wings in 2024 to say, “See, I told you. The left points fingers at me but look what they do when they’re in charge!”
Whatever happens, “President’s Son Faces New Round of Legal Trouble” will be a bad headline for Biden for months to come. Team Joe is probably hoping that whatever happens with Hunter happens soon, as it’ll be awkward if the decision to charge him is made by the Biden DOJ — and it’ll be *really* awkward if the decision *not* to charge him is. In fact, Biden might be hoping Barr appoints a special counsel in the matter just so that it’s out of his administration’s hands.
One last point. I wonder if the Hunter business will lead Biden to opt for Merrick Garland as AG. His name’s been floated before, but more as a longshot alternative to Doug Jones and Sally Yates. Now that Biden’s own son might be prosecuted, he might be looking for someone with a reputation of unimpeachable integrity to handle the matter. A former federal judge who was nominated to the Supreme Court is an obvious possibility.


hotair--2020-12-11--CNN anchor Kate Bolduan's "facts first" sweater deserves all the mocking it is getting

CNN put forward a new tagline in 2017 – “ Facts First ” .
The irony does not escape any Trump supporter .
The Democrats and their cohorts in the media have gaslit Americans for four years .
Now the cable news network that revolved around nothing but anti-Trump stories , whether real or phony , for the last four years wants to be taken seriously .
Daytime show anchor Kate Bolduan took part in fashion politics Thursday .
She captured the attention of CNN ’ s viewership with her choice of sweater .
The $ 400 pink cashmere sweater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For whatever reason , Bolduan chose to wear a message on her sweater .
The tagline is all about slamming Trump and Trump-friendly outlets .
CNN admits as much .
The tagline was created to “ combat ” Trump ’ s rhetoric .
“ Facts First ” has been a CNN marketing tagline since 2017 .
The phrase was created in an effort to combat the rhetoric used by President Donald Trump , who has repeatedly called CNN “ fake news ” over the years .
CNN Worldwide Executive Vice President and Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 interview that the network was prompted to proclaim “ facts first ” because “ there ’ s a conversation happening around journalism and media and the First Amendment.
” “ It ’ s happening right now .
We felt compelled to participate in that conversation with a brand campaign that reminds people who we are and what we do and why we do it , ” she said at the time .
The sweater was customized and hand-embroidered , as is the line of sweaters with a message .
She didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a department store .
While most women would have worn the sweater in their off-air time , Bauduan made the upscale casual wear garment into business attire .
Liberals loved it .
Bolduan is a card-carrying member of The Swamp .
The media and people in power mingle over cocktails or dinners or even special off-the-record gatherings to get their talking points and socialize together .
It ’ s an easy transition for those in politics to transition into media jobs .
George Stephanopoulos springs to mind .
Bolduan is a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the emails from Wikileaks , in 2015 , just two days before Hillary announced her candidacy , a private off-the-record gathering was hosted by Joel Benenson , the chief campaign strategist for Hillary .
The guest list only contained the names of reporters who would cover Hillary on the campaign trail .
Bolduan , along with Brianna Keilar , Gloria Borger , and John Berman was invited from CNN .
You get the point , she ’ s one of the crowd .
The Resistance is fond of wearing clothing that advertises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pussy hats became a symbol of The Resistance during the first Women ’ s March , held the day after Trump ’ s inauguration and since then .
The Resistance wear costumes of female reproductive organs in pro-choice demonstrations .
Jill Biden wore designer boots with the word “ vote ” on them this year .
Democrat women wore all black during the Trump impeachment trial .
Bolduan ’ s sweater just happened to make its designer ’ s website , complete with an ode to CNN .
With the purchase of each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee to Protect Journalists .
Facts are facts .
They aren ’ t colored by emotion or bias .
They are indisputable .
There is no alternative to a fact .
Facts explain things .
What they are , how they happened .
Facts are not interpretations .
Once facts are established , opinions can be formed .
And while opinions matter , they don ’ t change facts .
We stand with our friends at CNN who start with the facts first .
Lingua Franca NYC has been making “ politically-minded luxury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the fashion resistance.
” Conservatives noted the political statement disguised as the cable network ’ s tagline .
Bolduan deserved every bit of the snark she received .
Her virtue-signaling was not professional .
Apparently , the mention that $ 100 will be donated to the Committee to Protect Journalists was an afterthought .
Oof .
CNN ’ s ratings have seen a turn for the better since the November election but still not quite at FNC ’ s level .
For all of CNN ’ s opposition to President Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tanked consistently month after month .
Perhaps management is just giddy to see some good news and allowing news anchors to drop the mask and just be political operatives .
Does it scream professional journalist to be a part of a clothing company ’ s advertising campaign ?
Facts First for CNN means only one point of view is allowed .
Conservatives are frequently replaced by semi-conservatives who will trash the GOP in general and Trump specifically .
Say what you will about FOX News but during the day its programming is about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Opinion shows are aired during primetime hours .
The daytime shows include viewpoints from both sides of the aisle .
CNN devoted time to Russia , Russia , Russia all day and night for three years .
They reported on every planted story by anti-Trump sources without hesitation .
They helped sway an election by working with Democrats to suppress stories about Biden and his family ’ s corruption and grifting .
Facts do matter and CNN is usually fresh out of them .

CNN put forward a new tagline in 2017 – “Facts First”. The irony does not escape any Trump supporter. The Democrats and their cohorts in the media have gaslit Americans for four years. Now the cable news network that revolved around nothing but anti-Trump stories, whether real or phony, for the last four years wants to be taken seriously.
Daytime show anchor Kate Bolduan took part in fashion politics Thursday. She captured the attention of CNN’s viewership with her choice of sweater. The $400 pink cashmere sweater was embroidered with the CNN tagline. For whatever reason, Bolduan chose to wear a message on her sweater. The tagline is all about slamming Trump and Trump-friendly outlets. CNN admits as much. The tagline was created to “combat” Trump’s rhetoric.
“Facts First” has been a CNN marketing tagline since 2017. The phrase was created in an effort to combat the rhetoric used by President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called CNN “fake news” over the years. CNN Worldwide Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer Allison Gollust said in a 2017 interview that the network was prompted to proclaim “facts first” because “there’s a conversation happening around journalism and media and the First Amendment.” “It’s happening right now. We felt compelled to participate in that conversation with a brand campaign that reminds people who we are and what we do and why we do it,” she said at the time.
The sweater was customized and hand-embroidered, as is the line of sweaters with a message. She didn’t just order this off the rack at a department store. While most women would have worn the sweater in their off-air time, Bauduan made the upscale casual wear garment into business attire. Liberals loved it.
Bolduan is a card-carrying member of The Swamp. The media and people in power mingle over cocktails or dinners or even special off-the-record gatherings to get their talking points and socialize together. It’s an easy transition for those in politics to transition into media jobs. George Stephanopoulos springs to mind. Bolduan is a big Hillary Clinton supporter. As was discovered in the emails from Wikileaks, in 2015, just two days before Hillary announced her candidacy, a private off-the-record gathering was hosted by Joel Benenson, the chief campaign strategist for Hillary. The guest list only contained the names of reporters who would cover Hillary on the campaign trail. Bolduan, along with Brianna Keilar, Gloria Borger, and John Berman was invited from CNN. You get the point, she’s one of the crowd.
The Resistance is fond of wearing clothing that advertises their opposition to Trump. The pink pussy hats became a symbol of The Resistance during the first Women’s March, held the day after Trump’s inauguration and since then. The Resistance wear costumes of female reproductive organs in pro-choice demonstrations. Jill Biden wore designer boots with the word “vote” on them this year. Democrat women wore all black during the Trump impeachment trial.
Bolduan’s sweater just happened to make its designer’s website, complete with an ode to CNN. With the purchase of each sweater, $100 goes to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Facts are facts.
They aren’t colored by emotion or bias.
They are indisputable.
There is no alternative to a fact.
Facts explain things.
What they are, how they happened.
Facts are not interpretations.
Once facts are established, opinions can be formed.
And while opinions matter, they don’t change facts.
We stand with our friends at CNN who start with the facts first.
Lingua Franca NYC has been making “politically-minded luxury brand” garments as a “part of the fashion resistance.” Conservatives noted the political statement disguised as the cable network’s tagline. Bolduan deserved every bit of the snark she received. Her virtue-signaling was not professional.
CNN anchors are now hawking cashmere sweaters embroidered with the words "facts first." I swear, if Tom Wolfe were still alive, he'd be screaming "I give up!" pic.twitter.com/kYSPr732C1 — Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) December 10, 2020
Apparently, the mention that $100 will be donated to the Committee to Protect Journalists was an afterthought. Oof.
Wait they must have added this line after your screenshot! "$100 of each sweater purchased goes to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide.”https://t.co/vPwX5vw8hO pic.twitter.com/e8d6htsUU3 — Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) December 10, 2020
facts matter for 3 minutes and 16 seconds pic.twitter.com/m2Ww5nH65p — Derek Ball (@derekinseoul) December 11, 2020
https://twitter.com/_David_Edward/status/1337441320957251585
CNN’s ratings have seen a turn for the better since the November election but still not quite at FNC’s level. For all of CNN’s opposition to President Trump and his term in office, their ratings tanked consistently month after month. Perhaps management is just giddy to see some good news and allowing news anchors to drop the mask and just be political operatives. Does it scream professional journalist to be a part of a clothing company’s advertising campaign?
Facts First for CNN means only one point of view is allowed. Conservatives are frequently replaced by semi-conservatives who will trash the GOP in general and Trump specifically. Say what you will about FOX News but during the day its programming is about news and current events, not opinions. Opinion shows are aired during primetime hours. The daytime shows include viewpoints from both sides of the aisle.
CNN devoted time to Russia, Russia, Russia all day and night for three years. They reported on every planted story by anti-Trump sources without hesitation. They helped sway an election by working with Democrats to suppress stories about Biden and his family’s corruption and grifting. Facts do matter and CNN is usually fresh out of them.


hotair--2020-12-11--Dem rep to Pelosi: The House should refuse to seat any Republican who signed onto Texas's lawsuit

I agree with Ken White ’ s response to this pander by Dem Rep. Bill Pascrell : “ Look , I get it , but the answer to performative pseudo-legal system-undermining nonsense is not ‘ more of the same . '
” If you ’ re defending the norm that America ’ s elected representatives shouldn ’ t try to tear the country apart , proposing a penalty that would also tear the country apart seems … counterproductive .
The members of Congress who endorsed Texas ’ s suit are morally unfit to hold office in the United States but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different things .
Filing a lawsuit , however contemptible , isn ’ t “ insurrection.
” Although I do think Pascrell would have been on stronger footing if he had focused specifically on GOP reps from Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin , and Georgia who signed on to Texas ’ s complaint .
If those representatives have no faith in the integrity of the ballots in their home states because Biden won , there ’ s no reason why Congress should have faith in the integrity of each of those representatives ’ victories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House on the same ballot , after all .
If these people believe that the electoral process in their home states was unconstitutional , they have no grounds to object if the House decides that their own victories can ’ t properly be recognized .
So why seat them ?
Refusing to seat all 126 Republicans supporting the suit goes too far but I sympathize with Pascrell ’ s frustration that not one of them will pay any political or professional price for having supported a legal effort that would end the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful .
“ A majority of one of the two major parties would rather lose democracy than lose the presidential election , ” wrote polisci prof Seth Masket last night of the Texas suit , correctly .
“ If elections are only legitimate when one party wins them , the [ American ] experiment is basically over.
” And that ’ s really the point .
Whether Texas wins or loses its suit isn ’ t the issue ; people file pernicious lawsuits in America all the time , although a challenge asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of tens of millions of voters is in a league of its own .
The issue is that more than half of the Republican members of the House support that outcome .
That means the American experiment is over , win or lose .
The mask is off .
And even so , it won ’ t cost any of them a thing in terms of votes , media appearances , lobbying jobs , nothing .
The experiment is over .
How it finally unwinds remains unclear , but it will unwind .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ called on the Supremes to bring down the mightiest hammer in their arsenal on this lawsuit in a post today .
I hope they do , but he ’ s kidding himself if he believes a show of contempt by the Court will change any minds .
Again , the experiment is already over .
The justices ’ decision whether to do that needs to account for this extraordinary , dangerous moment for our democracy .
President Donald Trump , other supportive Republicans , and aligned commentators have firmly convinced many tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election was stolen .
If that view continues to take hold , it threatens not only our national politics for the next four years but the public ’ s basic faith in elections of all types that are the foundations of our society .
A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history .
Every once in a long while , the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the nation .
That is particularly appropriate when , as here , the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court ’ s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly .
Dan Crenshaw , a bona fide hero before he joined Congress and became … this , tried to explain his support for Texas ’ s lawsuit : That ’ s a mighty nonchalant view to take of a case that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s side prevailed .
He ’ s effectively saying “ run it up the flagpole , see if the Court salutes ” about a lawsuit that would invalidate four states ’ presidential votes and disenfranchise voters by the millions .
My question for him , for Trump , and for anyone else who supports this suit is simple : What do they imagine this country would look like if five justices did what Texas is asking ?
How does Crenshaw envision America 2021 in his mind if Trump is handed a second term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disqualifying ballots by the millions without even finding proof of fraud ?
There ’ d be no America for Trump to preside over .
Blue states would move to secede , and they ’ d have a point .
They ’ d be nuts to remain in a country that no longer permits their candidates to win national office through normal democratic means , thwarted by a ruthless , power-mad GOP and aided and abetted by a corrupt Supreme Court .
It ’ d be a de facto autocracy .
Head for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic , basic , basic civic concerns like that as “ left-wing ” grousing is the icing on the cake .
He ’ s taking the mantle of “ defenders of American democracy ” and gently draping it around the shoulders of g-ddamned progressives .
Although , given how few Republicans seem to be troubled by a naked attempt to use the Supreme Court to execute a coup for Trump , you can ’ t knock him too much .
It is *mostly* left-wingers complaining about this , to the right ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbying SCOTUS himself now , by the way : You ’ d need to be snorting some very high-grade partisan disinformation to believe that a 50/50 Senate with Joe Manchin as the deciding vote is ready to add 25 seats to the Supreme Court .
Think Amy Coney Barrett is dumb enough to believe it ?
Speaking of which , I ’ ll be surprised if we don ’ t learn down the road at some point that Trump wanted to *personally* lobby the Court by calling up some of the justices and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not to say that he has , and it ’ s certainly not to say that any justices would agree to take his call .
But it wouldn ’ t occur to him how grossly unethical that would be .
If it hasn ’ t happened , I ’ d guess it ’ s because he ran the idea by some friend or aide and was told , “ Uh , don ’ t do that .
Seriously.
” Nate Cohn has a nice thread today on why , ironically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that Biden ’ s wins in Georgia and the Rust Belt were legit .
It ’ d be suspicious if those were the only states where Sleepy Joe had made gains this year , but they weren ’ t by a long shot .
He improved on Hillary ’ s performance in various states across the map , including … Texas .
In fact , his gains there were bigger than in some of the states whose elections are being challenged .
How did Biden outperform Hillary by several points in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partially “ rigged ” too ?
And if it wasn ’ t rigged , why is it so hard to believe that a national shift to the left producing a three-point Dem gain in Texas would produce a three-point Dem gain in Michigan as well ?
Somewhere someone ’ s asking Ken Paxton that question and he ’ s answering , “ Whatever , just sign the check .
”

I agree with Ken White’s response to this pander by Dem Rep. Bill Pascrell: “Look, I get it, but the answer to performative pseudo-legal system-undermining nonsense is not ‘more of the same.'” If you’re defending the norm that America’s elected representatives shouldn’t try to tear the country apart, proposing a penalty that would also tear the country apart seems … counterproductive.
The text of the 14th Amendment expressly forbids Members of Congress from engaging in rebellion against the United States. Trying to overturn a democratic election and install a dictator seems like a pretty clear example of that. pic.twitter.com/VMnDfd0sFx — Bill Pascrell, Jr. (@BillPascrell) December 11, 2020
The members of Congress who endorsed Texas’s suit are morally unfit to hold office in the United States but moral disqualification and legal disqualification are two different things. Filing a lawsuit, however contemptible, isn’t “insurrection.” Although I do think Pascrell would have been on stronger footing if he had focused specifically on GOP reps from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia who signed on to Texas’s complaint. If those representatives have no faith in the integrity of the ballots in their home states because Biden won, there’s no reason why Congress should have faith in the integrity of each of those representatives’ victories. Voters vote for president and for the House on the same ballot, after all. If these people believe that the electoral process in their home states was unconstitutional, they have no grounds to object if the House decides that their own victories can’t properly be recognized.
So why seat them?
There are now 19 GOP members of Congress who are advocating for overturning the election results *of the states they themselves represent.* List below, new signatories in bold:https://t.co/8CmK88ovYA pic.twitter.com/3swDnpawVn — Jacob Rubashkin (@JacobRubashkin) December 11, 2020
Refusing to seat all 126 Republicans supporting the suit goes too far but I sympathize with Pascrell’s frustration that not one of them will pay any political or professional price for having supported a legal effort that would end the United States as we know it if successful. “A majority of one of the two major parties would rather lose democracy than lose the presidential election,” wrote polisci prof Seth Masket last night of the Texas suit, correctly. “If elections are only legitimate when one party wins them, the [American] experiment is basically over.” And that’s really the point. Whether Texas wins or loses its suit isn’t the issue; people file pernicious lawsuits in America all the time, although a challenge asking the Supreme Court to spoil the ballots of tens of millions of voters is in a league of its own. The issue is that more than half of the Republican members of the House support that outcome.
That means the American experiment is over, win or lose. The mask is off. And even so, it won’t cost any of them a thing in terms of votes, media appearances, lobbying jobs, nothing.
The experiment is over. How it finally unwinds remains unclear, but it will unwind.
Tom Goldstein of the normally by-the-book SCOTUSblog called on the Supremes to bring down the mightiest hammer in their arsenal on this lawsuit in a post today. I hope they do, but he’s kidding himself if he believes a show of contempt by the Court will change any minds. Again, the experiment is already over.
The justices’ decision whether to do that needs to account for this extraordinary, dangerous moment for our democracy. President Donald Trump, other supportive Republicans, and aligned commentators have firmly convinced many tens of millions of people that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. If that view continues to take hold, it threatens not only our national politics for the next four years but the public’s basic faith in elections of all types that are the foundations of our society. A simple five-page per curiam opinion genuinely could end up in the pantheon of all-time most significant rulings in American history. Every once in a long while, the court needs to invest some of its accumulated capital in issuing judgments that are not only legally right but also respond to imminent, tangible threats to the nation. That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly.
Dan Crenshaw, a bona fide hero before he joined Congress and became … this, tried to explain his support for Texas’s lawsuit:
The left-wing outrage is predictably over the top. The request here is simple: allow this case to be elevated to the Supreme Court, and let the Supreme Court make a determination. All cases should be heard, all investigations should be thorough. It is that simple. — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) December 11, 2020
My personal hope is that drawing additional attention to it forces states to clean up their act, and adopt far better and more secure systems going forward that will garner the kind of faith in our elections our nation so desperately needs. — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) December 11, 2020
That’s a mighty nonchalant view to take of a case that would overturn a national election if Crenshaw’s side prevailed. He’s effectively saying “run it up the flagpole, see if the Court salutes” about a lawsuit that would invalidate four states’ presidential votes and disenfranchise voters by the millions. My question for him, for Trump, and for anyone else who supports this suit is simple: What do they imagine this country would look like if five justices did what Texas is asking? How does Crenshaw envision America 2021 in his mind if Trump is handed a second term by a conservative majority that resorted to disqualifying ballots by the millions without even finding proof of fraud?
There’d be no America for Trump to preside over. Blue states would move to secede, and they’d have a point. They’d be nuts to remain in a country that no longer permits their candidates to win national office through normal democratic means, thwarted by a ruthless, power-mad GOP and aided and abetted by a corrupt Supreme Court. It’d be a de facto autocracy. Head for the exits.
The fact that Crenshaw dismisses basic, basic, basic civic concerns like that as “left-wing” grousing is the icing on the cake. He’s taking the mantle of “defenders of American democracy” and gently draping it around the shoulders of g-ddamned progressives. Although, given how few Republicans seem to be troubled by a naked attempt to use the Supreme Court to execute a coup for Trump, you can’t knock him too much. It is *mostly* left-wingers complaining about this, to the right’s shame.
The president is pretty openly lobbying SCOTUS himself now, by the way:
audience of nine pic.twitter.com/JRxqpxrPdZ — Christian Vanderbrouk (@UrbanAchievr) December 11, 2020
You’d need to be snorting some very high-grade partisan disinformation to believe that a 50/50 Senate with Joe Manchin as the deciding vote is ready to add 25 seats to the Supreme Court. Think Amy Coney Barrett is dumb enough to believe it? Speaking of which, I’ll be surprised if we don’t learn down the road at some point that Trump wanted to *personally* lobby the Court by calling up some of the justices and pitching them on “loyalty.” That’s not to say that he has, and it’s certainly not to say that any justices would agree to take his call. But it wouldn’t occur to him how grossly unethical that would be. If it hasn’t happened, I’d guess it’s because he ran the idea by some friend or aide and was told, “Uh, don’t do that. Seriously.”
Nate Cohn has a nice thread today on why, ironically, Texas itself provides some of the best evidence that Biden’s wins in Georgia and the Rust Belt were legit. It’d be suspicious if those were the only states where Sleepy Joe had made gains this year, but they weren’t by a long shot. He improved on Hillary’s performance in various states across the map, including … Texas. In fact, his gains there were bigger than in some of the states whose elections are being challenged.
Biden improved by 3.4 points over Clinton's performance in the state–a larger improvement than his gains in any of PA/MI/WI.
He did so despite suffering big losses among the state's Latino voters–a group that represents a sliver of the vote in PA/MI/WI — Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) December 11, 2020
If there's any irregularity, maybe that's it? It is a little hard to explain why Biden did quite so poorly in the Midwestern battleground states — Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) December 11, 2020
How did Biden outperform Hillary by several points in Texas unless that state’s vote was partially “rigged” too? And if it wasn’t rigged, why is it so hard to believe that a national shift to the left producing a three-point Dem gain in Texas would produce a three-point Dem gain in Michigan as well?
Somewhere someone’s asking Ken Paxton that question and he’s answering, “Whatever, just sign the check.”


hotair--2020-12-11--A new migrant caravan from Honduras heads to the U.S., anticipate Biden's open borders policies

It didn ’ t take very long for a migrant caravan to form in Honduras and begin their journey to the United States in anticipation of Joe Biden taking office .
More than 1,000 Hondurans departed a bus terminal Wednesday night headed to Guatemala .
If they make it into Guatemala the caravan will continue on until it reaches the U.S. border .
Joe Biden has pledged to freeze deportations and give amnesty to 11M illegal immigrants in the first 100 days of his administration .
His intention is to undo the Trump administration ’ s work to curb illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Trump administration has successfully entered into agreements with Central American countries and with Mexico to stop migrant caravans from successfully traveling to the U.S. border .
Migrant caravans were frequently in the news in 2018 and after the Trump administration made it a priority to work with Central American countries to stop the flow of illegal immigrants , the caravans ended .
This caravan is populated with Hondurans who are leaving due to the devastation caused by two back-to-back hurricanes .
The people are looking to Joe Biden to allow them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to the border .
“ We have asked God to help us and we believe that the new U.S. government will let us in , ” said Bertha Méndez , a 25-year-old homemaker who had been living in a shack made up of plastic sheets and cardboard after heavy rains destroyed her house in the northern municipality of Choloma .
“ I travel with eight people and we all think that this is a good opportunity because it is the only thing we have left after having lost everything in the floods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expects to reach the U.S. before the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration .
Thanks to the success of the agreements between Central American countries and the United States concerning illegal immigration , this caravan may not make it past Guatemala , if it is allowed into that country .
In October a caravan was turned away from the Guatemalan border .
At that time , the caravan also consisted of 1,000 Hondurans trying to cross over into the United States .
Fall is the traditional migrant caravan season and that caravan didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has deployed security forces at busy border crossings with Guatemala to limit access to Mexico .
The Guatemalan government doesn ’ t want to rock the boat as it anticipates that the Biden administration will provide financial assistance .
The record-breaking hurricane season is to blame for this particular caravan .
Like other caravans , it was organized through social media on Facebook and WhatsApp .
The title used was “ Looking for the American Dream.
” Most of the Hondurans are traveling with backpacks containing few possessions .
They have a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most are wearing sports shoes in case they must run and many are wearing face masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus .
What are the odds of these people having valid passports and COVID-19 test results on them ?
These basic requirements from Guatemala will eliminate most , if not all of the migrants from continuing on through that country .
Mark Morgan , Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection , has been warning of a new wave of illegal immigrants arriving on the southern border since October , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential election .
The common perception , according to Morgan , is that the borders will be wide open in a Biden administration .
Children and families , in particular , are heading to the border .
Despite lockdowns during the coronavirus pandemic , the numbers of those apprehended at the border are increasing .
In October , 4,630 unaccompanied children were taken into custody .
In April , for example , that number was 712 .
The number of migrant families traveling to the border was reported to be 4,501 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April .
In November , during a six-day period , 1,000 children were taken into custody .
You see where this is going .
Why wouldn ’ t Central Americans try to come to America after hearing the promises of Democrats who want to abolish ICE , fire the border patrol , and receive blanket amnesty if Joe Biden is promising to enable them ?
It is hard to imagine that those who protect our borders in the border patrol and enforce immigration law in ICE will be receiving much support from Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic , this puts Americans at risk .
The rise in unaccompanied minors is particularly troubling .
The fear is that it will be a replication of the child migrant crisis during the Obama administration in 2014 .
It may also produce a larger wave of families and unaccompanied youngsters like those who arrived seeking asylum in 2018 .
When confronted about the cages built during the Obama administration , Biden often throws Obama under the bus and says Obama was the president , not him .
That indicates he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden will erase the good work that the Trump administration has done on the border with the sweep of a pen in his first 100 days in office .

It didn’t take very long for a migrant caravan to form in Honduras and begin their journey to the United States in anticipation of Joe Biden taking office. More than 1,000 Hondurans departed a bus terminal Wednesday night headed to Guatemala. If they make it into Guatemala the caravan will continue on until it reaches the U.S. border.
Joe Biden has pledged to freeze deportations and give amnesty to 11M illegal immigrants in the first 100 days of his administration. His intention is to undo the Trump administration’s work to curb illegal immigration and secure the U.S.-Mexico border. The Trump administration has successfully entered into agreements with Central American countries and with Mexico to stop migrant caravans from successfully traveling to the U.S. border. Migrant caravans were frequently in the news in 2018 and after the Trump administration made it a priority to work with Central American countries to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, the caravans ended.
This caravan is populated with Hondurans who are leaving due to the devastation caused by two back-to-back hurricanes. The people are looking to Joe Biden to allow them to stay in America, if they make it to the border.
“We have asked God to help us and we believe that the new U.S. government will let us in,” said Bertha Méndez, a 25-year-old homemaker who had been living in a shack made up of plastic sheets and cardboard after heavy rains destroyed her house in the northern municipality of Choloma. “I travel with eight people and we all think that this is a good opportunity because it is the only thing we have left after having lost everything in the floods,” Ms. Méndez added. She expects to reach the U.S. before the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration.
Thanks to the success of the agreements between Central American countries and the United States concerning illegal immigration, this caravan may not make it past Guatemala, if it is allowed into that country. In October a caravan was turned away from the Guatemalan border. At that time, the caravan also consisted of 1,000 Hondurans trying to cross over into the United States. Fall is the traditional migrant caravan season and that caravan didn’t get very far. The Mexican government has deployed security forces at busy border crossings with Guatemala to limit access to Mexico. The Guatemalan government doesn’t want to rock the boat as it anticipates that the Biden administration will provide financial assistance.
Guatemala’s national police said they were preparing for the arrival of migrants at the border crossing of Agua Caliente, in the department of Esquipulas. “Preventive measures continue at the national level,” the police said on Twitter on Thursday, and posted a photograph of police vehicles parked by an empty border crossing. A Guatemalan migration official said migrants would be required to have a valid passport and a Covid-19 test to enter the country, requirements that few can meet and would likely lead to most being turned back.
The record-breaking hurricane season is to blame for this particular caravan. Like other caravans, it was organized through social media on Facebook and WhatsApp. The title used was “Looking for the American Dream.” Most of the Hondurans are traveling with backpacks containing few possessions. They have a few pants and shirts and little else. Most are wearing sports shoes in case they must run and many are wearing face masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. What are the odds of these people having valid passports and COVID-19 test results on them? These basic requirements from Guatemala will eliminate most, if not all of the migrants from continuing on through that country.
Hurricanes Eta and Iota were part of a record-setting Atlantic season that affected more than three million people in Honduras and close to one million in Guatemala, according to United Nations estimates. Heavy rains, floods and mudslides destroyed homes and roads and crippled an economy already suffering a deep contraction because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean expects Honduras’s gross domestic product to fall 8% this year.
Mark Morgan, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, has been warning of a new wave of illegal immigrants arriving on the southern border since October, mostly in anticipation of Joe Biden winning the presidential election. The common perception, according to Morgan, is that the borders will be wide open in a Biden administration. Children and families, in particular, are heading to the border. Despite lockdowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the numbers of those apprehended at the border are increasing. In October, 4,630 unaccompanied children were taken into custody. In April, for example, that number was 712. The number of migrant families traveling to the border was reported to be 4,501 in October. That number was 716 in April. In November, during a six-day period, 1,000 children were taken into custody. You see where this is going. Why wouldn’t Central Americans try to come to America after hearing the promises of Democrats who want to abolish ICE, fire the border patrol, and receive blanket amnesty if Joe Biden is promising to enable them?
It is hard to imagine that those who protect our borders in the border patrol and enforce immigration law in ICE will be receiving much support from Joe Biden and his administration. Especially in a pandemic, this puts Americans at risk. The rise in unaccompanied minors is particularly troubling. The fear is that it will be a replication of the child migrant crisis during the Obama administration in 2014. It may also produce a larger wave of families and unaccompanied youngsters like those who arrived seeking asylum in 2018. When confronted about the cages built during the Obama administration, Biden often throws Obama under the bus and says Obama was the president, not him. That indicates he’ll be much laxer in border enforcement. Biden will erase the good work that the Trump administration has done on the border with the sweep of a pen in his first 100 days in office.


hotair--2020-12-11--Report: White House tells FDA chief to approve Pfizer vaccine today or resign

A terrible idea , short on brains and long on bravado .
If I were FDA chief Steve Hahn , I ’ d laugh in their faces and tell them they ’ ll get the approval as soon as it can be done responsibly and not a second before .
The Times reported last night after the FDA ’ s advisory panel approved the vaccine that full agency authorization was expected on … Saturday .
In other words , after waiting nine months , the White House is threatening to humiliate the guy who oversaw the most rapid vaccine approval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time that may amount to something like 12 hours .
Call their bluff .
Find out what Mark Meadows is made of .
Make them wear the headline , “ FDA IN TURMOIL AS HISTORIC VACCINE DEBUTS AFTER TRUMP FIRES CHIEF.
” Nothing would do more to build public confidence in the product than having the guy who approved it getting sh*tcanned on the day it ’ s introduced .
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Friday told Stephen Hahn , the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not clear the nation ’ s first coronavirus vaccine by day ’ s end , according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss what happened… With the timetable apparently accelerated from Saturday morning , the FDA and Pfizer were rushing to complete the paperwork needed for the authorization , according to another individual who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he didn ’ t have authority to discuss the plans An FDA statement issued early Friday morning said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would “ rapidly work toward finalization and issuance of an emergency use authorization ” following Thursday ’ s endorsement of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine by an agency advisory committee .
What ’ s wrong with publicly pushing the FDA to work overtime today to get the approval done instead of rolling it out on Saturday ?
In theory , nothing .
But as I noted last night , the agency ’ s guiding principle in this process seems to have been “ as quickly as ethically possible without cutting corners.
” Every government medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s talked about the vaccine has been at pains to make that clear .
They did this as fast as they could but they didn ’ t skip any steps because of the urgency of the crisis .
They did it on a standard scientific timeline , not a political one , so you should trust that the product you ’ re getting has been scrutinized as rigorously as any other vaccine you ’ ve gotten .
So here are Trump and Meadows , at the very last moment , foolishly barging their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or bust , ” and thereby generating a bunch of media coverage that ’ ll lead some Americans to say , “ Maybe they did rush this out before it was ready for primetime after all.
” If they were going to strongarm the FDA into cutting corners , why do it one day before approval arrives ?
Do it in October .
That would have been a *really* terrible idea in that it would have convinced millions that the vaccine was being pushed out prematurely to help Trump ’ s campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been saved over the past two months .
Axios is reporting that Meadows didn ’ t quite promise to fire Hahn if the approval wasn ’ t done today .
He just implied it : “ White House chief of staff Mark Meadows hinted to Food and Drug Administration commissioner Stephen Hahn on a phone call Friday that his job security might be in jeopardy as he pushed the FDA chief to approve Pfizer ’ s coronavirus vaccine by the end of the day , according to two sources familiar with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meadows told Hahn he “ may as well start working on his next job if Dr. Hahn didn ’ t get it done on Friday.
” Biden ’ s being sworn in 40 days from now , buddy .
Hahn will need to start working on his next job soon regardless .
The same Times piece claims that Hahn is indeed going to try to make the White House happy by getting the approval done sometime tonight instead of tomorrow morning .
I hope the bad press this incident has produced , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to start persuading the public to get vaccinated , was worth that 12 hours .
In fact , HHS chief Alex Azar said this morning that he anticipated the first shots to happen on Monday or Tuesday of next week , in which case getting the approval done tonight instead of tomorrow morning may not do anything to actually accelerate the process .
It gives Trump and Meadows a reason to boast , though , that they really put the spurs to the FDA — five feet from the finish line .
Meh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to sell the vaccine in his daily presser , saying , “ There ’ s no political influence.
” Not entirely true , it seems .

A terrible idea, short on brains and long on bravado.
If I were FDA chief Steve Hahn, I’d laugh in their faces and tell them they’ll get the approval as soon as it can be done responsibly and not a second before. The Times reported last night after the FDA’s advisory panel approved the vaccine that full agency authorization was expected on … Saturday. In other words, after waiting nine months, the White House is threatening to humiliate the guy who oversaw the most rapid vaccine approval process in U.S. history over a window of time that may amount to something like 12 hours.
Call their bluff. Find out what Mark Meadows is made of. Make them wear the headline, “FDA IN TURMOIL AS HISTORIC VACCINE DEBUTS AFTER TRUMP FIRES CHIEF.” Nothing would do more to build public confidence in the product than having the guy who approved it getting sh*tcanned on the day it’s introduced.
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Friday told Stephen Hahn, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, to submit his resignation if the agency does not clear the nation’s first coronavirus vaccine by day’s end, according to people familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss what happened… With the timetable apparently accelerated from Saturday morning, the FDA and Pfizer were rushing to complete the paperwork needed for the authorization, according to another individual who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he didn’t have authority to discuss the plans An FDA statement issued early Friday morning said the FDA had informed Pfizer that it would “rapidly work toward finalization and issuance of an emergency use authorization” following Thursday’s endorsement of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine by an agency advisory committee.
Meadows’s boss chimed in this morning:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337369403638362114
What’s wrong with publicly pushing the FDA to work overtime today to get the approval done instead of rolling it out on Saturday? In theory, nothing. But as I noted last night, the agency’s guiding principle in this process seems to have been “as quickly as ethically possible without cutting corners.” Every government medical expert from Fauci on down who’s talked about the vaccine has been at pains to make that clear. They did this as fast as they could but they didn’t skip any steps because of the urgency of the crisis. They did it on a standard scientific timeline, not a political one, so you should trust that the product you’re getting has been scrutinized as rigorously as any other vaccine you’ve gotten.
So here are Trump and Meadows, at the very last moment, foolishly barging their way in to say, “Tonight or bust,” and thereby generating a bunch of media coverage that’ll lead some Americans to say, “Maybe they did rush this out before it was ready for primetime after all.” If they were going to strongarm the FDA into cutting corners, why do it one day before approval arrives? Do it in October. That would have been a *really* terrible idea in that it would have convinced millions that the vaccine was being pushed out prematurely to help Trump’s campaign, but at least some extra lives would have been saved over the past two months.
Axios is reporting that Meadows didn’t quite promise to fire Hahn if the approval wasn’t done today. He just implied it: “White House chief of staff Mark Meadows hinted to Food and Drug Administration commissioner Stephen Hahn on a phone call Friday that his job security might be in jeopardy as he pushed the FDA chief to approve Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine by the end of the day, according to two sources familiar with the call.” According to the Times, Meadows told Hahn he “may as well start working on his next job if Dr. Hahn didn’t get it done on Friday.”
Biden’s being sworn in 40 days from now, buddy. Hahn will need to start working on his next job soon regardless.
The same Times piece claims that Hahn is indeed going to try to make the White House happy by getting the approval done sometime tonight instead of tomorrow morning. I hope the bad press this incident has produced, at the very moment the White House needs to start persuading the public to get vaccinated, was worth that 12 hours. In fact, HHS chief Alex Azar said this morning that he anticipated the first shots to happen on Monday or Tuesday of next week, in which case getting the approval done tonight instead of tomorrow morning may not do anything to actually accelerate the process. It gives Trump and Meadows a reason to boast, though, that they really put the spurs to the FDA — five feet from the finish line. Meh.
Here’s Biden this afternoon trying to sell the vaccine in his daily presser, saying, “There’s no political influence.” Not entirely true, it seems.


hotair--2020-12-11--Too good to check: Is Ivanka looking to primary Marco Rubio in Florida?

I have but one question .
Is there a way I can donate to her campaign now ?
Nothing , and I mean nothing , would be funnier than watching Little Marco be a toady for Trump for four years while biting his tongue in order to protect his right flank and keep his presidential hopes alive , only to have Trump ’ s daughter nuke him effortlessly in a primary because she wants to be a politician now .
Would Rubio even contest that primary ?
It would be an act of grave disloyalty to the president and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when asked to make way for the next generation of the Trump monarchy .
Maybe Senator Ivanka would reward him with some sort of low-level advisor position in his office .
He ’ s a good communicator .
He ’ d make a fine press flack .
I ’ m going to write her a check for $ 2,800 now and will mail it once she declares her candidacy .
Assuming , that is , that the rank but enjoyable speculation in this CNN piece is true .
She and Jared are moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partly because NYC clearly doesn ’ t want her anymore , partly because there ’ s a secluded ultra-rich area near Mar-a-Lago that ’ ll provide her family with privacy and protection , and partly because … she ’ s looking to get into politics , allegedly .
Her problem is that Florida is already top-heavy with Republicans .
The governor ?
A Republican , Ron DeSantis .
Senators ?
Republicans Rubio and Rick Scott .
There are House seats she could vie for but it ’ s impossible to imagine Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 435 people , doing dull committee work instead of being out in front of the cameras .
Clearly she ’ d want to run statewide , but that means either primarying an incumbent or convincing them to vacate their seat .
It turns out she couldn ’ t primary DeSantis even if she wanted to : Florida law requires candidates for governor to have been a resident and registered to vote in the state for seven years .
And if she ’ s looking to primary Scott , she ’ d have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not up again until 2024 , by which time the GOP base ’ s devotion to the Trumps might have cooled a bit .
And Scott is well-armed for a tough primary with universal name recognition in the state after serving as governor and senator and a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars .
Little Marco , though ?
Not rich .
Viewed suspiciously by the base , especially MAGA types , for his “ Gang of Eight ” heresy on immigration .
And up for reelection in 2022 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wait long .
Do it , Ivanka .
Don ’ t think twice .
Trump has not ruled out a near-future run for office , nor has she publicly denied she has political ambitions of her own .
Florida , which President Donald Trump won in 2016 and 2020 , provides a potential opportunity for Ivanka Trump , should she choose to enter politics .
“ Ivanka definitely has political ambitions , no question about it , ” the source told CNN .
“ She wants to run for something , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” … “ Assuming she ’ s not interested in a low-profile political office , that would leave the United States Senate as a possibility , ” said Adam C. Smith , former Tampa Bay Times political editor and now consultant with Mercury Public Affairs .
“ Marco Rubio is up for reelection in 2022 and is expected to run again .
But I wouldn ’ t think Rubio would deter her if she wanted to run .
The last time Marco Rubio ran against a Trump in Florida , in the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 percentage points.
” “ I think she ’ d be the immediate frontrunner if she ran for US Senate against Rubio , given her father ’ s popularity in the Sunshine State , ” Smith continued .
Remember that Rubio said in 2016 when he ran for president that he wouldn ’ t run again for Senate ; he was talked out of that commitment after his presidential campaign went bust .
Now that Trump ’ s reportedly thinking of running again in 2024 , there won ’ t be another Rubio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least .
What does Marco do , then ?
Cling to his Senate seat for dear life , wanting to remain a prominent public figure until his chance comes around again ?
Or say “ to hell with it ” and stand aside for Ivanka so that he can take a high-paid lobbying job somewhere ?
Maybe he ’ d make a deal with the Trumps .
“ I ’ ll retire from the Senate and go make a bunch of money for a few years if you ’ ll commit now to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s two terms are up in 2026.
” Would the Trumps take that deal ?
Would Rubio possibly trust them to honor it ?
If he thinks he ’ s going to be primaried successfully by Ivanka , the smart play would be to at least try to get something out of it for himself .
Speaking of 2024 , Marist polled people this week on whether they ’ re amped for another Trump presidential run .
Result : Not really , even if you grade on the “ polls chronically underestimate Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curve .
Even whites without a college degree , his base , are “ meh.
” But a poll like this is worth next to nothing at a moment when Trump ’ s just been beaten and is behaving badly even by his usual standards .
Either Kamala Harris or an 82-year-old Joe Biden would be a favorable match-up for him in 2024 , especially if the economy is sluggish during Biden ’ s presidency .
“ Trump fatigue ” is bound to wear off on swing voters to some degree too with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And of course no next-gen Republican will have the stones to challenge him in a primary , which makes things simple for Republican voters .
He stands a very fair chance of winning in 2024 , however dismal that prospect seems to most of the country right now .
Exit quotation from a Republican operative who spoke to Vanity Fair about Trump ’ s plans : “ This f***s Mike Pompeo .
This f***s Mike Pence .
How do you raise money if Trump is running ?
”

I have but one question. Is there a way I can donate to her campaign now?
Nothing, and I mean nothing, would be funnier than watching Little Marco be a toady for Trump for four years while biting his tongue in order to protect his right flank and keep his presidential hopes alive, only to have Trump’s daughter nuke him effortlessly in a primary because she wants to be a politician now.
Would Rubio even contest that primary? It would be an act of grave disloyalty to the president and his supporters for Marco not to stand aside when asked to make way for the next generation of the Trump monarchy.
Maybe Senator Ivanka would reward him with some sort of low-level advisor position in his office. He’s a good communicator. He’d make a fine press flack.
I’m going to write her a check for $2,800 now and will mail it once she declares her candidacy. Assuming, that is, that the rank but enjoyable speculation in this CNN piece is true. She and Jared are moving to Florida after Trump leaves office, partly because NYC clearly doesn’t want her anymore, partly because there’s a secluded ultra-rich area near Mar-a-Lago that’ll provide her family with privacy and protection, and partly because … she’s looking to get into politics, allegedly.
Her problem is that Florida is already top-heavy with Republicans. The governor? A Republican, Ron DeSantis. Senators? Republicans Rubio and Rick Scott. There are House seats she could vie for but it’s impossible to imagine Trump’s favorite child hiding in a crowd of 435 people, doing dull committee work instead of being out in front of the cameras. Clearly she’d want to run statewide, but that means either primarying an incumbent or convincing them to vacate their seat. It turns out she couldn’t primary DeSantis even if she wanted to: Florida law requires candidates for governor to have been a resident and registered to vote in the state for seven years. And if she’s looking to primary Scott, she’d have to wait a bit. He’s not up again until 2024, by which time the GOP base’s devotion to the Trumps might have cooled a bit. And Scott is well-armed for a tough primary with universal name recognition in the state after serving as governor and senator and a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Little Marco, though? Not rich. Viewed suspiciously by the base, especially MAGA types, for his “Gang of Eight” heresy on immigration. And up for reelection in 2022, which means Ivanka wouldn’t have to wait long.
Do it, Ivanka. Don’t think twice.
Trump has not ruled out a near-future run for office, nor has she publicly denied she has political ambitions of her own. Florida, which President Donald Trump won in 2016 and 2020, provides a potential opportunity for Ivanka Trump, should she choose to enter politics. “Ivanka definitely has political ambitions, no question about it,” the source told CNN. “She wants to run for something, but that still needs to be figured out.”… “Assuming she’s not interested in a low-profile political office, that would leave the United States Senate as a possibility,” said Adam C. Smith, former Tampa Bay Times political editor and now consultant with Mercury Public Affairs. “Marco Rubio is up for reelection in 2022 and is expected to run again. But I wouldn’t think Rubio would deter her if she wanted to run. The last time Marco Rubio ran against a Trump in Florida, in the 2016 presidential primary, Rubio was crushed by 19 percentage points.”
“I think she’d be the immediate frontrunner if she ran for US Senate against Rubio, given her father’s popularity in the Sunshine State,” Smith continued. Remember that Rubio said in 2016 when he ran for president that he wouldn’t run again for Senate; he was talked out of that commitment after his presidential campaign went bust. Now that Trump’s reportedly thinking of running again in 2024, there won’t be another Rubio presidential campaign for eight more years at least. What does Marco do, then? Cling to his Senate seat for dear life, wanting to remain a prominent public figure until his chance comes around again? Or say “to hell with it” and stand aside for Ivanka so that he can take a high-paid lobbying job somewhere?
Maybe he’d make a deal with the Trumps. “I’ll retire from the Senate and go make a bunch of money for a few years if you’ll commit now to endorsing me for governor once DeSantis’s two terms are up in 2026.” Would the Trumps take that deal? Would Rubio possibly trust them to honor it?
If he thinks he’s going to be primaried successfully by Ivanka, the smart play would be to at least try to get something out of it for himself.
Speaking of 2024, Marist polled people this week on whether they’re amped for another Trump presidential run. Result: Not really, even if you grade on the “polls chronically underestimate Trump’s support by five points” curve.
Even whites without a college degree, his base, are “meh.” But a poll like this is worth next to nothing at a moment when Trump’s just been beaten and is behaving badly even by his usual standards. Either Kamala Harris or an 82-year-old Joe Biden would be a favorable match-up for him in 2024, especially if the economy is sluggish during Biden’s presidency. “Trump fatigue” is bound to wear off on swing voters to some degree too with Trump no longer omnipresent in American media. And of course no next-gen Republican will have the stones to challenge him in a primary, which makes things simple for Republican voters. He stands a very fair chance of winning in 2024, however dismal that prospect seems to most of the country right now. Exit quotation from a Republican operative who spoke to Vanity Fair about Trump’s plans: “This f***s Mike Pompeo. This f***s Mike Pence. How do you raise money if Trump is running?”