hotair--2020-05-15--Whoopi Goldberg to Chris Christie: Who are you willing to see die in the name of reopening the count

Whoopi Goldberg to Chris Christie: Who are you willing to see die in the name of reopening the country?

Last week he defended the “ reopen now ” push by analogizing to war : “ We sent our young men during World War II over to Europe , out to the Pacific , knowing , knowing that many of them would not come home alive .
And we decided to make that sacrifice because what we were standing up for was the American way of life .
In the very same way now , we have to stand up for the American way of life.
” Whoopi decided to engage with him on those terms when he turned up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ View ” by asking him to … identify which people he ’ s willing to sacrifice .
Which was foolish .
The point of Christie ’ s war analogy is that we undertake certain risky endeavors because the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of inaction even when we know many will die .
No one stopped after 9/11 to say , “ Kindly identify which American soldiers , specifically , you ’ re willing to see die in agony in the name of smashing Al Qaeda.
” We routinely factor “ acceptable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from construction projects to speed limits .
If Christie has to specify who he ’ s willing to sacrifice in order to reopen the country , Goldberg should specify who she ’ s willing to see die in a bloody wreck on the highway in order to keep the speed limit at 55 .
There was a stronger critique available to her .
Ask Christie to identify how many casualties he ’ s willing to tolerate as acceptable in the name of resuming commerce .
What ’ s the tipping point in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second wave after we reopen where he ’ d say , “ Okay , people should probably stay home for awhile until this cools off ” ?
It ’ s one thing to say that we need to approach reopening the way we approach a war , it ’ s another to say that we need to approach reopening like it ’ s Pickett ’ s charge .
If his answer is that we have to balance casualties incurred from the second wave against deaths from despair resulting from the economic collapse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done if that second wave occurs ?
This point has been made repeatedly over the past few weeks but let ’ s make it again : Demand for restaurants , movie theaters , etc , began to collapse *before* stay-at-home orders went into effect .
It ’ s not Gretchen Whitmer who killed business in Michigan , it ’ s Michiganders who decided to stop risking their health by congregating with strangers in enclosed spaces for non-essential reasons .
If a second wave develops because we rushed to reopen too soon and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second economic collapse , what ’ s Christie ’ s solution ?
That ’ s what Whoopi ’ s getting at with her question , I think .
It ’ s not that Christie wants any particular person to die or that he ’ s eager to sacrifice any single individual ; it ’ s that his logic ends up implying that people should just keep shopping in the name of propping up the economy even if the epidemic starts exploding all around them .
How he proposes to make them do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clue .
This is a recurring problem with “ reopen now ” advocates .
They purport to be arguing with governors when in reality they ’ re arguing with consumers .
Watch , then read on .
Peggy Noonan has a column out today about the “ class struggle ” that the lockdown era has created .
A week ago I would have nodded along with every word .
As it is , I think she ’ s been suckered by the same fallacy I was , that the working class is gung @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class is not .
There is a class divide between those who are hard-line on lockdowns and those who are pushing back .
We see the professionals on one side—those James Burnham called the managerial elite , and Michael Lind , in “ The New Class War , ” calls “ the overclass ” —and regular people on the other .
The overclass are highly educated and exert outsize influence as managers and leaders of important institutions—hospitals , companies , statehouses .
The normal people aren ’ t connected through professional or social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have regular jobs—service worker , small-business owner .
Since the pandemic began , the overclass has been in charge—scientists , doctors , political figures , consultants—calling the shots for the average people .
But personally they have less skin in the game .
The National Institutes of Health scientist won ’ t lose his livelihood over what ’ s happened .
Neither will the midday anchor .
It ’ s true that the professional class is pro-lockdown and it ’ s true that blue states are more comfortable with lockdowns than red states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ *as* true if Trump had remained staunchly pro-lockdown over the past two months is an open question .
But it just ain ’ t true that salt-of-the-earth blue-collar workers are ready to knock down the doors of their places of employment to get working again .
It feels like it should be true for the simple reason that the working class doesn ’ t have nest eggs to fall back on like the professional class does .
But it isn ’ t .
I posted this WaPo data a few days ago but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s relevant .
Laid-off workers , the most desperate members of the working class , are less eager to reopen than everyone else is .
You can blame that on the availability of souped-up unemployment benefits or the rational fear among lower-paid workers that their job duties make them more prone to contracting the virus , but it is what it is .
In reality , according to this recent poll out of Wisconsin , lower-earning Republicans are much less eager to reopen soon than higher-earning ones are .
It ’ s bosses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to risk employees ’ health for the sake of reopening , at least on the right .
Or , if you prefer Christie ’ s analogy , the “ generals ” are more eager for battle than the “ soldiers ” who ’ ll have to do the fighting on the front lines .
The caveat to the point up top about how consumers , not governors , decided when it was time to start massive social distancing is that it ’ s also consumers , not governors , who ’ ll decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing to relax .
People had already begun relaxing a bit before states started reopening and now they ’ re relaxing more per new polling from Gallup .
Self-isolation is ending , whether governors like it or not .
And self-isolation will begin again if a second wave develops , whether Christie likes it or not .

Last week he defended the “reopen now” push by analogizing to war: “We sent our young men during World War II over to Europe, out to the Pacific, knowing, knowing that many of them would not come home alive. And we decided to make that sacrifice because what we were standing up for was the American way of life. In the very same way now, we have to stand up for the American way of life.” Whoopi decided to engage with him on those terms when he turned up as a guest today on “The View” by asking him to … identify which people he’s willing to sacrifice.
Which was foolish. The point of Christie’s war analogy is that we undertake certain risky endeavors because the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of inaction even when we know many will die. No one stopped after 9/11 to say, “Kindly identify which American soldiers, specifically, you’re willing to see die in agony in the name of smashing Al Qaeda.” We routinely factor “acceptable casualties” into all walks of life, from construction projects to speed limits. If Christie has to specify who he’s willing to sacrifice in order to reopen the country, Goldberg should specify who she’s willing to see die in a bloody wreck on the highway in order to keep the speed limit at 55.
There was a stronger critique available to her. Ask Christie to identify how many casualties he’s willing to tolerate as acceptable in the name of resuming commerce. What’s the tipping point in terms of deaths and hospitalizations from a second wave after we reopen where he’d say, “Okay, people should probably stay home for awhile until this cools off”? It’s one thing to say that we need to approach reopening the way we approach a war, it’s another to say that we need to approach reopening like it’s Pickett’s charge.
If his answer is that we have to balance casualties incurred from the second wave against deaths from despair resulting from the economic collapse, then what is he suggesting should be done if that second wave occurs? This point has been made repeatedly over the past few weeks but let’s make it again: Demand for restaurants, movie theaters, etc, began to collapse *before* stay-at-home orders went into effect. It’s not Gretchen Whitmer who killed business in Michigan, it’s Michiganders who decided to stop risking their health by congregating with strangers in enclosed spaces for non-essential reasons. If a second wave develops because we rushed to reopen too soon and people start sheltering at home again, causing a second economic collapse, what’s Christie’s solution? That’s what Whoopi’s getting at with her question, I think. It’s not that Christie wants any particular person to die or that he’s eager to sacrifice any single individual; it’s that his logic ends up implying that people should just keep shopping in the name of propping up the economy even if the epidemic starts exploding all around them. How he proposes to make them do that, I haven’t a clue.
This is a recurring problem with “reopen now” advocates. They purport to be arguing with governors when in reality they’re arguing with consumers. Watch, then read on.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie defends his controversial comments urging to reopen economy: “I said that some Americans will make that sacrifice no matter what we do, and now we have to decide how we’re going to balance this.” https://t.co/f8u2wbJuik pic.twitter.com/QqXWud9IxF — The View (@TheView) May 15, 2020
Peggy Noonan has a column out today about the “class struggle” that the lockdown era has created. A week ago I would have nodded along with every word. As it is, I think she’s been suckered by the same fallacy I was, that the working class is gung ho to reopen and the out-of-touch professional class is not.
There is a class divide between those who are hard-line on lockdowns and those who are pushing back. We see the professionals on one side—those James Burnham called the managerial elite, and Michael Lind, in “The New Class War,” calls “the overclass”—and regular people on the other. The overclass are highly educated and exert outsize influence as managers and leaders of important institutions—hospitals, companies, statehouses. The normal people aren’t connected through professional or social lines to power structures, and they have regular jobs—service worker, small-business owner. Since the pandemic began, the overclass has been in charge—scientists, doctors, political figures, consultants—calling the shots for the average people. But personally they have less skin in the game. The National Institutes of Health scientist won’t lose his livelihood over what’s happened. Neither will the midday anchor.
It’s true that the professional class is pro-lockdown and it’s true that blue states are more comfortable with lockdowns than red states are, although whether that would be *as* true if Trump had remained staunchly pro-lockdown over the past two months is an open question. But it just ain’t true that salt-of-the-earth blue-collar workers are ready to knock down the doors of their places of employment to get working again. It feels like it should be true for the simple reason that the working class doesn’t have nest eggs to fall back on like the professional class does. But it isn’t.
I posted this WaPo data a few days ago but will re-up it now because it’s relevant.
Laid-off workers, the most desperate members of the working class, are less eager to reopen than everyone else is. You can blame that on the availability of souped-up unemployment benefits or the rational fear among lower-paid workers that their job duties make them more prone to contracting the virus, but it is what it is.
In reality, according to this recent poll out of Wisconsin, lower-earning Republicans are much less eager to reopen soon than higher-earning ones are. It’s bosses more so than employees who are willing to risk employees’ health for the sake of reopening, at least on the right. Or, if you prefer Christie’s analogy, the “generals” are more eager for battle than the “soldiers” who’ll have to do the fighting on the front lines.
Interesting class divide among Republicans on reopening in @MULawPoll Lower income Reps are divided about reopening too soon (41 too soon-52 too slow) but high income Reps are overwhelmingly more worried reopen too slow. (16-82) Dems much less dividedhttps://t.co/b97EeiZ2kw pic.twitter.com/CxhdNZWHkl — Charles Franklin (@PollsAndVotes) May 12, 2020
The caveat to the point up top about how consumers, not governors, decided when it was time to start massive social distancing is that it’s also consumers, not governors, who’ll decide when it’s time for social distancing to relax. People had already begun relaxing a bit before states started reopening and now they’re relaxing more per new polling from Gallup. Self-isolation is ending, whether governors like it or not. And self-isolation will begin again if a second wave develops, whether Christie likes it or not.


hotair--2020-05-15--Mother Jones: China's response to the coronavirus outbreak was pretty bad

Mother Jones is a left wing site and David Corn is a left-wing reporter .
As a result , there ’ s a lot of throat clearing in this piece about how President Trump and his allies are desperately trying to distract everyone by making China into a cartoon villain .
But three paragraphs in , Corn turns a corner and admits that , based on a Congressional Research Report released Wednesday , it looks like Trump and his allies have a point .
As Corn put it , “ the CRS report does not cast the Chinese government in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The report ’ s judgements are highly measured , but it does provide ammo to those seeking to divert attention from Trump ’ s own actions ( or inaction ) .
” The report says that China “ may not have proactively notified WHO of the outbreak , ” as it was also required to do : “ According to Dr. Michael Ryan , Executive Director of WHO ’ s Health Emergencies Programme , WHO headquarters in Geneva first learned about the outbreak in Wuhan [ on December 31 ] not directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases ( ProMED ) , a U.S.-based open-source platform for early intelligence about infectious disease outbreaks.
” It turns out that a ProMED user had posted a translation of a Chinese media report detailing the contents of two “ urgent notices ” about these new atypical pneumonia cases that the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission had sent to medical institutions in the city .
At the same time , a photograph of a lab report showing a positive result for SARS had started spreading in news and medical circles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for one , shared this image with his former classmates in a private online WeChat group… As soon as the WHO learned about the outbreak from the ProMED post , it requested verification from the Chinese government .
Under the IHR , a government has 24 hours to respond .
So the WHO notification didn ’ t come from the Chinese government , it came from someone who posted info on an open-source platform .
When WHO asked for verification it didn ’ t get it for several days .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Chinese government was busy cracking down on Dr. Ai Fen and Dr. Li Wenliang for spreading “ rumors ” about a virus .
Dr. Li was reprimanded and forced to sign an apology on January 3 , the same day the government began giving information to WHO .
The CRS report goes on to say that China also sat on genetic information about the novel coronavirus for at least several days and maybe as long as a week : China ’ s government appears to have potentially hesitated before informing WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was responsible for the outbreak and when its scientists sequenced the virus ’ genome .
On January 9 , 2020 , WHO announced , “ Chinese authorities have made a preliminary determination of a novel ( or new ) coronavirus , identified in a hospitalized person with pneumonia in Wuhan.
” On January 11 , 2020 , WHO tweeted , “ BREAKING : WHO has received the genetic sequences for the novel # coronavirus ( 2019-nCoV ) from the Chinese authorities.
” China appears to have determined that a novel coronavirus was responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however .
Its scientists also sequenced the virus ’ genome days earlier than January 11 , 2020 .
According to Caixin , a respected Chinese news organization , hospitals in Wuhan sent samples from their pneumonia cases to commercial companies for analysis in late December 2019 .
Several of those companies informed the hospitals that the patient samples indicated a novel coronavirus .
One company , BGI Genomics , completed genomic sequencing of the novel coronavirus on December 26 , 2019 , Caixin reports .
The next entity reported to have sequenced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( WIV ) , an affiliate of the Chinese Academy of Sciences .
Chinese state media say WIV sequenced the virus ’ genome on January 2 .
The group that finally put the genetic information online in an open forum was apparently the fourth one to sequence the virus in China .
Finally , the CRS report notes that China refused to share a great deal of information about the outbreak , including critical information about how the virus was spreading .
China had indications in December the virus was spreading from person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first patients became ill , that was confirmation that person to person spread was happening .
But China didn ’ t admit this until January 20th .
China has also refused to share information on biological samples it took at the Wuhan market .
Only a handful of test results have been released and none from the animals that were tested at the site .
I wrote about this here .
That ’ s a sample of the delays and denials that the CRS report catalogs .
It ’ s bad enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write it off as a distraction .

Mother Jones is a left wing site and David Corn is a left-wing reporter. As a result, there’s a lot of throat clearing in this piece about how President Trump and his allies are desperately trying to distract everyone by making China into a cartoon villain. But three paragraphs in, Corn turns a corner and admits that, based on a Congressional Research Report released Wednesday, it looks like Trump and his allies have a point. As Corn put it, “the CRS report does not cast the Chinese government in a good light.” He continued, “The report’s judgements are highly measured, but it does provide ammo to those seeking to divert attention from Trump’s own actions (or inaction).”
The report says that China “may not have proactively notified WHO of the outbreak,” as it was also required to do: “According to Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, WHO headquarters in Geneva first learned about the outbreak in Wuhan [on December 31] not directly from Chinese authorities, but rather from the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases (ProMED), a U.S.-based open-source platform for early intelligence about infectious disease outbreaks.” It turns out that a ProMED user had posted a translation of a Chinese media report detailing the contents of two “urgent notices” about these new atypical pneumonia cases that the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission had sent to medical institutions in the city. At the same time, a photograph of a lab report showing a positive result for SARS had started spreading in news and medical circles in Wuhan. Dr. Li Wenliang, for one, shared this image with his former classmates in a private online WeChat group… As soon as the WHO learned about the outbreak from the ProMED post, it requested verification from the Chinese government. Under the IHR, a government has 24 hours to respond.
So the WHO notification didn’t come from the Chinese government, it came from someone who posted info on an open-source platform. When WHO asked for verification it didn’t get it for several days. In fact, while WHO was waiting for a response, the Chinese government was busy cracking down on Dr. Ai Fen and Dr. Li Wenliang for spreading “rumors” about a virus. Dr. Li was reprimanded and forced to sign an apology on January 3, the same day the government began giving information to WHO.
The CRS report goes on to say that China also sat on genetic information about the novel coronavirus for at least several days and maybe as long as a week:
China’s government appears to have potentially hesitated before informing WHO both when it determined a novel coronavirus was responsible for the outbreak and when its scientists sequenced the virus’ genome. On January 9, 2020, WHO announced, “Chinese authorities have made a preliminary determination of a novel (or new) coronavirus, identified in a hospitalized person with pneumonia in Wuhan.” On January 11, 2020, WHO tweeted, “BREAKING: WHO has received the genetic sequences for the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) from the Chinese authorities.” China appears to have determined that a novel coronavirus was responsible days before January 9, 2020, however. Its scientists also sequenced the virus’ genome days earlier than January 11, 2020. According to Caixin, a respected Chinese news organization, hospitals in Wuhan sent samples from their pneumonia cases to commercial companies for analysis in late December 2019. Several of those companies informed the hospitals that the patient samples indicated a novel coronavirus. One company, BGI Genomics, completed genomic sequencing of the novel coronavirus on December 26, 2019, Caixin reports. The next entity reported to have sequenced the genome was the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), an affiliate of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Chinese state media say WIV sequenced the virus’ genome on January 2.
The group that finally put the genetic information online in an open forum was apparently the fourth one to sequence the virus in China.
Finally, the CRS report notes that China refused to share a great deal of information about the outbreak, including critical information about how the virus was spreading. China had indications in December the virus was spreading from person to person. When doctors who treated the first patients became ill, that was confirmation that person to person spread was happening. But China didn’t admit this until January 20th.
China has also refused to share information on biological samples it took at the Wuhan market. Only a handful of test results have been released and none from the animals that were tested at the site. I wrote about this here.
That’s a sample of the delays and denials that the CRS report catalogs. It’s bad enough that even Mother Jones couldn’t write it off as a distraction.


hotair--2020-05-15--Flynn attorney: "Mystified by the entire thing" on Sullivan orders, but what's next?

Sidney Powell is hardly alone in being “ mystified ” by Judge Emmet Sullivan ’ s latest moves in the trial of Michael Flynn , but she may be the most disillusioned .
Powell told Sean Hannity last night that Sullivan ’ s attempts to punish her client are inexplicable , especially considering the heroic way she portrayed Sullivan in her book Licensed to Lie , which exposed corruption and abuse of power in the Ted Stevens case .
History has repeated itself in the attempt to railroad Flynn , Powell argues , only this time Sullivan ’ s greasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion that investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct has created a vast injustice — again .
But what does Powell plan to do about it ?
For some odd reason , Hannity never gets around to asking that question : “ I am personally extremely disappointed and saddened by his reaction , ” Sidney Powell told Sean Hannity .
“ I don ’ t know , I am mystified by the entire thing , ” she later added .
“ It ’ s not like the Judge Sullivan I knew … at all .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We have been the victims of astonishing Brady violations for three years now , ” said Powell , using a common term to describe breaches of the prosecutorial obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to a defendant .
“ Some of the information we ’ ve just been given was in the possession of [ the ] special counsel [ Robert Mueller ] , and of course was in the possession of the FBI before that .
“ The FBI knows that its agents made up of the purported false statements and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purported filing , ” she went on .
“ The government was the only institution that lied in this case .
General Flynn was honest with the agents and they reported that back.
” One has to wonder why Powell has yet to appeal these decisions , especially since they clearly violate clear Supreme Court and DC Circuit appellate precedent .
It would have seemed like a natural question to ask Powell about her next steps in preventing Sullivan from dragging Flynn any further in this vortex of abuse .
Instead , Hannity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Levin offered his own prescription — a writ of prohibition : “ So , this judge is a rogue judge .
He ’ s out of control ; he should recuse himself – but , he ’ s too damn arrogant and he won ’ t .
“ So , let me make a suggestion to the folks over there at the Department of Justice .
They ’ ve got a lot of smart attorneys in the office of legal counsel and elsewhere .
I used to work at that grand Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s called a Writ of Prohibition .
It ’ s almost never used , because we almost never have situations like this , and you file it with the appellate court , the D.C .
Circuit court : an appellate court ’ s order to a lower court prohibiting it from acting , because it lacks jurisdiction .
“ This judge lacks jurisdiction to do what he is doing – according to the United States Supreme Court last week , according to the United States Constitution .
“ And , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a Never Trumper , then take your black robe off , judge , leave the courtroom and join the rest of us .
“ But , if you are not going to conduct yourself like a serious judge , you either recuse yourself , resign , or the Department has to go over his head to the D.C .
Circuit and get him the hell off this case .
That ’ s it.
” The other option is a writ of mandamus , which differs from a writ of prohibition in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge from taking a specific action ; the former mandates that a judge take a specific action .
In this case , a writ of mandamus might work better by asking the appellate court to order Sullivan to dismiss the case with prejudice and end the circus in his court .
Either or both would work , but so might a regular appeal that asks the higher court to simply dismiss the case themselves and cut Sullivan out entirely .
Their own precedent gives room for that kind of outcome .
So when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have expected that move already , but perhaps she ’ s waiting to see whether public opinion might push Sullivan into reversing himself and finally dispensing with this case .
That might take a long wait , if Powell expects media scrutiny to move Sullivan .
For instance , this Slate analysis that purports to rebut conservative criticism of Sullivan ’ s moves and explore his legitimate options never once mentions US v Sineneng-Smith nor US v Fokker Servs BV , the two precedents that speak directly to whether a federal judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is attempting here .
Ditto this fawning look at Sullivan ’ s actions from the Washington Post out this morning .
So much for stare decisis , as I wrote yesterday .
Powell had better appeal to a venue that actually respects stare decisis rather than exploits it for political advantage , and fast .
Update : My friend Andy McCarthy has more on writs of mandamus , and on the situation in general , from his appearance earlier today on Fox News Channel .
If the clip below doesn ’ t start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Later , Powell did address next steps with Lou Dobbs , notes Conservative Treehouse :

Sidney Powell is hardly alone in being “mystified” by Judge Emmet Sullivan’s latest moves in the trial of Michael Flynn, but she may be the most disillusioned. Powell told Sean Hannity last night that Sullivan’s attempts to punish her client are inexplicable, especially considering the heroic way she portrayed Sullivan in her book Licensed to Lie, which exposed corruption and abuse of power in the Ted Stevens case. History has repeated itself in the attempt to railroad Flynn, Powell argues, only this time Sullivan’s greasing the rails rather than reaching the obvious conclusion that investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct has created a vast injustice — again.
But what does Powell plan to do about it? For some odd reason, Hannity never gets around to asking that question:
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
“I am personally extremely disappointed and saddened by his reaction,” Sidney Powell told Sean Hannity. “I don’t know, I am mystified by the entire thing,” she later added. “It’s not like the Judge Sullivan I knew … at all. I can’t explain it.” … “We have been the victims of astonishing Brady violations for three years now,” said Powell, using a common term to describe breaches of the prosecutorial obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to a defendant. “Some of the information we’ve just been given was in the possession of [the] special counsel [Robert Mueller], and of course was in the possession of the FBI before that. “The FBI knows that its agents made up of the purported false statements and then that special counsel statements made up the purported filing,” she went on. “The government was the only institution that lied in this case. General Flynn was honest with the agents and they reported that back.”
One has to wonder why Powell has yet to appeal these decisions, especially since they clearly violate clear Supreme Court and DC Circuit appellate precedent. It would have seemed like a natural question to ask Powell about her next steps in preventing Sullivan from dragging Flynn any further in this vortex of abuse. Instead, Hannity asked Mark Levin to comment, and Levin offered his own prescription — a writ of prohibition:
My appearance on Hannity pic.twitter.com/rsvL7ZXLfj — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) May 15, 2020
“So, this judge is a rogue judge. He’s out of control; he should recuse himself – but, he’s too damn arrogant and he won’t. “So, let me make a suggestion to the folks over there at the Department of Justice. They’ve got a lot of smart attorneys in the office of legal counsel and elsewhere. I used to work at that grand Department of justice before the Left destroyed. “It’s called a Writ of Prohibition. It’s almost never used, because we almost never have situations like this, and you file it with the appellate court, the D.C. Circuit court: an appellate court’s order to a lower court prohibiting it from acting, because it lacks jurisdiction. “This judge lacks jurisdiction to do what he is doing – according to the United States Supreme Court last week, according to the United States Constitution. “And, if he wants to be an Obama flunky and a Never Trumper, then take your black robe off, judge, leave the courtroom and join the rest of us. “But, if you are not going to conduct yourself like a serious judge, you either recuse yourself, resign, or the Department has to go over his head to the D.C. Circuit and get him the hell off this case. That’s it.”
The other option is a writ of mandamus, which differs from a writ of prohibition in an important manner. The latter stops a judge from taking a specific action; the former mandates that a judge take a specific action. In this case, a writ of mandamus might work better by asking the appellate court to order Sullivan to dismiss the case with prejudice and end the circus in his court. Either or both would work, but so might a regular appeal that asks the higher court to simply dismiss the case themselves and cut Sullivan out entirely. Their own precedent gives room for that kind of outcome.
So when will Powell file an appeal? One might have expected that move already, but perhaps she’s waiting to see whether public opinion might push Sullivan into reversing himself and finally dispensing with this case. That might take a long wait, if Powell expects media scrutiny to move Sullivan. For instance, this Slate analysis that purports to rebut conservative criticism of Sullivan’s moves and explore his legitimate options never once mentions US v Sineneng-Smith nor US v Fokker Servs BV, the two precedents that speak directly to whether a federal judge has the authority to do what Sullivan is attempting here. Ditto this fawning look at Sullivan’s actions from the Washington Post out this morning.
So much for stare decisis, as I wrote yesterday. Powell had better appeal to a venue that actually respects stare decisis rather than exploits it for political advantage, and fast.
Update: My friend Andy McCarthy has more on writs of mandamus, and on the situation in general, from his appearance earlier today on Fox News Channel. If the clip below doesn’t start at the nineteen-minute mark, skip ahead.
https://youtu.be/5Hn7zDYnZ4I?t=1142
Later, Powell did address next steps with Lou Dobbs, notes Conservative Treehouse:


hotair--2020-05-15--Trump: Maybe testing is overrated

Trump: Maybe testing is overrated

He got shredded for saying this by critics last night but it ’ s nothing new .
In February he was reluctant to let passengers trapped on a cruise ship with a coronavirus outbreak come ashore because that would mean the official case count would climb .
( “ I don ’ t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn ’ t our fault.
” ) Last week he grumbled during a White House press gaggle that “ In a way by doing all this testing we make ourselves look bad… we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more testing ] .
” Yesterday the Financial Times reported that his skepticism about testing goes back even further than we know : One of Donald Trump ’ s confidants , who ’ s regularly in touch with the president , put the blame squarely on Kushner , saying , “ Jared had been arguing that testing too many people , or ordering too many ventilators , would spook the markets and so we just shouldn ’ t do it .
That advice worked far more powerfully on [ Trump ] than what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they always exaggerate.
” … One White House official told the Financial Times that advising Trump is like “ bringing fruits to the volcano ” to convince it not to erupt : “ You ’ re trying to appease a great force that ’ s impervious to reason.
” No one ’ s going to convince him at this point that more testing will benefit Americans *and him* long-term by making it easier to detect and defuse new outbreaks as the country reopens .
If we could test everyone , we could get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facilitate a more robust economic recovery , which in turn might deliver a Trump victory this fall .
That ’ s straightforward ; rationally , Trump should be the country ’ s biggest cheerleader for more testing .
But in his mind , I think , case counts are just a subset of “ ratings.
” The more tests we do , the more new cases we find .
And the more new cases we find , the larger our outbreak is , which Democrats can use against him .
His instinct is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself look better , which is both pernicious and deeply foolish given that the trend in deaths would tell us if the crisis is deepening even if we had no numbers on new cases .
Watch two short clips , then read on .
There are two mistakes he ’ s making by not embracing testing .
One is that the public is already sold on the virtues of it .
He ’ s not convincing anyone except hardcore MAGA fans , who don ’ t need convincing , that testing is overrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same poll found basically no decline over the past month in the number of people who are concerned that they or someone they know will get COVID-19 .
Sixty-nine percent of parents with children under 18 said in the same poll that they ’ re not willing to let their kids go back to school yet .
There ’ s a lot of fear still out there even as states reopen and commerce gingerly resumes .
The more testing we do , the more reassured wary consumers will feel that authorities are getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by “ authorities , ” I mean the federal authorities .
Most Americans think this is a job for Trump , not the states .
There ’ s a partisan split , of course — when isn ’ t there ?
— but even a sizable minority of Republicans think the feds should be on this .
Which brings us to Trump ’ s second mistake .
The irony of him grumbling that testing is overrated is that the country has made major progress on testing over the last month .
Instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count look bad , he should be seizing these opportunities to trumpet how much improvement there ’ s been in the past six weeks .
On April 1 , the COVID Tracking Project recorded 107,000 tests in the U.S .
Check out the numbers this week by comparison : We ’ ve tripled capacity and we ’ re en route to quadrupling it .
If he wanted to get into the weeds a little bit , he could start talking up the “ positivity rate ” in his public statements .
Lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re actually meeting the benchmark for adequate testing right now according to Johns Hopkins .
That should be big , big news for a president who ’ s in a rush to reopen *and* to convince consumers that it ’ s safe to venture into retail spaces .
He could and should also be playing up the fact that we just had a breakthrough with antigen testing , which means our capacity may soon be much larger than it is even now .
But all you hear from him really is bland assurances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best testing , and so on .
This would be a perfect moment for him to deputize Deborah Birx to get back out there in front of the cameras and make this case .
It may be that much of the country would ignore him if Trump started aggressively promoting our build-out in testing because they don ’ t trust him .
But they trust Birx .
They won ’ t tune her out .
A new coronavirus briefing featuring only Birx could be super helpful in pushing the White House ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a reassuring presence so she ’ s well suited to reassure people that testing has gotten much better .
The administration is wasting an opportunity by sidelining her .

He got shredded for saying this by critics last night but it’s nothing new. In February he was reluctant to let passengers trapped on a cruise ship with a coronavirus outbreak come ashore because that would mean the official case count would climb. (“I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault.”) Last week he grumbled during a White House press gaggle that “In a way by doing all this testing we make ourselves look bad… we’re going to have more cases [because of more testing].” Yesterday the Financial Times reported that his skepticism about testing goes back even further than we know:
One of Donald Trump’s confidants, who’s regularly in touch with the president, put the blame squarely on Kushner, saying, “Jared had been arguing that testing too many people, or ordering too many ventilators, would spook the markets and so we just shouldn’t do it. That advice worked far more powerfully on [Trump] than what the scientists were saying. He thinks they always exaggerate.”… One White House official told the Financial Times that advising Trump is like “bringing fruits to the volcano” to convince it not to erupt: “You’re trying to appease a great force that’s impervious to reason.”
No one’s going to convince him at this point that more testing will benefit Americans *and him* long-term by making it easier to detect and defuse new outbreaks as the country reopens. If we could test everyone, we could get a grip on the epidemic that would facilitate a more robust economic recovery, which in turn might deliver a Trump victory this fall. That’s straightforward; rationally, Trump should be the country’s biggest cheerleader for more testing.
But in his mind, I think, case counts are just a subset of “ratings.” The more tests we do, the more new cases we find. And the more new cases we find, the larger our outbreak is, which Democrats can use against him. His instinct is to suppress information in order to make himself look better, which is both pernicious and deeply foolish given that the trend in deaths would tell us if the crisis is deepening even if we had no numbers on new cases. Watch two short clips, then read on.
Here’s Trump saying that coronavirus testing might be “overrated” pic.twitter.com/4I36rRr7V5 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
TRUMP: “When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing we would have very few cases.” pic.twitter.com/tEX1uXQbmp — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 14, 2020
There are two mistakes he’s making by not embracing testing. One is that the public is already sold on the virtues of it. He’s not convincing anyone except hardcore MAGA fans, who don’t need convincing, that testing is overrated. People want more tests.
JUST IN: Nearly three in four Americans believe there are not enough coronavirus tests available in the U.S., new @ABC News/Ipsos poll finds. https://t.co/XTdPE7Grvd pic.twitter.com/zbWzOmspDu — ABC News (@ABC) May 15, 2020
That same poll found basically no decline over the past month in the number of people who are concerned that they or someone they know will get COVID-19. Sixty-nine percent of parents with children under 18 said in the same poll that they’re not willing to let their kids go back to school yet. There’s a lot of fear still out there even as states reopen and commerce gingerly resumes. The more testing we do, the more reassured wary consumers will feel that authorities are getting on top of the problem.
And by “authorities,” I mean the federal authorities. Most Americans think this is a job for Trump, not the states. There’s a partisan split, of course — when isn’t there? — but even a sizable minority of Republicans think the feds should be on this.
Which brings us to Trump’s second mistake. The irony of him grumbling that testing is overrated is that the country has made major progress on testing over the last month. Instead of complaining about how it makes the case count look bad, he should be seizing these opportunities to trumpet how much improvement there’s been in the past six weeks. On April 1, the COVID Tracking Project recorded 107,000 tests in the U.S. Check out the numbers this week by comparison:
We’ve tripled capacity and we’re en route to quadrupling it. If he wanted to get into the weeds a little bit, he could start talking up the “positivity rate” in his public statements. Lots of good news there:
About 6.5% of Americans tested for Covid-19 are now testing positive, per the Johns Hopkins coronavirus testing hub, a new low. (The World Health Organization has recommended that nations have a positivity rate of 10% or less, as sign of adequate tests.) https://t.co/7UyqSzX5v7 pic.twitter.com/sS0QECFffS — Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) May 14, 2020
Nationally we’re actually meeting the benchmark for adequate testing right now according to Johns Hopkins. That should be big, big news for a president who’s in a rush to reopen *and* to convince consumers that it’s safe to venture into retail spaces. He could and should also be playing up the fact that we just had a breakthrough with antigen testing, which means our capacity may soon be much larger than it is even now.
But all you hear from him really is bland assurances that we have the most testing, the best testing, and so on.
This would be a perfect moment for him to deputize Deborah Birx to get back out there in front of the cameras and make this case. It may be that much of the country would ignore him if Trump started aggressively promoting our build-out in testing because they don’t trust him. But they trust Birx. They won’t tune her out. A new coronavirus briefing featuring only Birx could be super helpful in pushing the White House’s message on reopening. She’s a reassuring presence so she’s well suited to reassure people that testing has gotten much better. The administration is wasting an opportunity by sidelining her.


hotair--2020-05-15--Trump admin limits chip sales to China's Huawei Technologies, China threatens 'endless investigation

Trump admin limits chip sales to China's Huawei Technologies, China threatens 'endless investigations' of US companies

Exactly a year ago , President Trump signed an executive order which prevented the government from doing business with any telecom company that was considered a national security threat .
The Commerce Department added Chinese tech giant Huawei to a list of prohibited companies .
Today , Reuters reports that the Trump administration is tightening a loophole which allowed Huawei to continue sourcing custom chips for its products from companies that use U.S. technology to produce those chips .
Under the rule change , foreign companies that use U.S. chipmaking equipment will be required to obtain a U.S. license before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an affiliate like HiSilicon .
The rule targets chips designed or custom-made for Huawei… Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox Business “ there has been a very highly technical loophole through which Huawei has been in able , in effect , to use U.S. technology with foreign fab producers.
” Ross called the rule change a “ highly tailored thing to try to correct that loophole.
” The new rule will be phased in so that any shipments already in production can still be delivered for the next 120 days .
After that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those sources .
The company did not immediately comment on the rule change , though it has previously warned the Chinese government would defend them if necessary : Huawei , which has warned that the Chinese government would retaliate if the rule went into effect , did not immediately comment on Friday .
U.S. stock market futures turned negative on the Reuters report .
“ The Chinese government will not just stand by and watch Huawei be slaughtered on the chopping board , ” Huawei Chairman Eric Xu told reporters on March 31 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is happening .
While Huawei is still silent , the editor of Chinese state media newspaper the Global Times tweeted that the government was prepared to respond by cracking down on U.S. companies : The Global Times has now published a news piece spelling out the threat .
The article attributes some of this information to an unnamed source close to the Chinese government .
But apparently the plan is to add the companies to a list and from there begin an endless series of investigations : China is ready to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to block shipments of semiconductors to Chinese telecom firm Huawei , including putting US companies on an “ unreliable entity list , ” launching investigations and imposing restrictions on US companies such as Apple , and halting purchase of Boeing airplanes , a source close to the Chinese government told the Global Times… “ China will take forceful countermeasures to protect its own legitimate rights , ” if the US moves forward with the plan to change its rules and bar essential suppliers of chips , including Taiwan-based TSMC , from selling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Global Times in an exclusive interview… “ China will launch rounds of endless investigations on those firms , just like swords hanging over their head .
It will dampen investors ’ confidence and squeeze their income in the Chinese market , ” said an insider , who preferred to remain anonymous .
China is also threatening to put in place new regulations designed to damage smaller firms : Most US companies included in the list may be small-sized US firms that are highly dependent on Chinese companies , such as US trading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing who is close to Chinese government , told the Global Times .
“ They are vulnerable to restrictive measures .
Once Chinese authorities impose sanctions on them , the cost is ill-afforded .
Most small firms will be pushed to the brink of collapsing , ” Gao said .
He noted that such countermeasures could serve as a “ first-level ” warning to the US side .
So it appears the trade war with China is back on .
Trump has already put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China is demanding he back down or else face a kind of all out regulatory attack on U.S. companies that rely on China .
We ’ ll have to stay tuned to see who blinks .

Exactly a year ago, President Trump signed an executive order which prevented the government from doing business with any telecom company that was considered a national security threat. The Commerce Department added Chinese tech giant Huawei to a list of prohibited companies. Today, Reuters reports that the Trump administration is tightening a loophole which allowed Huawei to continue sourcing custom chips for its products from companies that use U.S. technology to produce those chips.
Under the rule change, foreign companies that use U.S. chipmaking equipment will be required to obtain a U.S. license before supplying certain chips to Huawei, or an affiliate like HiSilicon. The rule targets chips designed or custom-made for Huawei… Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox Business “there has been a very highly technical loophole through which Huawei has been in able, in effect, to use U.S. technology with foreign fab producers.” Ross called the rule change a “highly tailored thing to try to correct that loophole.”
The new rule will be phased in so that any shipments already in production can still be delivered for the next 120 days. After that, Huawei will be cut off from those sources. The company did not immediately comment on the rule change, though it has previously warned the Chinese government would defend them if necessary:
Huawei, which has warned that the Chinese government would retaliate if the rule went into effect, did not immediately comment on Friday. U.S. stock market futures turned negative on the Reuters report. “The Chinese government will not just stand by and watch Huawei be slaughtered on the chopping board,” Huawei Chairman Eric Xu told reporters on March 31.
And that seems to be exactly what is happening. While Huawei is still silent, the editor of Chinese state media newspaper the Global Times tweeted that the government was prepared to respond by cracking down on U.S. companies:
Based on what I know, if the US further blocks key technology supply to Huawei, China will activate the "unreliable entity list", restrict or investigate US companies such as Qualcomm, Cisco and Apple, and suspend the purchase of Boeing airplanes. — Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) May 15, 2020
The Global Times has now published a news piece spelling out the threat. The article attributes some of this information to an unnamed source close to the Chinese government. But apparently the plan is to add the companies to a list and from there begin an endless series of investigations:
China is ready to take a series of countermeasures against a US plan to block shipments of semiconductors to Chinese telecom firm Huawei, including putting US companies on an “unreliable entity list,” launching investigations and imposing restrictions on US companies such as Apple, and halting purchase of Boeing airplanes, a source close to the Chinese government told the Global Times… “China will take forceful countermeasures to protect its own legitimate rights,” if the US moves forward with the plan to change its rules and bar essential suppliers of chips, including Taiwan-based TSMC, from selling chips to Huawei, the source told the Global Times in an exclusive interview… “China will launch rounds of endless investigations on those firms, just like swords hanging over their head. It will dampen investors’ confidence and squeeze their income in the Chinese market,” said an insider, who preferred to remain anonymous.
China is also threatening to put in place new regulations designed to damage smaller firms:
Most US companies included in the list may be small-sized US firms that are highly dependent on Chinese companies, such as US trading agencies, Gao Lingyun, an expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing who is close to Chinese government, told the Global Times. “They are vulnerable to restrictive measures. Once Chinese authorities impose sanctions on them, the cost is ill-afforded. Most small firms will be pushed to the brink of collapsing,” Gao said. He noted that such countermeasures could serve as a “first-level” warning to the US side.
So it appears the trade war with China is back on. Trump has already put the new 120 day limit in place. China is demanding he back down or else face a kind of all out regulatory attack on U.S. companies that rely on China. We’ll have to stay tuned to see who blinks.


hotair--2020-05-15--Biden pledges not to pardon Trump if he is elected

Just in case you were wondering , if Joe Biden is elected president in November he will not pardon President Trump .
He promises he will not do that .
What he doesn ’ t say is for what charge ( s ) Trump would request a pardon .
It ’ s a comment Joe Biden made during Lawrence O ’ Donnell ’ s MSNBC show , The Last Word Thursday when a voter asked him if he would pardon Trump “ under the pretense of healing the nation.
” He doesn ’ t want Biden to “ pull a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So Biden , who is running under the pretense that he wants to unify the country , said no , he will not pardon Trump .
He also promised not to get in the way of investigations and try to stop them .
Biden seems incapable of understanding the irony in his comments when he says these things to pander to far-left audiences .
He doesn ’ t do interviews with FNC , for example , except the Sunday show with Chris Wallace back in February .
He called Wallace “ Chuck ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Todd and hasn ’ t been back since .
Biden likes to say he ’ ll get a lot of disaffected Republican voters in the presidential election yet he doesn ’ t do much in the way of outreach to them .
His campaign is making sure that good old Joe is playing it safe , especially while he ’ s hunkered down in his basement in Delaware .
It isn ’ t surprising that Biden promised to continue to be a divisive force in politics .
He also promised not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press conference in Iowa , five days after he called for Trump ’ s impeachment for the first time .
At the time the focus was on the claims that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election in 2016 , now discredited .
Biden calls Ford “ a good guy ” but then goes on to say that good guy wouldn ’ t act in the same way if he had to do it all over again because he lost his bid for re-election .
The fact is that Ford made that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment days when Republicans decided to ask Nixon to go ahead and resign instead of facing an impeachment trial in the Senate .
The idea was to get Nixon out of Washington and soothe Republicans with a promise that Nixon would be allowed to go back to California and live out his life quietly , as he did .
Ford , a long time member of the swamp ( including Speaker of the House ) , knew the country must be healed after the trauma and rose to the occasion .
Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and incapable of looking at a pardon in that light .
Biden sees such decisions in a completely personal way .
Biden told O ’ Donnell that “ the president must allow the Justice Department to operate without interference.
” This was a slap at the Department of Justice under the leadership of Attorney General Barr .
He said he wouldn ’ t stop any investigations that might happen to Trump associates .
“ It is not something the president is entitled to do , to direct a prosecution or decide to drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on MSNBC .
“ It ’ s a dereliction of duty.
” This also isn ’ t the first time he has called out the DOJ during the campaign .
Also during the October press conference in Iowa , he said the reason Trump was going through impeachment was because of him and his son .
At the time he was promising to bring the White House back to the “ squeaky clean environment ” of the Obama administration .
He also said he wouldn ’ t let reporters change the subject away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ No one in my family will have an office in the White House , will sit in on meetings as if they ’ re a cabinet , will in fact have any a business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or to a foreign country , ” Biden said .
Biden ’ s comments came during a Sunday afternoon news conference in Iowa .
His son ’ s attorney issued a public statement early Sunday morning saying Hunter Biden will resign from a Chinese company and will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is elected president .
President Trump ’ s request that Ukraine ’ s president initiate an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden ’ s activities in Ukraine is at the center of an impeachment inquiry .
The former vice president , in speaking with reporters , said no news operation “ of any consequence ” that has examined the record has found he or his son did anything illegal .
So much for the squeaky clean Obama administration now , amirite ?
It was a ridiculous statement in the first place , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnessed the corruption within the Obama-Biden administration .
Obamagate , as President Trump calls it , certainly shows deep levels of corruption in the last administration .
There are plenty of other areas that showed corruption , too , besides those we now know were rampant within the intelligence community .
Whether it was the outright lies about Obamacare , or weaponizing the Internal Revenue Service against Tea Partiers , or Valerie Jarrett asking social media users to narc on Obamacare opponents , or Attorney General Holder proudly calling himself Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latino voters with DACA , the examples of a swampy , corrupt administration go on and on and are there for anyone to see .
No one got out of the Obama administration smelling like a rose once a little bit of reporting began .
No doubt Quid Pro Joe is expecting the press to give him a free ride , as they did for Barack Obama .
Joe should be soaring in the polls , given the economic crisis and the pandemic , but he ’ s not .
Americans aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfairly blame him for the current crisis or for the woes of the world .
The political world has changed with the Trump era and Biden is a return to the past .
The same old malarkey about how pure and clean he is – just a humble man of the people – doesn ’ t cut it anymore .

Just in case you were wondering, if Joe Biden is elected president in November he will not pardon President Trump. He promises he will not do that. What he doesn’t say is for what charge(s) Trump would request a pardon.
It’s a comment Joe Biden made during Lawrence O’Donnell’s MSNBC show, The Last Word Thursday when a voter asked him if he would pardon Trump “under the pretense of healing the nation.” He doesn’t want Biden to “pull a Gerald Ford”, you see. So Biden, who is running under the pretense that he wants to unify the country, said no, he will not pardon Trump. He also promised not to get in the way of investigations and try to stop them.
Biden seems incapable of understanding the irony in his comments when he says these things to pander to far-left audiences. He doesn’t do interviews with FNC, for example, except the Sunday show with Chris Wallace back in February. He called Wallace “Chuck” when he mixed Chris Wallace up with Chuck Todd and hasn’t been back since. Biden likes to say he’ll get a lot of disaffected Republican voters in the presidential election yet he doesn’t do much in the way of outreach to them. His campaign is making sure that good old Joe is playing it safe, especially while he’s hunkered down in his basement in Delaware.
It isn’t surprising that Biden promised to continue to be a divisive force in politics. He also promised not to pardon Trump in October 2019 during a press conference in Iowa, five days after he called for Trump’s impeachment for the first time. At the time the focus was on the claims that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election in 2016, now discredited.
“It wouldn’t unite the country,” Biden said. “You’d say: ‘Wait a minute. I get a parking ticket and I’ve got to pay it. This happens to me and I’ve got to go to jail. This guy does all these things that put us jeopardy and he gets off? I think this is of a different nature. And I think President Ford, God love him he’s a good guy, I knew him pretty well, I think if he had to do it over again he wouldn’t have done it…because he didn’t get re-elected.”
Biden calls Ford “a good guy” but then goes on to say that good guy wouldn’t act in the same way if he had to do it all over again because he lost his bid for re-election. The fact is that Ford made that agreement with Senate Republicans during the Nixon impeachment days when Republicans decided to ask Nixon to go ahead and resign instead of facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. The idea was to get Nixon out of Washington and soothe Republicans with a promise that Nixon would be allowed to go back to California and live out his life quietly, as he did. Ford, a long time member of the swamp (including Speaker of the House), knew the country must be healed after the trauma and rose to the occasion. Joe Biden is not a man of such character and incapable of looking at a pardon in that light. Biden sees such decisions in a completely personal way.
Biden told O’Donnell that “the president must allow the Justice Department to operate without interference.” This was a slap at the Department of Justice under the leadership of Attorney General Barr. He said he wouldn’t stop any investigations that might happen to Trump associates. “It is not something the president is entitled to do, to direct a prosecution or decide to drop a case,” Biden said Thursday on MSNBC. “It’s a dereliction of duty.”
This also isn’t the first time he has called out the DOJ during the campaign. Also during the October press conference in Iowa, he said the reason Trump was going through impeachment was because of him and his son. At the time he was promising to bring the White House back to the “squeaky clean environment” of the Obama administration. He also said he wouldn’t let reporters change the subject away from Trump and on to his family.
“No one in my family will have an office in the White House, will sit in on meetings as if they’re a cabinet, will in fact have any a business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or to a foreign country,” Biden said. Biden’s comments came during a Sunday afternoon news conference in Iowa. His son’s attorney issued a public statement early Sunday morning saying Hunter Biden will resign from a Chinese company and will not take any foreign work if his father is elected president. President Trump’s request that Ukraine’s president initiate an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine is at the center of an impeachment inquiry. The former vice president, in speaking with reporters, said no news operation “of any consequence” that has examined the record has found he or his son did anything illegal.
So much for the squeaky clean Obama administration now, amirite? It was a ridiculous statement in the first place, of course, for any of us who witnessed the corruption within the Obama-Biden administration. Obamagate, as President Trump calls it, certainly shows deep levels of corruption in the last administration. There are plenty of other areas that showed corruption, too, besides those we now know were rampant within the intelligence community. Whether it was the outright lies about Obamacare, or weaponizing the Internal Revenue Service against Tea Partiers, or Valerie Jarrett asking social media users to narc on Obamacare opponents, or Attorney General Holder proudly calling himself Obama’s “wingman”, or pandering to Latino voters with DACA, the examples of a swampy, corrupt administration go on and on and are there for anyone to see. No one got out of the Obama administration smelling like a rose once a little bit of reporting began.
No doubt Quid Pro Joe is expecting the press to give him a free ride, as they did for Barack Obama. Joe should be soaring in the polls, given the economic crisis and the pandemic, but he’s not. Americans aren’t ready to toss out Trump and unfairly blame him for the current crisis or for the woes of the world. The political world has changed with the Trump era and Biden is a return to the past. The same old malarkey about how pure and clean he is – just a humble man of the people – doesn’t cut it anymore.


hotair--2020-05-15--Pro tip from Arbery shooters' attorneys: Let's not forget the presumption of innocence and due proce

Pro tip from Arbery shooters' attorneys: Let's not forget the presumption of innocence and due process, please

A wise admonition — and one that might have saved Ahmaud Arbery ’ s life if Bob Rubin ’ s and Jason Sheffield ’ s client had stuck to it in the first place .
The two attorneys argued yesterday “ there is more to the story ” of why Travis and Gregory McMichael tracked down and killed Arbery , and scolded people on their assumption of guilt without hearing the whole truth .
“ That ’ s the purpose of a trial , ” Rubin intoned at a press conference late yesterday afternoon .
Consider this today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Department , with due hat-tip to MAD Magazine .
Be sure to watch all the way to the end to enjoy the easy dunk from the attorney representing the interests of the Arbery family : Does anyone see the flaw in this particular public-relations argument ?
Anyone ?
Oh , lets not always see the same hands .
“ We wish that Travis and Gregory McMichael would have afforded that same presumption of innocence to Ahmaud Arbery , ” replied Lee Merritt .
While it ’ s certainly true that the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those accused of crimes , it ’ s rather ballsy to hold that up as a standard for two people who are accused of drawing down on and shooting someone they thought might be committing a crime rather than , oh , calling the police .
That ’ s some first-class chutzpah right here , but it gets better .
One reporter pointedly asked at the presser why their client didn ’ t apply that standard to Arbery before chasing him down and killing him .
Sheffield argued that presumption of innocence only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are asking everybody who is following this case , who is reading about it , who is reading about it piecemeal , who are forming opinions without knowing all the facts – to just take a breath , because the facts will come out , ” Decatur attorney Robert G. Rubin said .
… In one pointed question , the lawyers were asked if Arbery also should have been entitled to a presumption of innocence by the McMichaels .
The father and son say there had been burglaries in their neighborhood in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and maintain they were attempting a citizen ’ s arrest when an armed McMichael got into a struggle with an unarmed Arbery and ended up shooting him .
“ So the presumption of innocence carries with a person who is accused of a crime… we understand the opinions , the attitudes of people across the country – those exist , they are real , they are playing out in the case , ” Sheffield said .
“ But the presumption specifically of innocence is a legal term of art that follows the accused.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this limitation .
It ’ s a term of art that follows the accused within the legal system , not necessarily with the entirety of the population .
Generally speaking , it ’ s still good advice to keep an open mind about guilt or innocence until a jury gets to see the evidence — as we have seen of late in other contexts — but we ’ re not required to refrain from judgment .
That means we can still point out the hypocrisy of a legal team representing apparent vigilantes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ presumption of innocence and complaining about a rush to judgment .
In the meantime , there ’ s another lesson we can all take from this .
Citizen arrests are only very rarely necessary , and police exist for a reason .
If you see something suspicious , call 911 rather than grab a gun and act like junior G-men .
The police may not always get these right either , but the odds are a lot better when trained professionals handle these situations .

A wise admonition — and one that might have saved Ahmaud Arbery’s life if Bob Rubin’s and Jason Sheffield’s client had stuck to it in the first place. The two attorneys argued yesterday “there is more to the story” of why Travis and Gregory McMichael tracked down and killed Arbery, and scolded people on their assumption of guilt without hearing the whole truth. “That’s the purpose of a trial,” Rubin intoned at a press conference late yesterday afternoon.
Consider this today’s entry in the Someone Left the Irony On Department, with due hat-tip to MAD Magazine. Be sure to watch all the way to the end to enjoy the easy dunk from the attorney representing the interests of the Arbery family:
The father and son charged with the murder of Ahmaud Arbery are arguing there is more to the story than people know. @ReporterBlayne has more. pic.twitter.com/E2dyptVDiX — TODAY (@TODAYshow) May 15, 2020
Does anyone see the flaw in this particular public-relations argument? Anyone? Oh, lets not always see the same hands. “We wish that Travis and Gregory McMichael would have afforded that same presumption of innocence to Ahmaud Arbery,” replied Lee Merritt. While it’s certainly true that the legal system holds the presumption of innocence for those accused of crimes, it’s rather ballsy to hold that up as a standard for two people who are accused of drawing down on and shooting someone they thought might be committing a crime rather than, oh, calling the police.
That’s some first-class chutzpah right here, but it gets better. One reporter pointedly asked at the presser why their client didn’t apply that standard to Arbery before chasing him down and killing him. Sheffield argued that presumption of innocence only really applies in court:
“We are asking everybody who is following this case, who is reading about it, who is reading about it piecemeal, who are forming opinions without knowing all the facts – to just take a breath, because the facts will come out,” Decatur attorney Robert G. Rubin said. … In one pointed question, the lawyers were asked if Arbery also should have been entitled to a presumption of innocence by the McMichaels. The father and son say there had been burglaries in their neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and maintain they were attempting a citizen’s arrest when an armed McMichael got into a struggle with an unarmed Arbery and ended up shooting him. “So the presumption of innocence carries with a person who is accused of a crime… we understand the opinions, the attitudes of people across the country – those exist, they are real, they are playing out in the case,” Sheffield said. “But the presumption specifically of innocence is a legal term of art that follows the accused.”
Sheffield’s not quite correct in this limitation. It’s a term of art that follows the accused within the legal system, not necessarily with the entirety of the population. Generally speaking, it’s still good advice to keep an open mind about guilt or innocence until a jury gets to see the evidence — as we have seen of late in other contexts — but we’re not required to refrain from judgment. That means we can still point out the hypocrisy of a legal team representing apparent vigilantes suddenly demanding that everyone respect their clients’ presumption of innocence and complaining about a rush to judgment.
In the meantime, there’s another lesson we can all take from this. Citizen arrests are only very rarely necessary, and police exist for a reason. If you see something suspicious, call 911 rather than grab a gun and act like junior G-men. The police may not always get these right either, but the odds are a lot better when trained professionals handle these situations.


hotair--2020-05-15--Biden: I wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade

Seems like a risky answer .
How many liberals , including and especially women , have already written defenses of him to the effect of “ Even if he ’ s guilty , he ’ s not as guilty as Trump ” ?
Or , worse , “ Even if he ’ s guilty , I prefer his policies to Trump ’ s ” ?
Now here ’ s Biden himself correcting them : No , if you believe Reade then you shouldn ’ t pull the lever for me .
I think it ’ s actually a low-risk answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
The risky answer would have been the one used by his defenders , that voters shouldn ’ t let a li ’ l ol ’ thing like sexual assault color their views of who ’ d make the better president .
That would seem monstrously callous and a complete betrayal of # MeToo , prioritizing his own selfish political ambitions over the trauma suffered by victims of sexual violence .
And it would positively reek of guilt .
“ Vote for me whether I digitally raped someone or not ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when , er , you just might be guilty of that rape .
Instead he signaled with his answer that his priorities are in order : Of course sexual assault is disqualifying in a politician .
If you truly believe Reade , you ’ re morally compelled to hold that against him .
What ’ s clever about that is that Biden surely realizes that Democrats who are grasping for reasons to ignore this Reade matter and vote for him anyway will surely find those reasons .
No one who ’ s struggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reade but also wanting to support Joe is going to watch this clip and resolve that dissonance in Reade ’ s favor .
What they ’ re going to do is talk themselves into admiring Biden for having the right priorities here .
And then , in due time , as the psychological urgency to oust Trump mounts , they ’ ll talk themselves into simply disbelieving Reade .
Or , at the very least , they ’ ll talk themselves into intractable ambivalence about whether to believe her or Biden , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no choice but to give Joe the benefit of the doubt and vote for him .
And in fairness to them , there ’ s plenty of material out there to support cautious skepticism of Reade ’ s stories .
PBS interviewed 74 former Biden staffers ( 62 of them women ) and found no one who experienced sexual harassment , assault , or misconduct by Biden or had even heard rumors of him behaving that way with others .
That doesn ’ t prove anything , of course ; the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues who spoke up on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh ’ s character on grounds that none of them had personal knowledge of how he might have behaved towards one very specific woman , Christine Blasey Ford .
But the character witnesses did give us an inkling that there ’ s no pattern of behavior , and miscreants who go around attacking women tend to behave according to patterns .
Same with Biden .
Ben Savage , who said his desk was next to Reade ’ s in the Biden mailroom , disputed her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her job in retaliation for a sexual harassment complaint she claims to have filed .
Savage , who worked as the office ’ s systems administrator , overseeing computers and information processing , told the NewsHour that Reade was fired for her poor performance on the job , which he witnessed — not as retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment .
But according to Savage , Reade had been mishandling a key part of her job and an essential office task — processing constituent mail , something they worked on together .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his boss , deputy chief of staff Dennis Toner .
After that , Savage said he began diminishing Reade ’ s duties , taking over some of her tasks and rerouting parts of the process to exclude her .
PBS also followed the route from Biden ’ s old office in the Russell Senate Office building to the Capitol gym ; it was somewhere along that route where Reade would have been assaulted , according to her story of what happened .
They couldn ’ t find any alcove or private space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without being seen instantly by someone passing by .
Former Biden staffers also question Reade ’ s claim that Biden once asked her to serve drinks at a fundraiser in Washington , which she considered demeaning .
None of them could remember him ever hosting a fundraiser in Washington while they worked for him .
And some claimed that he had an office policy banning staffers from doing campaign work .
Cathy Young has also been looking at Reade ’ s claims and thinks she ’ s found a pattern of exaggeration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her ex-husband in her 1996 divorce filings and the claims she made about him 13 years later .
In her 2009 article , Reade wrote that “ Tate ” violently shoved her on one occasion when they were still dating in Washington , D.C. in 1993 , and started battering her shortly after they moved to North Dakota later that year : “ The first time he hit me , we had lived in the Midwest all of two months .
The subject of the fight was unremarkable—the damage to my nose and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , Reade ’ s February 29th 1996 statement accompanying her application for a restraining order ( at a time when she had no incentive to minimize accounts of her husband ’ s violence ) mentions episodes of “ yelling and screaming , ” as well as furniture-slamming , but alleges only one violent interpersonal incident prior to February 21st , 1996—at some point in late 1995 : “ Three months ago , he punched me in the arm during a heated discussion.
” In the 2009 article , Reade asserted that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born , “ Tate would beat her , threaten her , and commit incredible horrors against both of us.
” In her 1996 statements , she alleged no violence toward the child other than one incident in which Dronen admitted to shaking her , and her main concern was that Dronen might leave with the girl , not commit “ incredible horrors.
” And while the restraining-order petition claims that Dronen frequently talked about killing himself , the 2009 article gives these suicide threats a far more sinister murder-suicide twist : “ Tate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and me if I left.
” Other episodes recounted in the article are similar to ones described in the divorce files , but are dramatically amped up .
Young goes on to note that “ In a particularly bizarre passage in the 2009 article , Reade insinuates that her ex-husband was a suspected serial killer : ‘ I received news that Tate ’ s DNA was collected by the FBI for two missing women ’ s cases because he was a ‘ person of interest ’ —Tate ’ s profile was that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true ?
False ?
Seems unlikely .
Anyway , there ’ s one other clever aspect of Biden ’ s “ don ’ t vote for me if you believe the accusation ” answer .
Namely , it tees up reporters to put the same question to Trump .
The president denies the sexual misconduct charges against him , just as Biden denies Reade ’ s , but what ’ s his advice to voters who suspect there may be something to those charges ?
Does he think they should vote for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share Biden ’ s moral intuition that some things are more important than winning ?
I feel like I know how he ’ d answer but I ’ m curious to see it .

Seems like a risky answer. How many liberals, including and especially women, have already written defenses of him to the effect of “Even if he’s guilty, he’s not as guilty as Trump”? Or, worse, “Even if he’s guilty, I prefer his policies to Trump’s”?
Now here’s Biden himself correcting them: No, if you believe Reade then you shouldn’t pull the lever for me.
I think it’s actually a low-risk answer, though. Watch, then read on.
Biden to women who believe Tara Reade’s assault allegation: "If they believe Tara Reade, they probably shouldn't vote for me. I wouldn’t vote for me if I believed Tara Reade.” pic.twitter.com/xGf84Jtu1S — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 15, 2020
The risky answer would have been the one used by his defenders, that voters shouldn’t let a li’l ol’ thing like sexual assault color their views of who’d make the better president. That would seem monstrously callous and a complete betrayal of #MeToo, prioritizing his own selfish political ambitions over the trauma suffered by victims of sexual violence. And it would positively reek of guilt. “Vote for me whether I digitally raped someone or not” is the sort of desperation move you make when, er, you just might be guilty of that rape.
Instead he signaled with his answer that his priorities are in order: Of course sexual assault is disqualifying in a politician. If you truly believe Reade, you’re morally compelled to hold that against him.
What’s clever about that is that Biden surely realizes that Democrats who are grasping for reasons to ignore this Reade matter and vote for him anyway will surely find those reasons. No one who’s struggling with the cognitive dissonance involved in believing Reade but also wanting to support Joe is going to watch this clip and resolve that dissonance in Reade’s favor. What they’re going to do is talk themselves into admiring Biden for having the right priorities here. And then, in due time, as the psychological urgency to oust Trump mounts, they’ll talk themselves into simply disbelieving Reade. Or, at the very least, they’ll talk themselves into intractable ambivalence about whether to believe her or Biden, in which case they’ll conclude they have no choice but to give Joe the benefit of the doubt and vote for him.
And in fairness to them, there’s plenty of material out there to support cautious skepticism of Reade’s stories. PBS interviewed 74 former Biden staffers (62 of them women) and found no one who experienced sexual harassment, assault, or misconduct by Biden or had even heard rumors of him behaving that way with others. That doesn’t prove anything, of course; the left was quick to dismiss the many women colleagues who spoke up on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh’s character on grounds that none of them had personal knowledge of how he might have behaved towards one very specific woman, Christine Blasey Ford. But the character witnesses did give us an inkling that there’s no pattern of behavior, and miscreants who go around attacking women tend to behave according to patterns. Same with Biden.
There’s also this:
Ben Savage, who said his desk was next to Reade’s in the Biden mailroom, disputed her charge that she was forced out of her job in retaliation for a sexual harassment complaint she claims to have filed. Savage, who worked as the office’s systems administrator, overseeing computers and information processing, told the NewsHour that Reade was fired for her poor performance on the job, which he witnessed — not as retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment. But according to Savage, Reade had been mishandling a key part of her job and an essential office task — processing constituent mail, something they worked on together. Savage said he recalls reporting these issues to his boss, deputy chief of staff Dennis Toner. After that, Savage said he began diminishing Reade’s duties, taking over some of her tasks and rerouting parts of the process to exclude her.
PBS also followed the route from Biden’s old office in the Russell Senate Office building to the Capitol gym; it was somewhere along that route where Reade would have been assaulted, according to her story of what happened. They couldn’t find any alcove or private space where he might have plausibly assaulted her without being seen instantly by someone passing by. Former Biden staffers also question Reade’s claim that Biden once asked her to serve drinks at a fundraiser in Washington, which she considered demeaning. None of them could remember him ever hosting a fundraiser in Washington while they worked for him. And some claimed that he had an office policy banning staffers from doing campaign work.
Cathy Young has also been looking at Reade’s claims and thinks she’s found a pattern of exaggeration. Young compared the claims Reade made against her ex-husband in her 1996 divorce filings and the claims she made about him 13 years later.
In her 2009 article, Reade wrote that “Tate” violently shoved her on one occasion when they were still dating in Washington, D.C. in 1993, and started battering her shortly after they moved to North Dakota later that year: “The first time he hit me, we had lived in the Midwest all of two months. The subject of the fight was unremarkable—the damage to my nose and jaw was not.” On the other hand, Reade’s February 29th 1996 statement accompanying her application for a restraining order (at a time when she had no incentive to minimize accounts of her husband’s violence) mentions episodes of “yelling and screaming,” as well as furniture-slamming, but alleges only one violent interpersonal incident prior to February 21st, 1996—at some point in late 1995: “Three months ago, he punched me in the arm during a heated discussion.” In the 2009 article, Reade asserted that in the three years after their daughter was born, “Tate would beat her, threaten her, and commit incredible horrors against both of us.” In her 1996 statements, she alleged no violence toward the child other than one incident in which Dronen admitted to shaking her, and her main concern was that Dronen might leave with the girl, not commit “incredible horrors.” And while the restraining-order petition claims that Dronen frequently talked about killing himself, the 2009 article gives these suicide threats a far more sinister murder-suicide twist: “Tate threatened to kill himself, Molly, and me if I left.” Other episodes recounted in the article are similar to ones described in the divorce files, but are dramatically amped up.
Young goes on to note that “In a particularly bizarre passage in the 2009 article, Reade insinuates that her ex-husband was a suspected serial killer: ‘I received news that Tate’s DNA was collected by the FBI for two missing women’s cases because he was a ‘person of interest’—Tate’s profile was that of a sociopath.'” Is that true? False? Seems unlikely.
Anyway, there’s one other clever aspect of Biden’s “don’t vote for me if you believe the accusation” answer. Namely, it tees up reporters to put the same question to Trump. The president denies the sexual misconduct charges against him, just as Biden denies Reade’s, but what’s his advice to voters who suspect there may be something to those charges? Does he think they should vote for him anyway Because Judges? Or does he share Biden’s moral intuition that some things are more important than winning? I feel like I know how he’d answer but I’m curious to see it.


hotair--2020-05-15--Hmmm: House Dems bailing from Pelosi's $3T "Heroes Act"?

Later today , Nancy Pelosi will call a vote on her $ 3 trillion “ Heroes Act , ” her version of the next phase of COVID-19 relief aimed mainly at state and local governments — and larded up with practically every progressive hobby horse , too .
Mitch McConnell called the bill a “ seasonal catalog of left-wing oddities ” and “ a totally unserious effort ” yesterday .
Senate Republicans have proclaimed Pelosi ’ s bill dead on arrival in the upper chamber , where work on an alternative hasn ’ t even considered Pelosi ’ s proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starting last night , multiple media outlets began reporting that opposition to Pelosi ’ s stunt bill had begun to grow among House Democrats — and Pelosi doesn ’ t have much margin for error anyway .
Politico first noted it , but reported that the bill was expected to pass anyway : Speaker Nancy Pelosi is projecting confidence that the House will pass Democrats ’ massive coronavirus relief bill Friday , even as she and her leadership team are still working to secure the votes .
Both liberals and centrists in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 trillion measure .
House Republicans have overwhelmingly said they oppose the bill , and some Democrats are unable to travel to the Capitol to vote amid the pandemic , leaving Pelosi and her whip operation with tight margins to clear the bill .
Still , House Democrats are expected to broadly back the package , likely approving it late Friday evening and setting up Pelosi ’ s opening bid in the next round of aid negotiations with Republicans .
Not so fast , reported CNN later last night .
Moderate Democrats started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill and the exploitation of the crisis , and started moving into outright opposition to it .
Opposition comes especially from districts that might be most vulnerable in November — the districts Democrats won back from Trump and the GOP in the midterms : Some moderate Democrats in Congress are expressing unease over , or outright opposition to , the more than $ 3 trillion coronavirus relief bill that party leaders are bringing to the House floor for a Friday vote .
The pushback underscores how House Democratic leaders are being attacked on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional Republicans , who have dismissed the legislation as a liberal wish list , as well as within their own ranks by both progressives and moderates .
… Freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn , a moderate who flipped an Oklahoma House seat from red to blue in 2018 , strongly criticized the Democratic leadership ’ s $ 3 trillion coronavirus response bill on Thursday , saying that she won ’ t vote for it .
“ Messaging bills without bipartisan support are a disservice to the American people , especially during a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement .
“ This is not the time for partisan gamesmanship , this is the time to find common ground and deliver help where it is needed most.
” Pelosi hasn ’ t had much interest in negotiation ; she has mainly stuck to her strategy of keeping the House sidelined and gumming up Senate negotiations .
That has allowed her more leverage , but it hasn ’ t produced much in the way of results .
In the last fight over replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program , Pelosi tried to force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only to get skunked in the end .
This time around , there isn ’ t quite as much time pressure , which has reduced the effectiveness of Pelosi ’ s gum-it-up tactics .
That ’ s why this time Pelosi wants to push her own bill , but that means she needs a vote — and she needs all hands on deck to pass it .
How many Democrats will be present for the vote matters just as much as how many Democrats will vote in favor of it .
House Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chamber back to action earlier , while Democrats expressed reluctance to return to Washington at all , and the GOP will vote to oppose the bill in toto .
How many Democrats will actually return to the chamber today to vote for a bill they know has no chance at all of even being considered by the Senate ?
How many will resent Pelosi ’ s tactics in forcing a vote on this bill — especially when she locked them out from drafting it in a normal process ?
Keep an eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Pelosi can whip enough to keep the bill alive , the vote will take place as normal .
If for some reason it gets postponed , though , it almost certainly means that Pelosi stuffed it so full of nonsense that even her own caucus can ’ t swallow it .

Later today, Nancy Pelosi will call a vote on her $3 trillion “Heroes Act,” her version of the next phase of COVID-19 relief aimed mainly at state and local governments — and larded up with practically every progressive hobby horse, too. Mitch McConnell called the bill a “seasonal catalog of left-wing oddities” and “a totally unserious effort” yesterday. Senate Republicans have proclaimed Pelosi’s bill dead on arrival in the upper chamber, where work on an alternative hasn’t even considered Pelosi’s proposal.
But will it actually arrive? Starting last night, multiple media outlets began reporting that opposition to Pelosi’s stunt bill had begun to grow among House Democrats — and Pelosi doesn’t have much margin for error anyway. Politico first noted it, but reported that the bill was expected to pass anyway:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is projecting confidence that the House will pass Democrats’ massive coronavirus relief bill Friday, even as she and her leadership team are still working to secure the votes. Both liberals and centrists in the caucus are grumbling about the roughly $3 trillion measure. House Republicans have overwhelmingly said they oppose the bill, and some Democrats are unable to travel to the Capitol to vote amid the pandemic, leaving Pelosi and her whip operation with tight margins to clear the bill. Still, House Democrats are expected to broadly back the package, likely approving it late Friday evening and setting up Pelosi’s opening bid in the next round of aid negotiations with Republicans.
Not so fast, reported CNN later last night. Moderate Democrats started speaking up about the bloat in the bill and the exploitation of the crisis, and started moving into outright opposition to it. Opposition comes especially from districts that might be most vulnerable in November — the districts Democrats won back from Trump and the GOP in the midterms:
Some moderate Democrats in Congress are expressing unease over, or outright opposition to, the more than $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill that party leaders are bringing to the House floor for a Friday vote. The pushback underscores how House Democratic leaders are being attacked on all sides over the legislation — by congressional Republicans, who have dismissed the legislation as a liberal wish list, as well as within their own ranks by both progressives and moderates. … Freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn, a moderate who flipped an Oklahoma House seat from red to blue in 2018, strongly criticized the Democratic leadership’s $3 trillion coronavirus response bill on Thursday, saying that she won’t vote for it. “Messaging bills without bipartisan support are a disservice to the American people, especially during a time of crisis,” she said in a statement. “This is not the time for partisan gamesmanship, this is the time to find common ground and deliver help where it is needed most.”
Pelosi hasn’t had much interest in negotiation; she has mainly stuck to her strategy of keeping the House sidelined and gumming up Senate negotiations. That has allowed her more leverage, but it hasn’t produced much in the way of results. In the last fight over replenishing the Paycheck Protection Program, Pelosi tried to force a massive outlay for state/local bailouts, only to get skunked in the end. This time around, there isn’t quite as much time pressure, which has reduced the effectiveness of Pelosi’s gum-it-up tactics.
That’s why this time Pelosi wants to push her own bill, but that means she needs a vote — and she needs all hands on deck to pass it. How many Democrats will be present for the vote matters just as much as how many Democrats will vote in favor of it. House Republicans pressed hard to get Pelosi to call the chamber back to action earlier, while Democrats expressed reluctance to return to Washington at all, and the GOP will vote to oppose the bill in toto. How many Democrats will actually return to the chamber today to vote for a bill they know has no chance at all of even being considered by the Senate? How many will resent Pelosi’s tactics in forcing a vote on this bill — especially when she locked them out from drafting it in a normal process?
Keep an eye on the plans for the House today. If Pelosi can whip enough to keep the bill alive, the vote will take place as normal. If for some reason it gets postponed, though, it almost certainly means that Pelosi stuffed it so full of nonsense that even her own caucus can’t swallow it.