hotair--2020-01-21--Glenn Greenwald charged with cybercrimes in Brazil

Glenn Greenwald is the left-wing journalist who founded the Intercept .
He lives in Brazil and also founded a Brazilian news site called The Intercept Brasil .
Last June that site published a story based on “ private chats , audio recordings , videos , photos , court proceedings , and other documentation — provided to us by an anonymous source.
” That story involved an investigation which eventually brought down a leftist president and paved the way for a right-wing replacement Jair Bolsonaro .
Here ’ s how the NY times reported it at the time : Excerpts from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online news site The Intercept suggest that Sérgio Moro , the most prominent judge involved in hearing cases in the scandal known as Lava Jato , or Car Wash , consulted with and advised federal prosecutors on strategy as they took on towering political figures in recent years .
The revelations provide powerful ammunition to critics of Mr. Moro , who convicted former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of corruption and money laundering in 2017 , which made him ineligible to run for a new term in last year ’ s presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imprisonment paved the way for the election of Jair Bolsonaro , a far-right politician who appointed Mr. Moro as justice minister and offered to appoint him to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court .
Now prosecutors in Brazil are accusing Greenwald of complicity in the illegal procurement of the materials that formed the basis of those reports : In a 95-page criminal complaint , prosecutors say that The Intercept Brasil , the news organization Mr. Greenwald co-founded , did more than merely receive the hacked messages and oversee the publication of newsworthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenwald and the hackers , prosecutors say the journalist played a “ clear role in facilitating the commission of a crime.
” For instance , prosecutors contend that Mr. Greenwald encouraged the hackers to delete archives that had already been shared with The Intercept Brasil , in order to cover their tracks .
Prosecutors also say that Mr. Greenwald was communicating with the hackers while they were actively monitoring private chats on Telegram , a messaging app .
Greenwald responded to the charges in a video posted on Twitter .
He offered three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the complaint recently tried to prosecute the head of the Brazilian Bar Association , also for criticizing Sergio Moro .
He also said a recent review of the facts completed two months ago concluded that he had never committed a crime in connection with these reports .
Lots of people on the left ( and some on the right ) were siding with Greenwald today saying this really does look like an attack on press freedom by the government .
Jake Tapper pointed out that Bolsonaro himself has previously suggested Greenwald could do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And just a couple of months ago a pro-Bolsonaro reporter attacked Greenwald while they were on the air :

Glenn Greenwald is the left-wing journalist who founded the Intercept. He lives in Brazil and also founded a Brazilian news site called The Intercept Brasil. Last June that site published a story based on “private chats, audio recordings, videos, photos, court proceedings, and other documentation — provided to us by an anonymous source.” That story involved an investigation which eventually brought down a leftist president and paved the way for a right-wing replacement Jair Bolsonaro. Here’s how the NY times reported it at the time:
Excerpts from cellphone chats published Sunday night by the online news site The Intercept suggest that Sérgio Moro, the most prominent judge involved in hearing cases in the scandal known as Lava Jato, or Car Wash, consulted with and advised federal prosecutors on strategy as they took on towering political figures in recent years. The revelations provide powerful ammunition to critics of Mr. Moro, who convicted former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of corruption and money laundering in 2017, which made him ineligible to run for a new term in last year’s presidential election. Mr. da Silva’s imprisonment paved the way for the election of Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right politician who appointed Mr. Moro as justice minister and offered to appoint him to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Now prosecutors in Brazil are accusing Greenwald of complicity in the illegal procurement of the materials that formed the basis of those reports:
In a 95-page criminal complaint, prosecutors say that The Intercept Brasil, the news organization Mr. Greenwald co-founded, did more than merely receive the hacked messages and oversee the publication of newsworthy information. Citing intercepted messages between Mr. Greenwald and the hackers, prosecutors say the journalist played a “clear role in facilitating the commission of a crime.” For instance, prosecutors contend that Mr. Greenwald encouraged the hackers to delete archives that had already been shared with The Intercept Brasil, in order to cover their tracks. Prosecutors also say that Mr. Greenwald was communicating with the hackers while they were actively monitoring private chats on Telegram, a messaging app.
Greenwald responded to the charges in a video posted on Twitter. He offered three points including that the prosecutor who made the complaint recently tried to prosecute the head of the Brazilian Bar Association, also for criticizing Sergio Moro. He also said a recent review of the facts completed two months ago concluded that he had never committed a crime in connection with these reports.
Regarding the criminal charges brought by the Bolsonaro government: it’s a grave and obvious attack on a free press, brought by a far-right judge. We’re going to defend a free press, not be intimidated by authorities abusing their power. The reporting will continue. pic.twitter.com/kd9b8Kggx3 — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 21, 2020
Lots of people on the left (and some on the right) were siding with Greenwald today saying this really does look like an attack on press freedom by the government. Jake Tapper pointed out that Bolsonaro himself has previously suggested Greenwald could do jail time over the Intercept reports. And just a couple of months ago a pro-Bolsonaro reporter attacked Greenwald while they were on the air:


hotair--2020-01-21--Idaho bill would ban males from female sports

Out in the state of Idaho , there were rumors of this last year , but it never got off the ground .
Now , however , one legislator appears ready to step into the fight to save competitive women ’ s and girls ’ sports .
Rep. Barbara Ehardt , a Republican from Idaho Falls , has prepared a bill that would ensure that schools regulate who can compete in both male and female sports based on “ DNA and chromosomes.
” The bill has been in the works for 18 months and she believes she ’ s finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone fairly .
( East Idaho News ) A local legislator plans to introduce a bill banning biological males from competing in women ’ s sports .
Rep. Barbara Ehardt , R-Idaho Falls , says she will introduce legislation that would prevent a transgender individual from competing in high school sports that do not match the sex they were born with .
“ Boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it ’ s not fair .
We can not physically compete against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , scientific advantages that boys and men have over girls and women , even if they were to take hormones , even if they were to spend a couple of years on estrogen , that ’ s not going to replace the inherent biological advantages that boys and men have , ” Ehardt told EastIdahoNews.com .
Even if this bill passes it will doubtless be challenged and held up in the courts .
While we don ’ t have all the specifics yet , the general description raises a couple of immediate questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one is how they plan to implement a statewide system for aspiring athletes to “ qualify ” for either sports division .
Previous attempts at such legislation in other states were most often based on the gender listed on the student ’ s birth certificate .
That has proven inadequate , however , as some states already allow people – including children – to petition to receive new birth certificates reflecting the gender they “ identify ” with .
Also , some states are allowing parents to mark the gender field as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth certificate until they “ decide ” what gender they are later on .
The Idaho bill sounds as if it will take a more rigorous route , ensuring that the student has both an X and Y chromosome for males and two Xs for females .
So the family of every child will need to pay for a DNA test establishing the scientific , medically accurate gender of the applicant ?
That ’ s going to be expensive , particularly if the schools have to pay for it as a mandatory program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be some sort of provision covering the small percentage of students who are born intersex and wouldn ’ t meet the requirements for either gender .
The other issue is why the ban would apply in both directions , though I think we can guess .
Ehardt herself makes it clear that she ’ s doing this to prevent boys from using their natural biological advantages to compete against ( and likely dominate ) girls in competitive sports .
But why bar girls from competing against the boys if they really want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ girl in question is “ transitioning ” to male , as we saw in the case of Mack Beggs .
A girl pumped up on testosterone was able to take the girls ’ state wrestling championship in her weight class two years running .
But if the law didn ’ t apply in both directions , I suppose it would have been shot down based on unequal treatment of some sort .
I presume that the bill ’ s authors have already taken this into consideration .
This will probably be tied up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court issues a ruling bringing closure to these questions of gender and sex .
( I ’ m not holding my breath for that to happen , sadly . )
But it ’ s at least a good start and offers some hope that competitive female sports won ’ t be effectively destroyed by a bunch of males taking over the competitions .

Out in the state of Idaho, there were rumors of this last year, but it never got off the ground. Now, however, one legislator appears ready to step into the fight to save competitive women’s and girls’ sports. Rep. Barbara Ehardt, a Republican from Idaho Falls, has prepared a bill that would ensure that schools regulate who can compete in both male and female sports based on “DNA and chromosomes.” The bill has been in the works for 18 months and she believes she’s finally helped craft a law that will treat everyone fairly. (East Idaho News)
A local legislator plans to introduce a bill banning biological males from competing in women’s sports. Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, says she will introduce legislation that would prevent a transgender individual from competing in high school sports that do not match the sex they were born with. “Boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it’s not fair. We cannot physically compete against boys and men. The inherent biological, scientific advantages that boys and men have over girls and women, even if they were to take hormones, even if they were to spend a couple of years on estrogen, that’s not going to replace the inherent biological advantages that boys and men have,” Ehardt told EastIdahoNews.com.
Even if this bill passes it will doubtless be challenged and held up in the courts. While we don’t have all the specifics yet, the general description raises a couple of immediate questions.
The first and likely most obvious one is how they plan to implement a statewide system for aspiring athletes to “qualify” for either sports division. Previous attempts at such legislation in other states were most often based on the gender listed on the student’s birth certificate. That has proven inadequate, however, as some states already allow people – including children – to petition to receive new birth certificates reflecting the gender they “identify” with. Also, some states are allowing parents to mark the gender field as “neutral” on their child’s birth certificate until they “decide” what gender they are later on.
The Idaho bill sounds as if it will take a more rigorous route, ensuring that the student has both an X and Y chromosome for males and two Xs for females. So the family of every child will need to pay for a DNA test establishing the scientific, medically accurate gender of the applicant? That’s going to be expensive, particularly if the schools have to pay for it as a mandatory program. Also, there will have to be some sort of provision covering the small percentage of students who are born intersex and wouldn’t meet the requirements for either gender.
The other issue is why the ban would apply in both directions, though I think we can guess. Ehardt herself makes it clear that she’s doing this to prevent boys from using their natural biological advantages to compete against (and likely dominate) girls in competitive sports. But why bar girls from competing against the boys if they really want to? This becomes particularly applicable if the girl in question is “transitioning” to male, as we saw in the case of Mack Beggs. A girl pumped up on testosterone was able to take the girls’ state wrestling championship in her weight class two years running.
But if the law didn’t apply in both directions, I suppose it would have been shot down based on unequal treatment of some sort. I presume that the bill’s authors have already taken this into consideration.
This will probably be tied up in the courts for years unless the Supreme Court issues a ruling bringing closure to these questions of gender and sex. (I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, sadly.) But it’s at least a good start and offers some hope that competitive female sports won’t be effectively destroyed by a bunch of males taking over the competitions.


hotair--2020-01-21--Politico: Could the Senate trial be over by the State of the Union speech?

Sure , but … in which year ?
I kid , I kid .
Thanks to Mitch McConnell ’ s new rules and schedule — and perhaps sheer exhaustion — Donald Trump might address Congress on February 4th as an acquitted president .
That depends on whether McConnell can keep the Senate on track , and whether any Republicans cross over to subpoena witnesses , Politico notes in its newsletter : MCCONNELL has orchestrated the Senate trial of President DONALD TRUMP thusly : The president ’ s attorneys and the House impeachment managers each have 24 hours to use over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present their case , condensing the meat of the trial into what could be as short as four days in total .
These rules will likely have the Senate in session all night and into the wee hours of the morning , as it tries TRUMP for high crimes and misdemeanors .
Another highlight : Evidence gathered in the House investigation must be admitted by vote — nothing is automatic .
MCCONNELL announced that he had the support of all Republican senators for his rule package weeks ago , essentially ensuring its passage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This could be all over by sometime next week — ahead of the State of the Union on Feb. 4 .
In a deeper dive , Politico reported last night that the White House wants a speedy trial now , too , rather than an extensive rebuttal to the House impeachment .
With few minds open to change at this point , Trump ’ s team sees a quick trial and acquittal vote as the best potential outcome .
However , no one ’ s talking about dismissal , at least not directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draft resolution protects the [ president ’ s ] rights to a fair trial , and look forward to presenting a vigorous defense on the facts and the process as quickly as possible , and seeking an acquittal as swiftly as possible , ” said Eric Ueland , the White House legislative affairs director .
There is no explicit reference to a motion to dismiss the trial in the resolution .
The Senate is expected to vote on the measure on Tuesday , with Republicans set to vote along party lines and ignore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and new documentary evidence before the trial ’ s arguments begin later this week .
However , a dismissal motion would be in order anyway under standing rules for all impeachments .
McConnell doesn ’ t need to add it to these rules for Senate Republicans to use that as a quick exit ramp , although they will have to wait for the presentment and questioning first .
At that point , though , what will a dismissal gain Trump ?
An acquittal vote works better for him , and for Senate Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooked process in delivering the articles in the first place .
Nor do today ’ s changes to the McConnell rules package really change the trajectory much , either .
If the Senate doesn ’ t call any witnesses , they can still easily get through an acquittal vote before the evening of February 4th .
Any witnesses , and it will be almost impossible to accomplish .
Alan Dershowitz may be the only player in the drama still talking about dismissal .
This case is tailor-made for that option , he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics surrounding it won ’ t allow for it : “ This is a motion-to-dismiss case , in which , if it were a criminal case and a person were charged with dishonesty … the first thing you do is make a motion to dismiss because dishonesty isn ’ t a crime , ” he told Fox News ’ s Laura Ingraham .
The problem with that , however , is how quickly it would wrap up the impeachment trial , which may not be something the American public wants , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an impeachable offense .
Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense .
A motion to dismiss in a perfect world would be ideal , ” he explained , “ but do the American public want to see an end to the trial so quickly ?
I think that becomes a political issue.
” The issue may not be length as much as it is a definitive stand on Trump .
Dismissal simply waves the case away ; voters on both sides of the partisan/Trumpian divide want senators to make a choice rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ye fer him or agin ’ him ?
That is , the vote can take place after the presentment and questioning , but it had better be on removal or acquittal .
Can it take place at within a time frame that frees Trump by the scheduled SOTU speech , though ?
Not if the Senate calls witnesses , it can ’ t .
The White House has made clear that it will invoke executive privilege if John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney gets called to testify , and it will seek to apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those may or may not succeed if taken to court , but it will take weeks at a minimum to settle those questions , and possibly months .
Even if the courts expedite such a dispute to the Supreme Court , we ’ re probably looking at no sooner than May or June for a resolution to the fight — which will leave the Senate locked in limbo for months .
That ’ s why the House needed to pursue these witnesses , where a legal fight in court could take in parallel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate in trial mode for an indefinite period .
If it comes to that , expect this reality to be the way McConnell gets his caucus behind opposition to subpoenas .
It ’ s just easier and more efficient to get to the final vote on acquittal , especially since everyone knows that ’ s exactly what will happen anyway .
For the moment , McConnell will leave that question to the end of the presentment , but he ’ s not going to allow the Senate to get tied up just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bothered to do a proper job .

Sure, but … in which year? I kid, I kid. Thanks to Mitch McConnell’s new rules and schedule — and perhaps sheer exhaustion — Donald Trump might address Congress on February 4th as an acquitted president. That depends on whether McConnell can keep the Senate on track, and whether any Republicans cross over to subpoena witnesses, Politico notes in its newsletter:
MCCONNELL has orchestrated the Senate trial of President DONALD TRUMP thusly: The president’s attorneys and the House impeachment managers each have 24 hours to use over the course of two calendar days to present their case, condensing the meat of the trial into what could be as short as four days in total. These rules will likely have the Senate in session all night and into the wee hours of the morning, as it tries TRUMP for high crimes and misdemeanors. Another highlight: Evidence gathered in the House investigation must be admitted by vote — nothing is automatic. MCCONNELL announced that he had the support of all Republican senators for his rule package weeks ago, essentially ensuring its passage. THINK OF IT THIS WAY: This could be all over by sometime next week — ahead of the State of the Union on Feb. 4.
In a deeper dive, Politico reported last night that the White House wants a speedy trial now, too, rather than an extensive rebuttal to the House impeachment. With few minds open to change at this point, Trump’s team sees a quick trial and acquittal vote as the best potential outcome. However, no one’s talking about dismissal, at least not directly:
“We are gratified that the draft resolution protects the [president’s] rights to a fair trial, and look forward to presenting a vigorous defense on the facts and the process as quickly as possible, and seeking an acquittal as swiftly as possible,” said Eric Ueland, the White House legislative affairs director. There is no explicit reference to a motion to dismiss the trial in the resolution. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure on Tuesday, with Republicans set to vote along party lines and ignore Democrats’ demands to lock in witnesses and new documentary evidence before the trial’s arguments begin later this week.
However, a dismissal motion would be in order anyway under standing rules for all impeachments. McConnell doesn’t need to add it to these rules for Senate Republicans to use that as a quick exit ramp, although they will have to wait for the presentment and questioning first. At that point, though, what will a dismissal gain Trump? An acquittal vote works better for him, and for Senate Republicans looking to rebuke House Democrats over their cooked process in delivering the articles in the first place.
Nor do today’s changes to the McConnell rules package really change the trajectory much, either. If the Senate doesn’t call any witnesses, they can still easily get through an acquittal vote before the evening of February 4th. Any witnesses, and it will be almost impossible to accomplish.
Alan Dershowitz may be the only player in the drama still talking about dismissal. This case is tailor-made for that option, he told Laura Ingraham last night, but the politics surrounding it won’t allow for it:
“This is a motion-to-dismiss case, in which, if it were a criminal case and a person were charged with dishonesty … the first thing you do is make a motion to dismiss because dishonesty isn’t a crime,” he told Fox News’s Laura Ingraham. The problem with that, however, is how quickly it would wrap up the impeachment trial, which may not be something the American public wants, he said. “Obstruction of Congress is not an impeachable offense. Abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. A motion to dismiss in a perfect world would be ideal,” he explained, “but do the American public want to see an end to the trial so quickly? I think that becomes a political issue.”
The issue may not be length as much as it is a definitive stand on Trump. Dismissal simply waves the case away; voters on both sides of the partisan/Trumpian divide want senators to make a choice rather than take a technicality off-ramp. Are ye fer him or agin’ him? That is, the vote can take place after the presentment and questioning, but it had better be on removal or acquittal.
Can it take place at within a time frame that frees Trump by the scheduled SOTU speech, though? Not if the Senate calls witnesses, it can’t. The White House has made clear that it will invoke executive privilege if John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney gets called to testify, and it will seek to apply privilege to document demands as well. Those may or may not succeed if taken to court, but it will take weeks at a minimum to settle those questions, and possibly months. Even if the courts expedite such a dispute to the Supreme Court, we’re probably looking at no sooner than May or June for a resolution to the fight — which will leave the Senate locked in limbo for months. That’s why the House needed to pursue these witnesses, where a legal fight in court could take in parallel to their normal business instead of freezing the Senate in trial mode for an indefinite period.
If it comes to that, expect this reality to be the way McConnell gets his caucus behind opposition to subpoenas. It’s just easier and more efficient to get to the final vote on acquittal, especially since everyone knows that’s exactly what will happen anyway. For the moment, McConnell will leave that question to the end of the presentment, but he’s not going to allow the Senate to get tied up just because Adam Schiff couldn’t be bothered to do a proper job.


hotair--2020-01-21--Schiff to Senate: Many Americans, maybe most, think you're not going to hold a fair trial, you know

We ’ ll be hearing this a lot from Schiff and Schumer over the next two weeks so it ’ s worth noting up front that it ’ s not true .
“ Most ” Americans don ’ t think the Senate trial is a sham .
And we already have multiple polls already to prove it .
It may be true by the end of the trial .
That ’ s the result Democrats are aiming for by complaining loudly about fairness at every turn .
But it ’ s not true at the start .
Schiff , today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Right now a great many , perhaps even most , Americans do not believe there will be a fair trial .
They don ’ t believe that the Senate will be impartial .
They believe that the result is pre-cooked , the president will be acquitted .
Not because he is innocent , he is not , but because the senators will vote by party and he has the votes .
The votes to prevent the evidence from coming out , the votes to make sure the public never sees it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They want to believe their system of government is still capable of rising to the occasion .
They want to believe that we can rise above party and do what ’ s best for the country , but a great many Americans don ’ t believe that will happen .
Let ’ s prove them wrong.
” Is that so ?
New from Monmouth : Note the number among independents .
Even Democrats are more enthused about the trial than you might expect .
CNN asked a similar question in its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans were likely to give Trump a fair trial , and got this result : Americans are willing to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt on fairness going in , which is great news for GOP incumbents who are up for reelection next fall .
But it also makes it that much harder for them to refuse to call witnesses , knowing that people ’ s perceptions of the trial ’ s fairness might shift if they do so .
In CNN ’ s poll fully 69 percent of Americans said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monmouth ’ s numbers today aren ’ t as gaudy but they ’ re still strong on whether new evidence , which of course would include witnesses , should be admitted : Indies are in favor by a margin of nearly 20 points .
And when you ask if Trump ’ s aides who are refusing to testify should be compelled to do so , asked but not compelled , or not asked , Americans split 51/29/16 .
A clear majority think Mulvaney , Bolton , et al .
should be forced .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Who the hell is Adam Schiff to complain about fairness after the process he conducted in the House ?
” Okay , but the polling is less kind to Republicans on that subject .
When people were asked in CNN ’ s poll whether House Dems are demanding witnesses right now in order to ensure a fair trial in the Senate or to hurt Republicans in next year ’ s election , Dems got the benefit of the doubt at 50/39 .
Meanwhile , Monmouth asked straight up whether people thought the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Result : Yes by a margin of 52/44 , with independents at 51/46 .
It may be that the impeachment process is sufficiently arcane that casual politics watchers are willing to cut either side a break in how they handle things .
Bad news for Schiff and the Democrats going forward .
But there ’ s one more point in his favor .
For the second day in a row we have a poll showing more Americans in favor of seeing Trump removed from office than opposed .
That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact , until today Monmouth had never recorded plurality support for removal despite asking about it consistently in polling over the last two and a half years .
The highest they ’ d seen until now was 45/50 .
Today it ’ s 49/48 .
CNN also found support for removal in its poll yesterday , at 49/47 among registered voters .
Whether that ’ s because of the new info from Lev Parnas or because people are just a bit more open to removing the president as the Senate trial begins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t wait to see what the numbers are like after the verdict , though .

We’ll be hearing this a lot from Schiff and Schumer over the next two weeks so it’s worth noting up front that it’s not true. “Most” Americans don’t think the Senate trial is a sham.
And we already have multiple polls already to prove it.
It may be true by the end of the trial. That’s the result Democrats are aiming for by complaining loudly about fairness at every turn. But it’s not true at the start. Schiff, today:
“Let me be very blunt. Right now a great many, perhaps even most, Americans do not believe there will be a fair trial. They don’t believe that the Senate will be impartial. They believe that the result is pre-cooked, the president will be acquitted. Not because he is innocent, he is not, but because the senators will vote by party and he has the votes. The votes to prevent the evidence from coming out, the votes to make sure the public never sees it. The American people want a fair trial. They want to believe their system of government is still capable of rising to the occasion. They want to believe that we can rise above party and do what’s best for the country, but a great many Americans don’t believe that will happen. Let’s prove them wrong.”
Is that so? New from Monmouth:
Note the number among independents. Even Democrats are more enthused about the trial than you might expect. CNN asked a similar question in its own poll this week, whether they thought Senate Republicans were likely to give Trump a fair trial, and got this result:
Americans are willing to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt on fairness going in, which is great news for GOP incumbents who are up for reelection next fall. But it also makes it that much harder for them to refuse to call witnesses, knowing that people’s perceptions of the trial’s fairness might shift if they do so. In CNN’s poll fully 69 percent of Americans said they wanted to hear from witnesses. Monmouth’s numbers today aren’t as gaudy but they’re still strong on whether new evidence, which of course would include witnesses, should be admitted:
Indies are in favor by a margin of nearly 20 points. And when you ask if Trump’s aides who are refusing to testify should be compelled to do so, asked but not compelled, or not asked, Americans split 51/29/16. A clear majority think Mulvaney, Bolton, et al. should be forced.
Right now you’re thinking, “Who the hell is Adam Schiff to complain about fairness after the process he conducted in the House?” Okay, but the polling is less kind to Republicans on that subject. When people were asked in CNN’s poll whether House Dems are demanding witnesses right now in order to ensure a fair trial in the Senate or to hurt Republicans in next year’s election, Dems got the benefit of the doubt at 50/39. Meanwhile, Monmouth asked straight up whether people thought the House impeachment process was fair or not. Result: Yes by a margin of 52/44, with independents at 51/46.
It may be that the impeachment process is sufficiently arcane that casual politics watchers are willing to cut either side a break in how they handle things. Bad news for Schiff and the Democrats going forward.
But there’s one more point in his favor. For the second day in a row we have a poll showing more Americans in favor of seeing Trump removed from office than opposed. That’s a reversal of the trend throughout November; in fact, until today Monmouth had never recorded plurality support for removal despite asking about it consistently in polling over the last two and a half years. The highest they’d seen until now was 45/50. Today it’s 49/48. CNN also found support for removal in its poll yesterday, at 49/47 among registered voters. Whether that’s because of the new info from Lev Parnas or because people are just a bit more open to removing the president as the Senate trial begins is an open question. Can’t wait to see what the numbers are like after the verdict, though.
Here’s Schiff today lecturing about fairness.


hotair--2020-01-21--Mexico begins deporting migrants who rushed the border Monday

Yesterday a caravan of roughly 2,500 migrants stopped trying to cross Mexico ’ s southern border by bridge and instead waded across the river and attempted to get past a line of Mexican National Guardsmen waiting on the other side .
That led to some rock-throwing by both sides but hundreds of migrants wound up being taken into custody by the Mexican authorities .
Today , those migrants are already being deported by bus and by plane : …1,000 had tried to enter illegally Monday…and hundreds of them were apparently detained by Mexican National Guardsmen and immigration agents .
Immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaded capture by the security forces .
Ebrard said Mexico already has begun deporting some back to Honduras , putting 110 on a flight to San Pedro Sula and sending 144 back by bus .
Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Nelly Jerez said Mexico expected to deport 500 Hondurans a day on buses from Wednesday through Friday .
A few hundred people remained on small sandy islands in the middle of the river , waiting to see what would happen .
The Mexican authorities refused to hand out any food or water and soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guatemalan side of the border to regroup and find food .
“ We are in no-man ’ s land , ” said Alan Mejía , whose 2-year-old son was cradled in his arms clad only in a diaper as his wife , Ingrid Vanesa Portillo , and their other son , 12 , gazed at the riverbank Monday night .
Mejía joined in five previous migrant caravans but never made it farther than the Mexican border city of Tijuana .
“ They are planning how to clear us out , and here we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said a desperate Portillo .
“ There is no more hope for going forward.
” Vox reports that in 2017 about 2,000 Hondurans were granted asylum : That ’ s a tiny fraction of the numbers of Hondurans who have been arriving at the US border in the past few years .
In fact , it ’ s possible there were more Hondurans in the caravan yesterday than the total number who received asylum in the US for an entire year .
That ’ s because the majority of migrants in these caravans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better life .
They have learned to apply for asylum in the US because , until recently , that meant being released into the United States while waiting for a court date .
But under the Trump administrations remain in Mexico policy , asylum seekers must now wait for their turn to see a judge in Mexico instead in the US .
All of this is driving the number of Central American migrants attempting to reach the US border down which ultimately means fewer illegal crossings .
Border apprehensions have dropped for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May .

Yesterday a caravan of roughly 2,500 migrants stopped trying to cross Mexico’s southern border by bridge and instead waded across the river and attempted to get past a line of Mexican National Guardsmen waiting on the other side. That led to some rock-throwing by both sides but hundreds of migrants wound up being taken into custody by the Mexican authorities. Today, those migrants are already being deported by bus and by plane:
…1,000 had tried to enter illegally Monday…and hundreds of them were apparently detained by Mexican National Guardsmen and immigration agents. Immigration officials estimated Monday night that 500 had evaded capture by the security forces. Ebrard said Mexico already has begun deporting some back to Honduras, putting 110 on a flight to San Pedro Sula and sending 144 back by bus. Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Nelly Jerez said Mexico expected to deport 500 Hondurans a day on buses from Wednesday through Friday.
A few hundred people remained on small sandy islands in the middle of the river, waiting to see what would happen. The Mexican authorities refused to hand out any food or water and soon most of the migrants returned to the Guatemalan side of the border to regroup and find food.
“We are in no-man’s land,” said Alan Mejía, whose 2-year-old son was cradled in his arms clad only in a diaper as his wife, Ingrid Vanesa Portillo, and their other son, 12, gazed at the riverbank Monday night. Mejía joined in five previous migrant caravans but never made it farther than the Mexican border city of Tijuana. “They are planning how to clear us out, and here we are without water or food,” said a desperate Portillo. “There is no more hope for going forward.”
Vox reports that in 2017 about 2,000 Hondurans were granted asylum:
Honduras produces high numbers of people seeking asylum: In 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, the US granted asylum to 2,048 migrants from Honduras, compared with 1,048 from Mexico, 3,471 from El Salvador, and 2,954 from Guatemala.
That’s a tiny fraction of the numbers of Hondurans who have been arriving at the US border in the past few years. In fact, it’s possible there were more Hondurans in the caravan yesterday than the total number who received asylum in the US for an entire year. That’s because the majority of migrants in these caravans are economic migrants looking for work or a better life. They have learned to apply for asylum in the US because, until recently, that meant being released into the United States while waiting for a court date. But under the Trump administrations remain in Mexico policy, asylum seekers must now wait for their turn to see a judge in Mexico instead in the US.
All of this is driving the number of Central American migrants attempting to reach the US border down which ultimately means fewer illegal crossings. Border apprehensions have dropped for seven straight months since a peak last May.


hotair--2020-01-21--Guess how much San Antonio has spent to keep Chick-fil-A out of the airport?

Last year we learned that LGBT activists in Texas had convinced the Powers That Be in San Antonio to ban the opening of a new Chick-fil-A outlet at their airport .
The City Council took action because of the company ’ s alleged “ legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.
” But nothing in life ever comes easy , as the City Council soon learned .
That decision prompted a rash of lawsuits on both sides , leading to nearly a year of legal wrangling thus far .
So what has all of this cost the city ?
Lawyers don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees can add up pretty quickly .
In this case , they ’ ve already run up more than $ 300,000 in bills and more are still coming in .
( Fox Business ) The city of San Antonio has spent at least $ 315,000 in legal fees after the city council voted to bar Chick-fil-A from opening a location in the San Antonio airport in March , according to calculations by KENS 5 .
The legal fees encompass two lawsuits and a federal investigation , and other invoices are pending , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s legal fees comes shortly after Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy admitted in a letter to the American Family Association that the fast-food chain “ inadvertently discredited ” groups including the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes after changing its “ giving strategy.
” Hoo boy .
$ 315K in legal fees alone and there are still several investigations ongoing with other invoices yet to be received .
How big is San Antonio ’ s budget these days ?
Granted , it ’ s sizable , but nobody can afford to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are quickly approaching a half million .
And all for what ?
To stop a fast food joint with a huge following from opening up a franchise at the airport .
Good to see San Antonio ’ s elected leaders are really tackling the big problems .
The one question that ’ s never been answered in any of these cases is what specifically the chain has done that qualifies as “ anti-LGBTQ behavior.
” They serve every paying customer who walks in the door .
They have no hint of discrimination in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people work at their restaurants .
In fact , back in 2012 when all of this brouhaha began boiling over , a number of their gay employees published editorials on the subject .
Sure , they complained about the CEO and his Christian beliefs , but the one thing none of them said they were doing was quitting their jobs in protest .
( At least the ones that I found . )
They weren ’ t about to be fired because of their sexual orientation and nearly everyone needs their paychecks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since when is the municipal government supposed to be tinkering in the free market based on anything other than health and safety codes ?
As long as the company complies with EEOC hiring guidelines and the food is good , why do you care ?
Trying to shut a company down because the owner ’ s religious or political beliefs don ’ t conform with yours isn ’ t just a case of politicians picking winners and losers .
It ’ s the process of blocking a legitimate , popular and highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it needs to stop .
But hey , San Antonio .
You just keep running up those legal bills .
I ’ m sure all of your woke taxpayers can afford it and won ’ t complain at all .

Last year we learned that LGBT activists in Texas had convinced the Powers That Be in San Antonio to ban the opening of a new Chick-fil-A outlet at their airport. The City Council took action because of the company’s alleged “legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.” But nothing in life ever comes easy, as the City Council soon learned. That decision prompted a rash of lawsuits on both sides, leading to nearly a year of legal wrangling thus far.
So what has all of this cost the city? Lawyers don’t work for free, and those legal fees can add up pretty quickly. In this case, they’ve already run up more than $300,000 in bills and more are still coming in. (Fox Business)
The city of San Antonio has spent at least $315,000 in legal fees after the city council voted to bar Chick-fil-A from opening a location in the San Antonio airport in March, according to calculations by KENS 5. The legal fees encompass two lawsuits and a federal investigation, and other invoices are pending, according to KENS 5… News of San Antonio’s legal fees comes shortly after Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy admitted in a letter to the American Family Association that the fast-food chain “inadvertently discredited” groups including the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes after changing its “giving strategy.”
Hoo boy. $315K in legal fees alone and there are still several investigations ongoing with other invoices yet to be received. How big is San Antonio’s budget these days? Granted, it’s sizable, but nobody can afford to just flush away cash in amounts that are quickly approaching a half million.
And all for what? To stop a fast food joint with a huge following from opening up a franchise at the airport. Good to see San Antonio’s elected leaders are really tackling the big problems.
The one question that’s never been answered in any of these cases is what specifically the chain has done that qualifies as “anti-LGBTQ behavior.” They serve every paying customer who walks in the door. They have no hint of discrimination in their hiring policies and plenty of LGBT people work at their restaurants. In fact, back in 2012 when all of this brouhaha began boiling over, a number of their gay employees published editorials on the subject.
Sure, they complained about the CEO and his Christian beliefs, but the one thing none of them said they were doing was quitting their jobs in protest. (At least the ones that I found.) They weren’t about to be fired because of their sexual orientation and nearly everyone needs their paychecks.
While we’re on the subject, since when is the municipal government supposed to be tinkering in the free market based on anything other than health and safety codes? As long as the company complies with EEOC hiring guidelines and the food is good, why do you care? Trying to shut a company down because the owner’s religious or political beliefs don’t conform with yours isn’t just a case of politicians picking winners and losers. It’s the process of blocking a legitimate, popular and highly successful franchise out of the free market. And it needs to stop.
But hey, San Antonio. You just keep running up those legal bills. I’m sure all of your woke taxpayers can afford it and won’t complain at all.


hotair--2020-01-21--Hmmm: Centrist Dem Doug Jones blasts McConnell over impeachment trial rules

There are only three Democrats in the Senate who might be gettable by Trump .
One , the perennial , is Joe Manchin of blood-red West Virginia , although he ’ s not a sure thing .
Remember that Manchin has already said he can ’ t see how the trial will be fair if the Senate doesn ’ t call Bolton .
That was his way of nudging Susan Collins and the centrist GOP that if they want some political cover from a Democrat voting “ not guilty , ” they need to step up and provide Manchin with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an obligation to his party to at least make Trump sweat a little before he ’ s inevitably acquitted .
I think he ’ ll get a witness or two and vote with Trump in the end .
The second is the newcomer , Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona .
Sinema ’ s spent the past two years making a name for herself as a quasi-independent centrist Democrat , the sort of liberal who stands a good chance of being reelected in reddish Arizona .
For that reason lots of political junkies are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump too .
Not me .
Voting with Trump might help her on balance in Arizona but it would hurt her badly in a national primary , in case she ends up running for president someday .
( Which she might , especially if Democrats nominate a lefty like Bernie this time and lose handily . )
Impeachment is a major litmus test for her and she must know it .
If she wants a national future as a Democrat , she has to convict .
The third is the star of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alabama .
Jones should be a natural to vote with Trump given how red his state is , but then Jones also should have been a natural to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh for the same reason .
He voted no .
Given his willingness to push the Schumer line about McConnell ’ s trial rules here , even going on camera to do so , sounds like he ’ s starting out as a presumptive no in this case too .
That ’ s political suicide but I think Jones has always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which explains his Kavanaugh vote .
His 2017 win was a perfect-storm fluke in which the GOP nominated an unpopular candidate to face him who was then crippled by an old scandal involving teenaged girls right before the election .
It can ’ t be replicated .
Either he ’ s voting his conscience on stuff like Kavanaugh and impeachment or he ’ s playing a long game in which he ingratiates himself to his party and hopes for an appointment of some sort by the next Democratic president .
The “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sticking with his team is that he ’ s complaining about how McConnell ’ s resolution doesn ’ t require a vote on whether the Senate should hear witnesses .
Right , but the Senate definitely is going to have a vote on whether to hear witnesses and Jones surely realizes it .
McConnell wants this process to look diligent and deliberate for the sake of Republicans who are up for reelection next fall .
There ’ s no way he ’ d deny Collins and the rest the opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ( which they may , per Manchin ’ s point above about Bolton ) .
Nor is McConnell going to try to block the evidence gathered by House Democrats from being entered into the record .
The draft resolution didn ’ t *automatically* admit that evidence but there ’ s no doubt Collins et al .
will vote to admit it in order to deny Democrats an easy “ COVER UP !
” argument .
In fact , as I ’ m writing this news is breaking that today ’ s final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draft resolution in a few key respects : So the evidence will come in automatically , and all of the huffing and puffing Jones does in the clip about the trial being held in the dead of night apparently will have been for nothing since it looks like they ’ re going to take their time on opening arguments after all .
No doubt that was another concession made by McConnell to the Collins contingent .
Centrist Republicans probably weren ’ t thrilled with the “ cover-up ” optics of arguments taking place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is asleep and leaned on Cocaine Mitch to slow down a little .
Maybe McConnell agreed in return from some concession by the RINOs — e.g.
, they ’ ll call only two witnesses , Bolton and Hunter Biden , and no one else .
We ’ ll see .
The point is , Jones is already carrying Schumer ’ s water and thus seems unlikely to cross the aisle to side with Trump in the end .
It could be a fake-out , of course : Maybe Jones is going to appease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedural fairness before voting in the end for acquittal to appease Republicans .
I don ’ t think that ’ ll work , though .
Democrats are destined to claim that the trial was a sham no matter what happens ; if Jones votes to acquit *and* ends up arguing that the trial was kinda sorta legitimate because McConnell made some key procedural concessions then Dems might be even more mad at him than if he had just kept his mouth shut and voted “ not guilty .
”

There are only three Democrats in the Senate who might be gettable by Trump. One, the perennial, is Joe Manchin of blood-red West Virginia, although he’s not a sure thing. Remember that Manchin has already said he can’t see how the trial will be fair if the Senate doesn’t call Bolton. That was his way of nudging Susan Collins and the centrist GOP that if they want some political cover from a Democrat voting “not guilty,” they need to step up and provide Manchin with a little political cover too. Manchin has an obligation to his party to at least make Trump sweat a little before he’s inevitably acquitted. I think he’ll get a witness or two and vote with Trump in the end.
The second is the newcomer, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Sinema’s spent the past two years making a name for herself as a quasi-independent centrist Democrat, the sort of liberal who stands a good chance of being reelected in reddish Arizona. For that reason lots of political junkies are predicting she’ll end up voting with Trump too. Not me. Voting with Trump might help her on balance in Arizona but it would hurt her badly in a national primary, in case she ends up running for president someday. (Which she might, especially if Democrats nominate a lefty like Bernie this time and lose handily.) Impeachment is a major litmus test for her and she must know it. If she wants a national future as a Democrat, she has to convict.
The third is the star of the clip below, Doug Jones of Alabama. Jones should be a natural to vote with Trump given how red his state is, but then Jones also should have been a natural to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh for the same reason. He voted no. Given his willingness to push the Schumer line about McConnell’s trial rules here, even going on camera to do so, sounds like he’s starting out as a presumptive no in this case too. That’s political suicide but I think Jones has always been resigned to losing his reelection bid, which explains his Kavanaugh vote. His 2017 win was a perfect-storm fluke in which the GOP nominated an unpopular candidate to face him who was then crippled by an old scandal involving teenaged girls right before the election. It can’t be replicated. Either he’s voting his conscience on stuff like Kavanaugh and impeachment or he’s playing a long game in which he ingratiates himself to his party and hopes for an appointment of some sort by the next Democratic president.
The “tell” in the clip that he’s sticking with his team is that he’s complaining about how McConnell’s resolution doesn’t require a vote on whether the Senate should hear witnesses. Right, but the Senate definitely is going to have a vote on whether to hear witnesses and Jones surely realizes it. McConnell wants this process to look diligent and deliberate for the sake of Republicans who are up for reelection next fall. There’s no way he’d deny Collins and the rest the opportunity to call witnesses if they decide they have to (which they may, per Manchin’s point above about Bolton). Nor is McConnell going to try to block the evidence gathered by House Democrats from being entered into the record. The draft resolution didn’t *automatically* admit that evidence but there’s no doubt Collins et al. will vote to admit it in order to deny Democrats an easy “COVER UP!” argument.
In fact, as I’m writing this news is breaking that today’s final resolution differs from last night’s draft resolution in a few key respects:
Two big changes to McConnell resolution: – two additional calendar days of open arguments – House evidence automatically entered into trial, subject to hearsay objection — Burgess Everett (@burgessev) January 21, 2020
So the evidence will come in automatically, and all of the huffing and puffing Jones does in the clip about the trial being held in the dead of night apparently will have been for nothing since it looks like they’re going to take their time on opening arguments after all. No doubt that was another concession made by McConnell to the Collins contingent. Centrist Republicans probably weren’t thrilled with the “cover-up” optics of arguments taking place during hours when most of the country is asleep and leaned on Cocaine Mitch to slow down a little. Maybe McConnell agreed in return from some concession by the RINOs — e.g., they’ll call only two witnesses, Bolton and Hunter Biden, and no one else. We’ll see.
The point is, Jones is already carrying Schumer’s water and thus seems unlikely to cross the aisle to side with Trump in the end. It could be a fake-out, of course: Maybe Jones is going to appease Democrats in Alabama by pushing hard for procedural fairness before voting in the end for acquittal to appease Republicans. I don’t think that’ll work, though. Democrats are destined to claim that the trial was a sham no matter what happens; if Jones votes to acquit *and* ends up arguing that the trial was kinda sorta legitimate because McConnell made some key procedural concessions then Dems might be even more mad at him than if he had just kept his mouth shut and voted “not guilty.”


hotair--2020-01-21--Venezuela is almost out of cash and can't easily sell its remaining gold

Venezuela ’ s reserves are at a three decade low and most of that money is in the form of gold that the regime either can ’ t access or can ’ t sell .
What remains is less than a billion dollars in cash reserves : Venezuela ’ s central bank now has only about $ 800 million left in cash and an additional $ 200 million of other liquid assets , according to three people with knowledge of the bank ’ s balance sheet .
While the country holds some 73 tons of gold in local vaults , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. efforts to cut off Nicolas Maduro ’ s regime from a global network of buyers , banks and middlemen .
The 73 tons of gold is worth $ 3.6 billion but because of sanctions the country can ’ t sell it to anyone who does business with the U.S .
In addition , Venezuela has another 32 tons of gold being held in the Bank of England .
However , because England ( and more than 50 other countries ) don ’ t recognize Nicolas Maduro as the legitimate president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Business Insider points out , this means that Venezuela ’ s cash reserves are now below the net worth of Kylie Jenner .
Maybe Maduro should hit Sean Penn up for a loan .
Without cash , Maduro won ’ t be able to import food that he uses to supply loyalists as part of his CLAP program .
Support for the regime is already near rock bottom but without the food supplies , the desire to see him leave office is likely to surge .
As the collapse continues around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
Earlier this month , Jazz pointed out that Maduro ’ s National Guard blocked elected opposition members from entering the National Assembly .
Since then the National Assembly has held meetings in a theater and , as of today , outside : The lawmakers held a makeshift meeting in an open-air public square in an opposition-friendly part of Caracas away from downtown .
They sat on chairs set up before a stage amid trees and backed by their flag-colored streamer and emblem .
It was the third consecutive week that groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and security forces have blocked access for members of the National Assembly , the last major national institution under opposition control and the center of the struggle over who governs the crisis-wracked nation .
Those “ colectivos ” are government thugs on motorcycles who do the regime ’ s bidding for the good of the revolution .
But Maduro has to be wondering how long the colectivos will remain loyal if their government food supplies are cut .
Meanwhile , Juan Guaido defied a government travel ban to go to neighboring Colombia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s president and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
That open defiance sets up a difficult problem for Maduro : Maduro ’ s days seem numbered , but as long as he retains the support of China and Russia he could potentially hang on to power , albeit in a ruined , fractured country .

Venezuela’s reserves are at a three decade low and most of that money is in the form of gold that the regime either can’t access or can’t sell. What remains is less than a billion dollars in cash reserves:
Venezuela’s central bank now has only about $800 million left in cash and an additional $200 million of other liquid assets, according to three people with knowledge of the bank’s balance sheet. While the country holds some 73 tons of gold in local vaults, selling it has become increasingly difficult amid the U.S. efforts to cut off Nicolas Maduro’s regime from a global network of buyers, banks and middlemen.
The 73 tons of gold is worth $3.6 billion but because of sanctions the country can’t sell it to anyone who does business with the U.S. In addition, Venezuela has another 32 tons of gold being held in the Bank of England. However, because England (and more than 50 other countries) don’t recognize Nicolas Maduro as the legitimate president, he can’t touch that either.
As Business Insider points out, this means that Venezuela’s cash reserves are now below the net worth of Kylie Jenner. Maybe Maduro should hit Sean Penn up for a loan. Without cash, Maduro won’t be able to import food that he uses to supply loyalists as part of his CLAP program. Support for the regime is already near rock bottom but without the food supplies, the desire to see him leave office is likely to surge.
As the collapse continues around, Maduro is still holding onto political power. Earlier this month, Jazz pointed out that Maduro’s National Guard blocked elected opposition members from entering the National Assembly. Since then the National Assembly has held meetings in a theater and, as of today, outside:
The lawmakers held a makeshift meeting in an open-air public square in an opposition-friendly part of Caracas away from downtown. They sat on chairs set up before a stage amid trees and backed by their flag-colored streamer and emblem. It was the third consecutive week that groups of armed civilians known as “colectivos” and security forces have blocked access for members of the National Assembly, the last major national institution under opposition control and the center of the struggle over who governs the crisis-wracked nation.
Those “colectivos” are government thugs on motorcycles who do the regime’s bidding for the good of the revolution. But Maduro has to be wondering how long the colectivos will remain loyal if their government food supplies are cut.
Meanwhile, Juan Guaido defied a government travel ban to go to neighboring Colombia where he met with that nation’s president and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. That open defiance sets up a difficult problem for Maduro:
If Mr. Maduro arrests Mr. Guaidó upon his return to Venezuela, that could rally domestic and international support around the opposition leader. But if Mr. Maduro allows him to return, he could seem powerless to enforce his own government’s travel ban.
Maduro’s days seem numbered, but as long as he retains the support of China and Russia he could potentially hang on to power, albeit in a ruined, fractured country.


hotair--2020-01-21--Norway's government implodes over ISIS bride in Syria

While it didn ’ t draw too many headlines internationally , Norway ’ s ruling coalition government lost its majority yesterday when the populist Progress Party pulled out of the coalition .
And it all happened because of one woman and her two children .
The woman has not been named , but she was one of the “ ISIS brides.
” She fled Norway in 2013 , moving to Syria where she married a Norwegian man who had similarly joined the terrorist group .
They had two children , but he was later killed in the fighting .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camp in Syria since the collapse of the caliphate but wanted to return to Norway because she claimed one of her children was ill .
The government finally agreed to let her return , prompting the Progress Party ’ s decision to abandon the coalition .
( Daily Mail ) Norway ’ s government has collapsed over the decision to allow an ISIS bride to return to the country from Syria with her children .
The populist Progress Party pulled out of Norway ’ s coalition government today after the mother was permitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son could receive medical treatment .
The 29-year-old and her two children have been living in the Al-Hol camp in Syria – notorious in Britain as the detention centre which held Shamima Begum .
Norway ’ s next scheduled elections aren ’ t supposed to happen until September of 2021 , so that ’ s a long time to have to rule from a minority position .
( At least if you want to get anything done . )
Still , the Prime Minister says that ’ s her plan and she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties to find common ground and keep things running .
The ISIS bride was arrested upon arrival in the country and she and her two children were taken to a hospital , so it wasn ’ t immediately clear why the Progress Party was so upset .
It ’ s not as if the woman was being welcomed home to a ticker-tape parade .
But that situation may change going forward .
Some suspected that the child really wasn ’ t all that ill and she was simply using the kid as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She was initially offered a chance to have the sick child return alone , but she refused .
Now they are being checked out by doctors .
Time will tell .
I suppose the real question here is whether the mother is being offered full repatriation or if she ’ s facing a trial and possible removal once they address the medical needs of her children .
The kids can ’ t be blamed for the evil done by their mother and if Norway wanted to put them up for adoption or something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best for them ) I suppose that would be fine .
But we ’ ve been dealing with this in the United States with one of our own ISIS brides .
There is absolutely no reason that the rest of us should just “ forgive and forget ” when someone runs off to join the terrorists of ISIS .
Anyone who could see the beheadings and the people being burned alive in cages and still pledge themselves to ( and marry into ) the cause is not worthy of forgiveness and repatriation as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clearly at least some of the constituencies in Norway feel the same .
But having gotten her toe in the door , it sounds like this runaway bride may have a path to just settle back into her old homeland .

While it didn’t draw too many headlines internationally, Norway’s ruling coalition government lost its majority yesterday when the populist Progress Party pulled out of the coalition. And it all happened because of one woman and her two children.
The woman has not been named, but she was one of the “ISIS brides.” She fled Norway in 2013, moving to Syria where she married a Norwegian man who had similarly joined the terrorist group. They had two children, but he was later killed in the fighting. She’s been living in a refugee camp in Syria since the collapse of the caliphate but wanted to return to Norway because she claimed one of her children was ill. The government finally agreed to let her return, prompting the Progress Party’s decision to abandon the coalition. (Daily Mail)
Norway’s government has collapsed over the decision to allow an ISIS bride to return to the country from Syria with her children. The populist Progress Party pulled out of Norway’s coalition government today after the mother was permitted repatriation so that her gravely ill five-year-old son could receive medical treatment. The 29-year-old and her two children have been living in the Al-Hol camp in Syria – notorious in Britain as the detention centre which held Shamima Begum.
Norway’s next scheduled elections aren’t supposed to happen until September of 2021, so that’s a long time to have to rule from a minority position. (At least if you want to get anything done.) Still, the Prime Minister says that’s her plan and she’ll try to reach out to other parties to find common ground and keep things running.
The ISIS bride was arrested upon arrival in the country and she and her two children were taken to a hospital, so it wasn’t immediately clear why the Progress Party was so upset. It’s not as if the woman was being welcomed home to a ticker-tape parade. But that situation may change going forward. Some suspected that the child really wasn’t all that ill and she was simply using the kid as a passport to get back into Norway. She was initially offered a chance to have the sick child return alone, but she refused. Now they are being checked out by doctors. Time will tell.
I suppose the real question here is whether the mother is being offered full repatriation or if she’s facing a trial and possible removal once they address the medical needs of her children. The kids can’t be blamed for the evil done by their mother and if Norway wanted to put them up for adoption or something (assuming the mother really wants the best for them) I suppose that would be fine.
But we’ve been dealing with this in the United States with one of our own ISIS brides. There is absolutely no reason that the rest of us should just “forgive and forget” when someone runs off to join the terrorists of ISIS. Anyone who could see the beheadings and the people being burned alive in cages and still pledge themselves to (and marry into) the cause is not worthy of forgiveness and repatriation as far as I’m concerned.
Clearly at least some of the constituencies in Norway feel the same. But having gotten her toe in the door, it sounds like this runaway bride may have a path to just settle back into her old homeland.


hotair--2020-01-21--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Impeachment start, Catholic education, Little Sisters of the

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Impeachment start, Catholic education, Little Sisters of the Poor, media bias, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• David Carlin on the rules fight in the Senate impeachment hearing • Msgr .
James Shea on the value of Catholic education • Diana Verm updates us on the Little Sisters of the Poor ’ s Supreme Court case • Dr. Robert Tiballi on the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the media coverage of the Virginia 2nd Amendment rally , and more !
• Thomas More Society ’ s Timothy Belz on New York ’ s “ Boss Laws ” • And more to come … stay tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour .
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
David Carlin on the rules fight in the Senate impeachment hearing
Msgr. James Shea on the value of Catholic education
Diana Verm updates us on the Little Sisters of the Poor’s Supreme Court case
Dr. Robert Tiballi on the latest virus scare from China
Andrew Malcolm on the media coverage of the Virginia 2nd Amendment rally, and more!
Thomas More Society’s Timothy Belz on New York’s “Boss Laws”
And more to come … stay tuned!
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-01-21--New Project Veritas drop: Team Bernie workers still very fond of gulags and guillotines

How much fun will it be to create the gulag system in the US — excuse us , “ re-education camps , ” as one Team Bernie organizer puts it — for Republican detention ?
“ Can you imagine Mitch McConnell , Lindsey Graham ” in them , he wonders ?
At least that would be more humane than the guillotine Martin Weissgerber endorses for the rich .
It ’ s the second such undercover video from Project Veritas of Bernie Sanders ’ field organizers , who seem to have a strange affinity for gulags and the Soviet Union for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only changes they foresee in a Sanders presidency .
“ So , do we just cease – do we just dissolve the Senate , House of Representatives , the Judicial Branch , ” Weissgerber asks , “ and have something Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people , make all decisions for the climate ?
I mean , I ’ m serious.
” I think we believe you : In last week ’ s videos , Project Veritas Action Fund exposed the shocking comments of an Iowa Field Organizer for the Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In today ’ s new video , a South Carolina Field Organizer for the Sanders Campaign , Martin Weissgerber , is secretly recorded praising the Soviet Union , admitting his fantasies about forcing a violent overthrow of the United States federal government , and speaking favorably about forcing Americans into “ Re-Education Camps.
” He even speaks of decapitating people once his socialist revolution succeeds .
Weissgerber , who also describes himself as a Communist , reveals that he has been radicalized from a very young age by both of his parents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recordings released last week of Kyle Jurek , give insight into the mindset of many Sanders staffers and what they truly believe .
Throughout the recorded conversation , Weissgerber expressed his contempt for wealthy Americans and Republicans by suggesting that they should be forced into hard labor , Re-Education Camps , or even the guillotine .
To be fair , the undercover PV agent starts the conversation about gulags and guillotines , but Weissgerber doesn ’ t seem at all adverse to either one .
He wants to arm himself up for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force billionaires to dig ditches to teach them a lesson or two afterward .
Presumably , these would be the billionaires allowed to stay connected to their heads .
Like Sanders , Weissgerber has a very strong affinity for the Soviet Union as the apotheosis of progressivism : “ I only learned this sh*t in college when I started studying the Soviet Union .
The Soviet Union was not horrible…I mean , for women ’ s rights the Soviet Union – I think – the most progressive place to date in the world.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ opened ; have you heard about Belomorkanal ?
They dug a Canal ; the plan was , in 1922 , I think , to dig a Canal from the White Sea all the way to Saint Petersburg…a long way , if you look on a map…and , the whole point – it was going to be called the Belomorkanal , and I read – I spent a whole semester actually studying primary accounts from the Belomorkanal .
The whole point of the Belomorkanal , there were no machines allowed .
They forced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole canal , right ?
You should see the people writing about their time at the Belomorkanal .
There ’ s this one guy , he was a thief from Georgia who had been captured .
He was sent to the Belomorkanal to work and in his writing , like ‘ I reject all thievery , I reject that past life.
’ He said , Capitalism made me into this thief , because when there ’ s poor people , there ’ s going to be crime .
He said , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked.
’ He became a shock worker , which is what they call the leading workers , people who always met the quota and exceeded the quota…and , like people came from America to work at the Belomorkanal for the Soviet project , the Communist project .
It was a beautiful thing.
” Just how prevalent is this radical Marxist-Leninist , pro-anarcho-syndicalist streak in Bernie Sanders ’ campaign ?
We ’ re likely to find out ; usually , Project Veritas doesn ’ t start dropping videos until it has several already in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie ’ s socialist agenda having weird ideas of Soviet beneficence could be just a fringe , although one has to wonder how Weissgerber got assigned to South Carolina , of all places .
( He ’ d do better in California , wouldn ’ t he ? )
If PV starts rolling out a half-dozen or more of these kinds of nutcases within the Sanders campaign itself , well … that ’ s not going to be a good look .
Here ’ s an Allahpundit-style exit question , if that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton ?

How much fun will it be to create the gulag system in the US — excuse us, “re-education camps,” as one Team Bernie organizer puts it — for Republican detention? “Can you imagine Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham” in them, he wonders? At least that would be more humane than the guillotine Martin Weissgerber endorses for the rich. It’s the second such undercover video from Project Veritas of Bernie Sanders’ field organizers, who seem to have a strange affinity for gulags and the Soviet Union for some reason.
That’s not the only changes they foresee in a Sanders presidency. “So, do we just cease – do we just dissolve the Senate, House of Representatives, the Judicial Branch,” Weissgerber asks, “and have something Bernie Sanders and a cabinet of people, make all decisions for the climate? I mean, I’m serious.”
I think we believe you:
In last week’s videos, Project Veritas Action Fund exposed the shocking comments of an Iowa Field Organizer for the Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaign, Kyle Jurek. In today’s new video, a South Carolina Field Organizer for the Sanders Campaign, Martin Weissgerber, is secretly recorded praising the Soviet Union, admitting his fantasies about forcing a violent overthrow of the United States federal government, and speaking favorably about forcing Americans into “Re-Education Camps.” He even speaks of decapitating people once his socialist revolution succeeds. Weissgerber, who also describes himself as a Communist, reveals that he has been radicalized from a very young age by both of his parents. The recordings of Weissgerber combined with the recordings released last week of Kyle Jurek, give insight into the mindset of many Sanders staffers and what they truly believe. Throughout the recorded conversation, Weissgerber expressed his contempt for wealthy Americans and Republicans by suggesting that they should be forced into hard labor, Re-Education Camps, or even the guillotine.
To be fair, the undercover PV agent starts the conversation about gulags and guillotines, but Weissgerber doesn’t seem at all adverse to either one. He wants to arm himself up for the “f*****g revolution,” and to force billionaires to dig ditches to teach them a lesson or two afterward. Presumably, these would be the billionaires allowed to stay connected to their heads.
Like Sanders, Weissgerber has a very strong affinity for the Soviet Union as the apotheosis of progressivism:
“I only learned this sh*t in college when I started studying the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not horrible…I mean, for women’s rights the Soviet Union – I think – the most progressive place to date in the world.” “The first Gulag that was opened; have you heard about Belomorkanal? They dug a Canal; the plan was, in 1922, I think, to dig a Canal from the White Sea all the way to Saint Petersburg…a long way, if you look on a map…and, the whole point – it was going to be called the Belomorkanal, and I read – I spent a whole semester actually studying primary accounts from the Belomorkanal. The whole point of the Belomorkanal, there were no machines allowed. They forced the people to dig with shovels and hoe the whole canal, right? You should see the people writing about their time at the Belomorkanal. There’s this one guy, he was a thief from Georgia who had been captured. He was sent to the Belomorkanal to work and in his writing, like ‘I reject all thievery, I reject that past life.’ He said, Capitalism made me into this thief, because when there’s poor people, there’s going to be crime. He said, ‘I went to the Belomorkanal and I worked.’ He became a shock worker, which is what they call the leading workers, people who always met the quota and exceeded the quota…and, like people came from America to work at the Belomorkanal for the Soviet project, the Communist project. It was a beautiful thing.”
Just how prevalent is this radical Marxist-Leninist, pro-anarcho-syndicalist streak in Bernie Sanders’ campaign? We’re likely to find out; usually, Project Veritas doesn’t start dropping videos until it has several already in the can. Two people attracted to Bernie’s socialist agenda having weird ideas of Soviet beneficence could be just a fringe, although one has to wonder how Weissgerber got assigned to South Carolina, of all places. (He’d do better in California, wouldn’t he?) If PV starts rolling out a half-dozen or more of these kinds of nutcases within the Sanders campaign itself, well … that’s not going to be a good look.
Here’s an Allahpundit-style exit question, if that’s the case … second look at Hillary Clinton?


hotair--2020-01-21--AOC has thoughts on capitalism, billionaires and power

Last year on MLK day Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was interviewed at a public event by Ta-Nehisi Coates and produced some noteworthy soundbites .
Perhaps the most newsworthy was this one about the world ending in 12 years : “ Millenials and Gen Z and all these folks that came after us are looking up and we ’ re like ‘ The world is going to end in 12 years if we don ’ t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it ?
” That quote made the rounds and AOC later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intelligence of a “ sea sponge ” to believe she was speaking literally .
But that wasn ’ t the only controversial statement that came out of last year ’ s event .
She also said that the system that allows billionaires to exist was immoral and that America was “ dystopian.
” Apparently the organizers know a good thing when they see it so this year AOC was once again being interviewed by Ta-Nehisi Coates on MLK day in front of a crowd of fans ( or maybe stans ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wisdom to offer about capitalism , billionaires , and power .
In this first clip , AOC says the Democratic Party is a “ center or center-conservative party.
” She starts to say “ we do not advocate for [ Medicare for All ] ” but quickly realizes that ’ s not true and revises her sentence .
“ We can ’ t even get a floor vote on Medicare for All.
” She goes on to say that there are “ true believers ” in the Democratic Party who think you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Two points about this before we move on : First , the fact that Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are both in the top four candidates for the Democratic nomination suggests the party is not center-right .
Their support for single-payer , free college tuition , etc .
are not center-right positions .
Second , AOC is wrong about capitalism and poverty .
In fact there ’ s plenty of evidence that capitalism has reduced poverty and increased life expectancy over the past 75 years .
So as not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommend this 12-minute video which presents the argument along with some criticism of it as well .
Moving on , AOC made another direct attack on capitalism .
“ If Jeff Bezos wants to be a good person he ’ d turn Amazon into a worker cooperative.
” She added , “ Not what do I do with all of this money that I have created with this unjust system…If you ’ re a billionaire that means that you control a massive system…It means that you have a massive labor force under your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re a billionaire today the thing that you need to do is give up control and power .
“ So I don ’ t want your money as much as we want your power .
The people , not me.
” I ’ m sure AOC did mean the people , but I ’ m also 110 % certain she believes she will become a celebrated leader of those same people .
So the power may go to “ the people ” but in AOC ’ s mind it immediately gets delegated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really the nature of socialists systems .
The politicians remove a competing source of power by eliminating corporations run by individuals like Jeff Bezos .
Fewer centers of power means more concentrated social and economic power in the hands of people like AOC .
So what ’ s the bottom line here ?
When AOC introduced the Green New Deal last year I offered a take that , at the time , I hadn ’ t seen anywhere else .
Here ’ s what I wrote : There ’ s a skeleton key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odd leftist wish list .
It ’ s called capitalism .
Really , making sense of this jumble of a proposal is that simple .
The reason much of the document seems to be aimed at rearranging the economy far beyond the already extreme measures that would be required to fight climate change is , I believe , that AOC sees capitalism as the root of the problem .
And if capitalism is the root , then it ’ s not enough to cut emissions or install more solar panels .
What you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air travel , giving jobs to people even if they won ’ t work , guarantee free health care , free college , affordable ( government subsidized ? )
housing , and using whatever ’ s left to repair historic oppression .
Because if you do all of that , there is no capitalism left .
I think her statements yesterday highlighting capitalism as the chief flaw in her fellow Democrats ’ thinking and the problem with modern billionaires only proves the point .
To AOC , capitalism is the problem and everything @ @ @ @ @

Last year on MLK day Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was interviewed at a public event by Ta-Nehisi Coates and produced some noteworthy soundbites. Perhaps the most newsworthy was this one about the world ending in 12 years: “Millenials and Gen Z and all these folks that came after us are looking up and we’re like ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?” That quote made the rounds and AOC later claimed you’d have to have the intelligence of a “sea sponge” to believe she was speaking literally. But that wasn’t the only controversial statement that came out of last year’s event. She also said that the system that allows billionaires to exist was immoral and that America was “dystopian.”
Apparently the organizers know a good thing when they see it so this year AOC was once again being interviewed by Ta-Nehisi Coates on MLK day in front of a crowd of fans (or maybe stans). And once again AOC had pearls of wisdom to offer about capitalism, billionaires, and power. In this first clip, AOC says the Democratic Party is a “center or center-conservative party.” She starts to say “we do not advocate for [Medicare for All]” but quickly realizes that’s not true and revises her sentence. “We can’t even get a floor vote on Medicare for All.” She goes on to say that there are “true believers” in the Democratic Party who think you can “capitalism your way out of poverty.”
Two points about this before we move on: First, the fact that Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are both in the top four candidates for the Democratic nomination suggests the party is not center-right. Their support for single-payer, free college tuition, etc. are not center-right positions.
Second, AOC is wrong about capitalism and poverty. In fact there’s plenty of evidence that capitalism has reduced poverty and increased life expectancy over the past 75 years. So as not to oversimplify the argument, I’d recommend this 12-minute video which presents the argument along with some criticism of it as well.
Moving on, AOC made another direct attack on capitalism. “If Jeff Bezos wants to be a good person he’d turn Amazon into a worker cooperative.” She added, “Not what do I do with all of this money that I have created with this unjust system…If you’re a billionaire that means that you control a massive system…It means that you have a massive labor force under your control and to be ethical if you’re a billionaire today the thing that you need to do is give up control and power.
“So I don’t want your money as much as we want your power. The people, not me.”
I’m sure AOC did mean the people, but I’m also 110% certain she believes she will become a celebrated leader of those same people. So the power may go to “the people” but in AOC’s mind it immediately gets delegated to her. And that’s really the nature of socialists systems. The politicians remove a competing source of power by eliminating corporations run by individuals like Jeff Bezos. Fewer centers of power means more concentrated social and economic power in the hands of people like AOC.
So what’s the bottom line here? When AOC introduced the Green New Deal last year I offered a take that, at the time, I hadn’t seen anywhere else. Here’s what I wrote:
There’s a skeleton key of sorts that makes sense of this odd leftist wish list. It’s called capitalism. Really, making sense of this jumble of a proposal is that simple. The reason much of the document seems to be aimed at rearranging the economy far beyond the already extreme measures that would be required to fight climate change is, I believe, that AOC sees capitalism as the root of the problem. And if capitalism is the root, then it’s not enough to cut emissions or install more solar panels. What you need is to end capitalism by reducing air travel, giving jobs to people even if they won’t work, guarantee free health care, free college, affordable (government subsidized?) housing, and using whatever’s left to repair historic oppression. Because if you do all of that, there is no capitalism left.
I think her statements yesterday highlighting capitalism as the chief flaw in her fellow Democrats’ thinking and the problem with modern billionaires only proves the point. To AOC, capitalism is the problem and everything else is just details.


hotair--2020-01-21--Facial recognition is here. Everyone has to deal with that

Up until now , facial recognition software has largely remained in the vaults of some of the tech giants like Amazon , Microsoft and Google .
This has alarmed many privacy advocates while simultaneously promising improvements in the effectiveness of law enforcement and efforts to stop terrorist plots .
But what if this technology moves out of those controlled confines and spreads throughout the private sector ?
What if it becomes embedded in something as simple as an app that anyone can download on their phone ?
This is apparently no longer a “ what if ” scenario .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such an app and the user can take a picture of someone with their phone , resulting in a search of a massive database of images .
The results can potentially provide a name and perhaps even an address or other personal information .
If you thought privacy advocates were upset before , this is going to take it to an entirely new level .
( CNET ) What if a stranger could snap your picture on the sidewalk then use an app to quickly discover your name , address and other details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made that possible , and its app is currently being used by hundreds of law enforcement agencies in the US , including the FBI , says a Saturday report in The New York Times .
The app , says the Times , works by comparing a photo to a database of more than 3 billion pictures that Clearview says it ’ s scraped off Facebook , Venmo , YouTube and other sites .
It then serves up matches , along with links to the sites where those database photos originally appeared .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from there other info could be dug up online .
I first became aware of this new app via a female Twitter user who was clearly upset over the news .
( Language warning ) I can ’ t say I ’ m unsympathetic to her fears .
Nobody wants to pick up a stalker , and that ’ s a concern that ’ s particularly applicable to women .
But at least for the moment the app isn ’ t available to the general public .
Police forces in multiple locations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company says that it expects the app to be available to everyone sooner or later .
So is this something the government needs to prevent ?
Congress has already held hearings about facial recognition technology exploring just such questions , including several last year .
But what justification would they use to clamp down on this sort of software ?
It ’ s not illegal to take pictures of other people with your phone when you ’ re out in the public square .
( Once you walk out your front door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero aside from in hotel rooms , bathrooms , showers or locker rooms . )
The sources for the image library the company uses to look for matches come largely from social media .
Those are pictures that people willingly shared with the public for the most part .
Precisely what harm is being caused if an app matches the images up ?
The real crime takes place if you use the information to begin stalking someone and threatening or injuring them .
But that was already illegal anyway .
Banning this sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone with a phone , based on the assumption that you would use the app for ill intent .
I ’ m not saying it ’ s not disturbing .
It definitely is .
But like every other major technological advancement , we find ourselves dealing with something that might be a both a blessing and a curse .
The same software and tools that allow you to build broad , sweeping communities to engage with online also opens you up to intrusive collisions with bad actors .
Every time you post a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your location and habits that determined stalkers could make use of .
All this software is doing is streamlining the process .
For better or worse , the facial recognition genie is already out of the bottle .
And to think that it wasn ’ t going to eventually seep out into the public domain was shortsighted .
Of course , you could choose to throw away your devices and stay largely off the grid .
But that ’ s a trade that most younger people simply won ’ t be prepared to @ @

Up until now, facial recognition software has largely remained in the vaults of some of the tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft and Google. This has alarmed many privacy advocates while simultaneously promising improvements in the effectiveness of law enforcement and efforts to stop terrorist plots. But what if this technology moves out of those controlled confines and spreads throughout the private sector? What if it becomes embedded in something as simple as an app that anyone can download on their phone?
This is apparently no longer a “what if” scenario. A company called Clearview AI has developed just such an app and the user can take a picture of someone with their phone, resulting in a search of a massive database of images. The results can potentially provide a name and perhaps even an address or other personal information. If you thought privacy advocates were upset before, this is going to take it to an entirely new level. (CNET)
What if a stranger could snap your picture on the sidewalk then use an app to quickly discover your name, address and other details? A startup called Clearview AI has made that possible, and its app is currently being used by hundreds of law enforcement agencies in the US, including the FBI, says a Saturday report in The New York Times. The app, says the Times, works by comparing a photo to a database of more than 3 billion pictures that Clearview says it’s scraped off Facebook, Venmo, YouTube and other sites. It then serves up matches, along with links to the sites where those database photos originally appeared. A name might easily be unearthed, and from there other info could be dug up online.
I first became aware of this new app via a female Twitter user who was clearly upset over the news. (Language warning)
This was 100% a guy who invented this and thought that it was ok. This is fucking dangerous. I have been followed by random strangers. With an app like this they can easily become your stalker.https://t.co/MEUPLVFUCB — Karina Voggel ✨🔭 (@KarinaVoggel) January 20, 2020
I can’t say I’m unsympathetic to her fears. Nobody wants to pick up a stalker, and that’s a concern that’s particularly applicable to women. But at least for the moment the app isn’t available to the general public. Police forces in multiple locations are testing it out, however. And the company says that it expects the app to be available to everyone sooner or later.
So is this something the government needs to prevent? Congress has already held hearings about facial recognition technology exploring just such questions, including several last year. But what justification would they use to clamp down on this sort of software?
It’s not illegal to take pictures of other people with your phone when you’re out in the public square. (Once you walk out your front door your expectation of privacy drops to almost zero aside from in hotel rooms, bathrooms, showers or locker rooms.) The sources for the image library the company uses to look for matches come largely from social media. Those are pictures that people willingly shared with the public for the most part. Precisely what harm is being caused if an app matches the images up?
The real crime takes place if you use the information to begin stalking someone and threatening or injuring them. But that was already illegal anyway. Banning this sort of software effectively makes criminals out of anyone with a phone, based on the assumption that you would use the app for ill intent.
I’m not saying it’s not disturbing. It definitely is. But like every other major technological advancement, we find ourselves dealing with something that might be a both a blessing and a curse. The same software and tools that allow you to build broad, sweeping communities to engage with online also opens you up to intrusive collisions with bad actors. Every time you post a selfie you risk exposing some details about your location and habits that determined stalkers could make use of. All this software is doing is streamlining the process.
For better or worse, the facial recognition genie is already out of the bottle. And to think that it wasn’t going to eventually seep out into the public domain was shortsighted. Of course, you could choose to throw away your devices and stay largely off the grid. But that’s a trade that most younger people simply won’t be prepared to make.