hotair--2020-11-23--<span class='red'>Michigan canvassing board certifies Biden's victory; Update: GSA chief finally ord

Michigan canvassing board certifies Biden's victory; Update: GSA chief finally orders formal transition, releases funds to Biden; Update: Trump supports -- and concedes?

This isn ’ t the death blow for Trump ’ s overall post-election effort , as there ’ s still litigation pending in the Third Circuit to try to make something happen in Pennsylvania .
But it is the death blow for the White House ’ s halfhearted effort to convince state legislators to throw out the results of their election on some thin pretense of fraud and award Trump their electors , which would amount to a de facto coup against the incoming administration .
It was the speaker of the house and the senate majority leader of Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the White House last week to be pitched on the idea , making Michigan a test case for whether any Republican might actually go along with it .
After that meeting the two issued a statement saying that they planned to do things by the book in awarding electors , which was reassuring but easier said than done .
After all , the state canvassing board charged with certifying the results was composed of two Republicans and two Democrats .
If they deadlocked — and at least one of the two Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote no — despite Biden ’ s margin of 150,000 votes , that would trigger a court fight in Michigan and signal to other Republican officials that the time had come for all-out resistance .
Remember that the canvassing board in Wayne County had also deadlocked briefly last week before voting to certify — and then the two Republicans on the board insisted that they wanted to oppose certification after all .
The odds of similar chaos among the state board were high , with graver consequences .
There was genuine anxiety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the national commentariat this morning , with op-eds swirling that refusing to certify legitimate votes would amount to a felony .
The board finally voted this afternoon : 3-0-1 for certification , with the Republican who said he might vote no choosing to abstain instead .
The other Republican voted yes : The abstainer , Norman Shinkle , “ cited a debunked conspiracy theory aired by Trump that voting machines made by a company called Dominion deleted thousands of Trump votes ” in telling WaPo last week why he was inclined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans also pointed to discrepancies in some precincts between the official vote count and the number of votes logged in polling books .
But that sort of clerical error is routine .
In fact , it was more prevalent four years ago when Trump won the state by the far narrower margin of 10,000 or so votes and had no difficulty having his victory certified .
Out-of-balance precincts can occur for several reasons .
A machine may fail to scan the name of a voter on an absentee ballot envelope .
A voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and request a new one , or sign into the poll book but leave before casting a ballot .
This fall , 179 Detroit precincts , or 28 percent of the total , had discrepancies of at least one ballot , accounting for at least 433 votes , according to state and county data .
Four years ago , when Trump won the state by a narrow margin , the number of out-of-balance precincts was larger : 392 Detroit precincts , or 59 percent of the total , had discrepancies of at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 916 votes , the data show .
This afternoon , less than an hour after Michigan made it official , Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander issued this statement : Note the last line .
Alexander is retiring , but I think that bit about people remembering your last act is aimed more at Trump and his potential 2024 hopes than at himself .
Pennsylvania is set to certify its results this evening unless the Third Circuit intervenes , which would be surprising .
If PA goes ahead and pulls the trigger , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition : It ’ ll mean that even if the remaining closely contested swing states of Wisconsin , Arizona , and Nevada were to flip to Trump somehow , Biden would still have 279 electoral votes .
There ’ s no earthly reason why the GSA should continue to resist “ ascertaining ” Biden ’ s victory under those circumstances , unless the standard they ’ re now following is that he can ’ t be ascertained the “ apparent ” winner so long as litigation is pending somewhere , no matter how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her today to make a move : Today was the deadline set last week by a House committee for GSA chief Emily Murphy to brief them on why she hasn ’ t begun the transition .
Today GSA agreed to brief the committee — a week from now .
And it won ’ t be Murphy but a deputy who shows up to do it .
That ’ s not going to cut it for Dems ; the committee responded that it wants a briefing from Murphy herself no later than tomorrow .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispute by ascertaining Biden ’ s victory after Pennsylvania certifies tonight , particularly with Trump ’ s legal effort seemingly falling to pieces .
If not , I assume the next move will be Team Biden suing GSA to try to force it to begin the transition .
It ’ s unlikely yet somehow true that Trump ’ s most stalwart ally inside the administration in trying to buy time for him to overturn the election is a no-name apparatchik at a bean-counting agency .
In lieu of an exit question , read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling out agents to see if they ’ d accept a transfer to Palm Beach in the expectation that that ’ ll be Trump ’ s residence soon .
Update : The Trump “ legal effort ” is one part legal and 99 parts PR , as this new Jenna Ellis statement illustrates .
She can keep on filing lawsuits to show MAGA Nation that Trump is still “ fighting ” but unless something very surprising happens in Pennsylvania tonight the deal is sealed .
Update : And there it is .
Murphy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She ’ s careful not to say that he won the election , that only the constitutional process can determine that , but she ’ s releasing the money appropriated for the transition to his team .
The money ’ s less important than the fact that members of the Trump administration , starting with the COVID team , now have the political cover they needed to start cooperating with members of the Biden transition .
The question now is whether Trump will try to stop them .
Update : This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own voice — the reference to “ initial protocols ” is bureaucratic-speak — but he must have signed off , no doubt with lots of encouragement from Senate Republicans .
Does this mean Trump officials can cooperate with Biden officials openly ?
Various observers on social media are noting that that ’ s probably as close to a concession as he ’ ll get .
Update : Some have pointed out that Murphy ’ s letter and Trump ’ s tweets contradict each other .
She says she wasn ’ t pressured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommended that she release the funds to Biden .
I suspect Murphy ’ s telling the truth and Trump ’ s tweets are just his way of trying to seem in control as power slips away .
Surely no Trump deputy would dare do something that benefits Biden without seeking his approval first .

This isn’t the death blow for Trump’s overall post-election effort, as there’s still litigation pending in the Third Circuit to try to make something happen in Pennsylvania.
But it is the death blow for the White House’s halfhearted effort to convince state legislators to throw out the results of their election on some thin pretense of fraud and award Trump their electors, which would amount to a de facto coup against the incoming administration. It was the speaker of the house and the senate majority leader of Michigan’s state legislature who visited Trump at the White House last week to be pitched on the idea, making Michigan a test case for whether any Republican might actually go along with it. After that meeting the two issued a statement saying that they planned to do things by the book in awarding electors, which was reassuring but easier said than done. After all, the state canvassing board charged with certifying the results was composed of two Republicans and two Democrats. If they deadlocked — and at least one of the two Republicans had said earlier that he was inclined to vote no — despite Biden’s margin of 150,000 votes, that would trigger a court fight in Michigan and signal to other Republican officials that the time had come for all-out resistance.
Remember that the canvassing board in Wayne County had also deadlocked briefly last week before voting to certify — and then the two Republicans on the board insisted that they wanted to oppose certification after all. The odds of similar chaos among the state board were high, with graver consequences.
There was genuine anxiety about this in Michigan and in some parts of the national commentariat this morning, with op-eds swirling that refusing to certify legitimate votes would amount to a felony. The board finally voted this afternoon: 3-0-1 for certification, with the Republican who said he might vote no choosing to abstain instead. The other Republican voted yes:
After earlier stalling, here's the moment Republican Aaron Van Langevelde of Michigan’s State Board of Canvassers said he will vote to certify Michigan’s election results. This is it: Michigan's 16 electoral votes officially go to Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/EZemjFxaSD — The Recount (@therecount) November 23, 2020
The abstainer, Norman Shinkle, “cited a debunked conspiracy theory aired by Trump that voting machines made by a company called Dominion deleted thousands of Trump votes” in telling WaPo last week why he was inclined to vote no. Shinkle and other Republicans also pointed to discrepancies in some precincts between the official vote count and the number of votes logged in polling books. But that sort of clerical error is routine. In fact, it was more prevalent four years ago when Trump won the state by the far narrower margin of 10,000 or so votes and had no difficulty having his victory certified.
Out-of-balance precincts can occur for several reasons. A machine may fail to scan the name of a voter on an absentee ballot envelope. A voter can make a mistake on a ballot and request a new one, or sign into the poll book but leave before casting a ballot. This fall, 179 Detroit precincts, or 28 percent of the total, had discrepancies of at least one ballot, accounting for at least 433 votes, according to state and county data. Four years ago, when Trump won the state by a narrow margin, the number of out-of-balance precincts was larger: 392 Detroit precincts, or 59 percent of the total, had discrepancies of at least one ballot, accounting for at least 916 votes, the data show.
This afternoon, less than an hour after Michigan made it official, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander issued this statement:
My statement on the presidential election. pic.twitter.com/TwmjCM64vy — Lamar Alexander (@SenAlexander) November 23, 2020
Note the last line. Alexander is retiring, but I think that bit about people remembering your last act is aimed more at Trump and his potential 2024 hopes than at himself.
Pennsylvania is set to certify its results this evening unless the Third Circuit intervenes, which would be surprising. If PA goes ahead and pulls the trigger, that’ll be a significant moment for the transition: It’ll mean that even if the remaining closely contested swing states of Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada were to flip to Trump somehow, Biden would still have 279 electoral votes. There’s no earthly reason why the GSA should continue to resist “ascertaining” Biden’s victory under those circumstances, unless the standard they’re now following is that he can’t be ascertained the “apparent” winner so long as litigation is pending somewhere, no matter how frivolous. Democrats are leaning heavily on her today to make a move:
House and Senate Democrats are flooding GSA’s Emily Murphy with letters today demanding she ascertain the election to allow the transition process to formally begin. A number of chairmen, ranking Dems, members of leadership all joining in the escalating pressure campaign — Manu Raju (@mkraju) November 23, 2020
States are amping up pressure on @GSAEmily. Letter today from @GovMurphy states refusal to help with transition "puts the public health at risk in New Jersey and across the nation. We urge you to act immediately." pic.twitter.com/n1P1cVE8CO — Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) November 23, 2020
Today was the deadline set last week by a House committee for GSA chief Emily Murphy to brief them on why she hasn’t begun the transition. Today GSA agreed to brief the committee — a week from now. And it won’t be Murphy but a deputy who shows up to do it. That’s not going to cut it for Dems; the committee responded that it wants a briefing from Murphy herself no later than tomorrow. Conceivably she’ll moot the entire dispute by ascertaining Biden’s victory after Pennsylvania certifies tonight, particularly with Trump’s legal effort seemingly falling to pieces. If not, I assume the next move will be Team Biden suing GSA to try to force it to begin the transition. It’s unlikely yet somehow true that Trump’s most stalwart ally inside the administration in trying to buy time for him to overturn the election is a no-name apparatchik at a bean-counting agency.
In lieu of an exit question, read this story about the Secret Service reportedly feeling out agents to see if they’d accept a transfer to Palm Beach in the expectation that that’ll be Trump’s residence soon.
Update: The Trump “legal effort” is one part legal and 99 parts PR, as this new Jenna Ellis statement illustrates. She can keep on filing lawsuits to show MAGA Nation that Trump is still “fighting” but unless something very surprising happens in Pennsylvania tonight the deal is sealed.
🚨NEW: Trump Legal Team Statement on State Certifications pic.twitter.com/JzNJeyYr8a — Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) November 23, 2020
Update: And there it is. Murphy didn’t bother waiting for Pennsylvania.
#Breaking: GSA’s Emily Murphy signs off and says the transition can begin, per @KristenhCNN pic.twitter.com/S6YKKQBrQR — Manu Raju (@mkraju) November 23, 2020
She’s careful not to say that he won the election, that only the constitutional process can determine that, but she’s releasing the money appropriated for the transition to his team. The money’s less important than the fact that members of the Trump administration, starting with the COVID team, now have the political cover they needed to start cooperating with members of the Biden transition. The question now is whether Trump will try to stop them.
Update: This is surprising. It’s clearly not his own voice — the reference to “initial protocols” is bureaucratic-speak — but he must have signed off, no doubt with lots of encouragement from Senate Republicans. Does this mean Trump officials can cooperate with Biden officials openly?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1331013908971261953
Various observers on social media are noting that that’s probably as close to a concession as he’ll get.
Update: Some have pointed out that Murphy’s letter and Trump’s tweets contradict each other. She says she wasn’t pressured by the administration; he says he recommended that she release the funds to Biden. I suspect Murphy’s telling the truth and Trump’s tweets are just his way of trying to seem in control as power slips away. Surely no Trump deputy would dare do something that benefits Biden without seeking his approval first.


hotair--2020-11-23--China claims it has succeeded in eliminating extreme poverty

This is a goal that China ’ s Xi Jinping has been pursuing for several years .
Today , the communist country announced it had officially eliminated extreme poverty about a month ahead of it ’ s timeline for doing so : China on Monday claimed extreme poverty has been eliminated nationwide , the capstone of a Communist Party policy to reduce inequities in society… Poverty elimination by the end of this year is a key facet of a Communist Party goal to build what is termed a moderately prosperous society ahead of the party ’ s 100th birthday in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation in recent years pledging attention to those at the lowest rungs of society , and has directed massive spending on schools , clinics , housing and cash handouts to meet the antipoverty target set in 2011… Despite setbacks associated with the coronavirus pandemic , which in China like elsewhere disproportionately hit lower-income groups , Mr. Xi has repeated a determination that the poverty elimination goal would be achieved , making it a foregone conclusion that authorities would declare success before year-end .
The People ’ s Daily earlier this year said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years so eliminating it can be considered “ a Chinese miracle in human history.
” Just how effective the Chinese effort has actually been depends on who you ask .
Last month the NY Times published a story about the effort which suggested it was driven by fear of local officials to disappoint Xi Jinping : Local officials , who face the threat of punishment if they do not meet Mr. Xi ’ s targets , maintain detailed lists of the income levels of poor residents and hand out subsidies , housing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line… China has for decades treated rural people as second-class citizens , limiting their access to high-quality health care , education and other benefits under the strict Mao-era household registration system by keeping them from moving to the cities .
More than 40 percent of the population — about 600 million people — lived on less than $ 5 a day last year , according to government statistics .
Obviously if nearly half the population is living on less than $ 5 a day , China ’ s claim to have eliminated extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s assuming you believe what the local officials are telling you .
In reality , China not only faced coronavirus lockdowns this year but also catastrophic flooding that wiped out some areas .
One resident who lost his home to the flooding told the Times that , contrary , to the government ’ s announcement , things have gotten much worse for him this year .
Mr. Xu estimates that he lost at least $ 3,000 worth of crops in the floods , and more because of the economic slowdown during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still scarce in his village , he says he will have to spend at least $ 1,500 more on food this year than he had expected .
He plans to sell his sheep this winter and grow other crops to make a living .
“ Even if you aren ’ t out of poverty , the country will say you ’ re out of poverty , ” he said .
“ That ’ s the way it is.
” So if you hear anyone talking about the Chinese communist miracle of eliminating poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty was eliminated mostly happened as a result of the global market for Chinese products and b ) in the rural areas the poverty is still there even if it doesn ’ t officially exist in communist PR .

This is a goal that China’s Xi Jinping has been pursuing for several years. Today, the communist country announced it had officially eliminated extreme poverty about a month ahead of it’s timeline for doing so:
China on Monday claimed extreme poverty has been eliminated nationwide, the capstone of a Communist Party policy to reduce inequities in society… Poverty elimination by the end of this year is a key facet of a Communist Party goal to build what is termed a moderately prosperous society ahead of the party’s 100th birthday in 2021. President Xi Jinping has traveled the nation in recent years pledging attention to those at the lowest rungs of society, and has directed massive spending on schools, clinics, housing and cash handouts to meet the antipoverty target set in 2011… Despite setbacks associated with the coronavirus pandemic, which in China like elsewhere disproportionately hit lower-income groups, Mr. Xi has repeated a determination that the poverty elimination goal would be achieved, making it a foregone conclusion that authorities would declare success before year-end. The People’s Daily earlier this year said poverty had plagued China for thousands of years so eliminating it can be considered “a Chinese miracle in human history.”
Just how effective the Chinese effort has actually been depends on who you ask. Last month the NY Times published a story about the effort which suggested it was driven by fear of local officials to disappoint Xi Jinping:
Local officials, who face the threat of punishment if they do not meet Mr. Xi’s targets, maintain detailed lists of the income levels of poor residents and hand out subsidies, housing and loans to push them above the poverty line… China has for decades treated rural people as second-class citizens, limiting their access to high-quality health care, education and other benefits under the strict Mao-era household registration system by keeping them from moving to the cities. More than 40 percent of the population — about 600 million people — lived on less than $5 a day last year, according to government statistics.
Obviously if nearly half the population is living on less than $5 a day, China’s claim to have eliminated extreme poverty is arguable at best. And that’s assuming you believe what the local officials are telling you. In reality, China not only faced coronavirus lockdowns this year but also catastrophic flooding that wiped out some areas. One resident who lost his home to the flooding told the Times that, contrary, to the government’s announcement, things have gotten much worse for him this year.
Mr. Xu estimates that he lost at least $3,000 worth of crops in the floods, and more because of the economic slowdown during the pandemic. With fruit and vegetables still scarce in his village, he says he will have to spend at least $1,500 more on food this year than he had expected. He plans to sell his sheep this winter and grow other crops to make a living. “Even if you aren’t out of poverty, the country will say you’re out of poverty,” he said. “That’s the way it is.”
So if you hear anyone talking about the Chinese communist miracle of eliminating poverty, remind them that a) whatever poverty was eliminated mostly happened as a result of the global market for Chinese products and b) in the rural areas the poverty is still there even if it doesn’t officially exist in communist PR.


hotair--2020-11-23--Rush Limbaugh on Sidney Powell: If you're going to promise a blockbuster, you have to deliver

Needless to say , it ’ s unimaginable that he would have delivered this polite but noteworthy rebuke if Trump hadn ’ t thrown Powell overboard yesterday .
In that sense , this post is a sequel to the post about Fox News ’ s polling .
Rule one for a MAGA media outlet is you don ’ t defy the president , even when you ’ re right .
Criticizing Sidney Powell for setting the Trump legal team ’ s credibility on fire is tolerable — after Trump has given you permission .
Admitting that Biden won the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
If he admits it .
He decides what it ’ s acceptable to believe and still qualify as a Republican in good standing .
What ’ s fascinating about the Trump/Powell split is that it ’ s opened up a new schism on the right .
Until last night there was one schism , between people who believe that Sidney Powell has evidence of a massive vote-rigging conspiracy that ’ ll overturn the election and people who are in touch with reality .
Today a separate divide has opened up within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ ll follow the Trumpist line on anything and people so invested in Powell ’ s promises about the “ Kraken ” that they remain defensive of her even in the teeth of light criticism from populist heroes like Rush .
What made Tucker Carlson ’ s skepticism of Powell on Fox last week so intriguing is that he was demanding evidence from Powell *before* Trump dumped her and made it permissible to do so .
Some of his viewers will never forgive him for not showing the same “ loyalty ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the president ’ s cue .
Peter Spiliakos did an able job this afternoon summarizing how Powell ’ s “ just give her more time !
” cheering section tends to view all of this : The president himself is reportedly somewhat more sober about how things are going than Powellites are : President Donald Trump is sweating over his campaign lawyers ’ dismal and often outlandish efforts to reverse President-elect Joe Biden ’ s projected electoral victory .
Trump is worried that his campaign ’ s legal team , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliani , is composed of “ fools that are making him look bad , ” NBC News reported Monday… But when asked why Trump doesn ’ t fire Giuliani and other attorneys who remain on the team , a person familiar with the president ’ s thinking gave a profane shoulder shrug of an answer .
“ Who the f— knows ?
” that person said to NBC News .
Day by day we ’ re approaching the moment when even Trump himself admits that his legal team sucks .
Spare a thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably think they ’ re piling up enough brownie points on the right to last a lifetime by fighting for Trump in court but in reality are one angry presidential tweet away from having Trumpist mouthpieces like Rush unload on them .
Odds are high that when this is over POTUS is going to scapegoat them by declaring that he was cheated but couldn ’ t prove it because his lawyers were morons , and then it ’ ll be open season on them for MAGA Nation .
They cheated Trump out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Good luck to them both .
Oh , speaking of which , Team Trump missed the deadline this afternoon to file their brief in their Third Circuit case .
A deadline they had requested , please note : They finally filed it about 20 minutes after the deadline .
Between the Powell fiasco , the continued embarrassing setbacks in federal court , and the fact that Michigan and Pennsylvania will certify their elections today ( barring an unlikely legal intervention ) , it feels like we ’ re at the part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much gunfire from the airplanes and has begun to lose his grip on the Empire State Building .
Republican senators keep swooping in to fire at him too , with Shelley Moore Capito of deep red West Virginia issuing a statement this afternoon urging him to start the transition and declaring Biden the winner if the state results are certified .
Even David Perdue in Georgia , who ’ s on the ballot on January 5 , has taken to arguing that Republicans should elect him because Kamala Harris will be casting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be much longer now .
Listen to a few minutes of Rush , right at the top of today ’ s show .

Needless to say, it’s unimaginable that he would have delivered this polite but noteworthy rebuke if Trump hadn’t thrown Powell overboard yesterday. In that sense, this post is a sequel to the post about Fox News’s polling. Rule one for a MAGA media outlet is you don’t defy the president, even when you’re right. Criticizing Sidney Powell for setting the Trump legal team’s credibility on fire is tolerable — after Trump has given you permission. Admitting that Biden won the election will be tolerable — after Trump admits it. If he admits it.
He decides what it’s acceptable to believe and still qualify as a Republican in good standing.
What’s fascinating about the Trump/Powell split is that it’s opened up a new schism on the right. Until last night there was one schism, between people who believe that Sidney Powell has evidence of a massive vote-rigging conspiracy that’ll overturn the election and people who are in touch with reality. Today a separate divide has opened up within the first group between people like Rush who’ll follow the Trumpist line on anything and people so invested in Powell’s promises about the “Kraken” that they remain defensive of her even in the teeth of light criticism from populist heroes like Rush. What made Tucker Carlson’s skepticism of Powell on Fox last week so intriguing is that he was demanding evidence from Powell *before* Trump dumped her and made it permissible to do so. Some of his viewers will never forgive him for not showing the same “loyalty” Rush did by waiting a few days for the president’s cue.
Peter Spiliakos did an able job this afternoon summarizing how Powell’s “just give her more time!” cheering section tends to view all of this:
2. B. Orgasmic fantasies of complete political victory and the prosecution of an ever-expanding list of enemies. C. Statements of blinds trust in obvious charlatans. D. Reinterpretation of humiliating defeats as brilliant feints. E. Demands to trust a nonexistent "plan." — Peter Spiliakos (@petespiliakos) November 23, 2020
4. It is therefore to Tucker Carlson's credit that he, swallowing his contempt for what we could all see was theatrical insanity, summoned the polite demand that we should see proof before pretending to believe these crazy accusations. — Peter Spiliakos (@petespiliakos) November 23, 2020
The president himself is reportedly somewhat more sober about how things are going than Powellites are:
President Donald Trump is sweating over his campaign lawyers’ dismal and often outlandish efforts to reverse President-elect Joe Biden’s projected electoral victory. Trump is worried that his campaign’s legal team, which is being led by his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is composed of “fools that are making him look bad,” NBC News reported Monday… But when asked why Trump doesn’t fire Giuliani and other attorneys who remain on the team, a person familiar with the president’s thinking gave a profane shoulder shrug of an answer. “Who the f— knows?” that person said to NBC News.
Day by day we’re approaching the moment when even Trump himself admits that his legal team sucks. Spare a thought for Rudy and Jenna Ellis, who probably think they’re piling up enough brownie points on the right to last a lifetime by fighting for Trump in court but in reality are one angry presidential tweet away from having Trumpist mouthpieces like Rush unload on them. Odds are high that when this is over POTUS is going to scapegoat them by declaring that he was cheated but couldn’t prove it because his lawyers were morons, and then it’ll be open season on them for MAGA Nation. They cheated Trump out of a second term by their incompetence. Good luck to them both.
Oh, speaking of which, Team Trump missed the deadline this afternoon to file their brief in their Third Circuit case. A deadline they had requested, please note:
I mean, if you actually thought the Giant Election Fraud actually occurred and would somehow be found out and overturned in court, you'd just be apoplectic about how this case has been litigated so far. — Brad Heath (@bradheath) November 23, 2020
They finally filed it about 20 minutes after the deadline. Between the Powell fiasco, the continued embarrassing setbacks in federal court, and the fact that Michigan and Pennsylvania will certify their elections today (barring an unlikely legal intervention), it feels like we’re at the part of the movie where King Kong has taken too much gunfire from the airplanes and has begun to lose his grip on the Empire State Building. Republican senators keep swooping in to fire at him too, with Shelley Moore Capito of deep red West Virginia issuing a statement this afternoon urging him to start the transition and declaring Biden the winner if the state results are certified. Even David Perdue in Georgia, who’s on the ballot on January 5, has taken to arguing that Republicans should elect him because Kamala Harris will be casting the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. It won’t be much longer now.
Listen to a few minutes of Rush, right at the top of today’s show.


hotair--2020-11-23--Poll: Fox News's net approval among Republicans drops 27 net points after election

Ten days ago , Rush Limbaugh said of Fox , “ You do not turn on your base… You don ’ t turn on the people who got you where you are because you would rather be friends with other people .
You just don ’ t do it.
” Fox has done three things since Election Day to “ turn on its base.
” One : Calling Arizona for Biden on election night .
Two : Calling the election for Biden several days later , after it was clear he had won Pennsylvania .
Three : Tucker Carlson expressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bat-guano conspiracy theories involving Dominion voting software and Hugo Chavez .
In all three cases , Fox was right .
Their betrayal in each instance lay in acting against the president ’ s wishes .
Their call of Arizona was premature but Biden did end up winning the state .
Their call that Biden had won the presidency undermined Trump ’ s belief that the election isn ’ t over until Trump himself says it is .
And Carlson ’ s skepticism of Powell gently questioned the credibility of one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself eventually ended up doing when he dismissed her for allegedly being too wacky even for him .
Fox went three for three , but in each case it committed the mortal sin of proving that it ’ s willing to defy Trump at a moment when he ’ s fighting for his political life .
Being right doesn ’ t matter .
Disloyalty matters .
Which explains this : In late October , Fox ’ s favorable rating among Republicans stood at 67/16 , or +51 net .
By mid-November it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a *big* shift in a few weeks .
It ’ s showing up in the ratings too , not just their own but in other networks ’ : Last week , MSNBC ’ s morning show “ Morning Joe ” topped Fox News Channel ’ s “ Fox & Friends ” in total viewers for the first time since 2001 .
The same claim holds true for MSNBC ’ s “ dayside ” ( weekdays 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ) programming vs. Fox News Channel ’ s , if one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Morning Joe ” averaged 1.62 million total viewers from Nov. 9 to Nov. 13 .
“ Fox & Friends ” had an average of 1.38 million total viewers over the same Monday-Friday period .
All told , the “ dayside ” advantage was 120,000 total viewers in MSNBC ’ s advantage , according to Nielsen .
MSNBC averaged 1.64 million total viewers to Fox News ’ 1.52 million total viewers .
Those numbers represent growth for MSNBC of +30 % from the week prior to the election , while the Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final week of October 2020 .
Greg Kelly ’ s 7 p.m. show on Newsmax drew 1.1 million viewers last Thursday night , exponential growth from the 60,000 or so that Newsmax shows had drawn prior to The Great Betrayal by Fox .
Here ’ s the sort of thoughtful analysis that awaits defectors from FNC : Newsmax ’ s biggest new star has a “ sense ” that Trump will win because , well , just because .
Give Kelly this : He knows what his new viewers are looking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe from dissenting notes about Trump and the election that even Fox News is intolerable by comparison .
What ’ ll be really funny is when even Newsmax is forced to try to reconcile its unquestioning support for Trump with its viewers ’ voracious demand for conspiracy theories to explain how the president could have lost to a candidate as lackluster as Biden .
It may be happening already : The GOP wants to win the Georgia runoffs and Trump wants to help them do it — or should want to help them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good note to go out on and would set him up for 2024 as a still-formidable retail politician .
Powell ’ s nuttery about the “ Kraken ” is complicating that , but Newsmax viewers would probably rather hear about how Republicans were defrauded by a communist election-rigging plot than about why it ’ s important to elect two no-names like Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue .
Your move , Newsmax .
Speaking of 2024 and complications , new data from Pew : I doubt that Trump ’ s done himself any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted himself since the election — so far .
No one ’ s surprised that he couldn ’ t tolerate losing , everyone understood that he would scream about cheating no matter what the margins were .
That ’ s who he is ; if you voted for him on November 3 , you did so with your eyes open .
Right now we ’ re still in the “ I don ’ t like how Trump behaves sometimes ” phase for the softer segments of his supporters .
If he were to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislatures to void their elections and award him their own electors , that ’ s when I think even soft Trumpers would shift to “ This guy is more dangerous than I thought and can ’ t be given another term.
” But I don ’ t think Trump will reach that point .
Georgia has already certified , Michigan and Pennsylvania will certify today , and the campaign seems to be de-escalating by dismissing Powell .
I think he ’ s going to pull back from the brink of rendering himself radioactive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months until Inauguration Day .
Plenty of time for additional craziness .
By the way , in the same monologue that I quoted up top , Limbaugh also grumbled about Fox having so many liberals on , specifically mentioning Donna Brazile and “ New York Times or Washington Post Democrat media people.
” I haven ’ t seen this quantified anywhere so I ’ ll ask regular Fox viewers directly : Is there any hard evidence that the network has more liberals on in 2020 than it had in , say , 2010 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panelists ; a liberal co-hosted Sean Hannity ’ s nightly show for years .
Their primetime line-up used to feature less dogmatic figures like Megyn Kelly and Greta Van Susteren .
Now it ’ s two Trump nationalists sandwiching a guy who ’ s been described as Trump ’ s shadow chief of staff .
The most overtly liberal host on the network , longtime anchor Shepard Smith , quit last year because he couldn ’ t bear the stifling pro-Trump orthodoxy anymore .
The idea that Fox is featuring more lefties than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me , a self-serving assertion pushed by Trump to try to rile up his fans against the network when it has the gall to challenge him slightly .
Where are the numbers proving that Democrats have increased their presence on FNC ?

Ten days ago, Rush Limbaugh said of Fox, “You do not turn on your base… You don’t turn on the people who got you where you are because you would rather be friends with other people. You just don’t do it.”
Fox has done three things since Election Day to “turn on its base.” One: Calling Arizona for Biden on election night. Two: Calling the election for Biden several days later, after it was clear he had won Pennsylvania. Three: Tucker Carlson expressing extremely restrained skepticism of Sidney Powell’s bat-guano conspiracy theories involving Dominion voting software and Hugo Chavez. In all three cases, Fox was right. Their betrayal in each instance lay in acting against the president’s wishes. Their call of Arizona was premature but Biden did end up winning the state. Their call that Biden had won the presidency undermined Trump’s belief that the election isn’t over until Trump himself says it is. And Carlson’s skepticism of Powell gently questioned the credibility of one of the president’s lawyers — which Trump himself eventually ended up doing when he dismissed her for allegedly being too wacky even for him.
Fox went three for three, but in each case it committed the mortal sin of proving that it’s willing to defy Trump at a moment when he’s fighting for his political life. Being right doesn’t matter. Disloyalty matters. Which explains this:
In late October, Fox’s favorable rating among Republicans stood at 67/16, or +51 net. By mid-November it was 54/30, or +24 net. That’s a *big* shift in a few weeks. It’s showing up in the ratings too, not just their own but in other networks’:
Last week, MSNBC’s morning show “Morning Joe” topped Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends” in total viewers for the first time since 2001. The same claim holds true for MSNBC’s “dayside” (weekdays 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.) programming vs. Fox News Channel’s, if one wants another snapshot at the first-time-in-19-years claim. “Morning Joe” averaged 1.62 million total viewers from Nov. 9 to Nov. 13. “Fox & Friends” had an average of 1.38 million total viewers over the same Monday-Friday period. All told, the “dayside” advantage was 120,000 total viewers in MSNBC’s advantage, according to Nielsen. MSNBC averaged 1.64 million total viewers to Fox News’ 1.52 million total viewers. Those numbers represent growth for MSNBC of +30% from the week prior to the election, while the Fox News Channel lineup slipped -33% from the final week of October 2020.
Greg Kelly’s 7 p.m. show on Newsmax drew 1.1 million viewers last Thursday night, exponential growth from the 60,000 or so that Newsmax shows had drawn prior to The Great Betrayal by Fox. Here’s the sort of thoughtful analysis that awaits defectors from FNC:
Mr. Kelly, a former Fox News correspondent and a son of the former New York City police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, said in an interview that his belief in Mr. Trump’s chances is genuine. “I really believe he’s going to prevail,” he said. “It’s a sense I have. Can I articulate perfectly why I thought he was going to win? No. But I’ll say the media has been wrong about him so many times.”
Newsmax’s biggest new star has a “sense” that Trump will win because, well, just because. Give Kelly this: He knows what his new viewers are looking for, a “safe space” so safe from dissenting notes about Trump and the election that even Fox News is intolerable by comparison. What’ll be really funny is when even Newsmax is forced to try to reconcile its unquestioning support for Trump with its viewers’ voracious demand for conspiracy theories to explain how the president could have lost to a candidate as lackluster as Biden. It may be happening already:
Newsmax souring on Sindey Powell? Host Tom Basile characterizes Powell as having "got a little too far out in front of her skis," noting she went after a GOP gov in Georgia: "Unless you're prepared to show your cards at that point, you probably shouldn't say those things…" — Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) November 23, 2020
The GOP wants to win the Georgia runoffs and Trump wants to help them do it — or should want to help them, as a big win would be a good note to go out on and would set him up for 2024 as a still-formidable retail politician. Powell’s nuttery about the “Kraken” is complicating that, but Newsmax viewers would probably rather hear about how Republicans were defrauded by a communist election-rigging plot than about why it’s important to elect two no-names like Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. Your move, Newsmax.
Speaking of 2024 and complications, new data from Pew:
I doubt that Trump’s done himself any permanent damage with how he’s conducted himself since the election — so far. No one’s surprised that he couldn’t tolerate losing, everyone understood that he would scream about cheating no matter what the margins were. That’s who he is; if you voted for him on November 3, you did so with your eyes open. Right now we’re still in the “I don’t like how Trump behaves sometimes” phase for the softer segments of his supporters. If he were to make an all-out effort to get state legislatures to void their elections and award him their own electors, that’s when I think even soft Trumpers would shift to “This guy is more dangerous than I thought and can’t be given another term.” But I don’t think Trump will reach that point. Georgia has already certified, Michigan and Pennsylvania will certify today, and the campaign seems to be de-escalating by dismissing Powell. I think he’s going to pull back from the brink of rendering himself radioactive.
Then again, there are two months until Inauguration Day. Plenty of time for additional craziness.
By the way, in the same monologue that I quoted up top, Limbaugh also grumbled about Fox having so many liberals on, specifically mentioning Donna Brazile and “New York Times or Washington Post Democrat media people.” I haven’t seen this quantified anywhere so I’ll ask regular Fox viewers directly: Is there any hard evidence that the network has more liberals on in 2020 than it had in, say, 2010? They’ve always had Democratic panelists; a liberal co-hosted Sean Hannity’s nightly show for years. Their primetime line-up used to feature less dogmatic figures like Megyn Kelly and Greta Van Susteren. Now it’s two Trump nationalists sandwiching a guy who’s been described as Trump’s shadow chief of staff. The most overtly liberal host on the network, longtime anchor Shepard Smith, quit last year because he couldn’t bear the stifling pro-Trump orthodoxy anymore. The idea that Fox is featuring more lefties than it used to smells like pure myth to me, a self-serving assertion pushed by Trump to try to rile up his fans against the network when it has the gall to challenge him slightly. Where are the numbers proving that Democrats have increased their presence on FNC?


hotair--2020-11-23--Bloomberg editorial: Canceling student loan debt is a bad idea

Bloomberg News published an editorial today arguing that canceling student loan debt would “ backfire on Biden.
” That ’ s because while it purports to be a progressive step forward and is backed by Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer , canceling student debt ( or some portion of it ) really winds up mostly benefitting people at the top .
No matter how it ’ s designed , student-debt forgiveness is very poorly targeted .
A lot of the money tends to go to the relatively well off , who are more likely to attend college and hence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal : An analysis by the Urban Institute suggests that it would cost almost $ 370 billion , about $ 150 billion of which would accrue to the top two-fifths of U.S. households by income .
Applied elsewhere , that $ 150 billion could head off evictions for a year by increasing federal rental assistance , or ensure that the millions of U.S. children currently going hungry are fed for the next two years… Also , it would do little to improve the immediate cash flow of the many debtors who — because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income-based repayment plans — are making small or no monthly payments .
As a result , the effect on the broader economy would be much weaker than if the government just sent people money .
Jason Furman , who headed the Council of Economic Advisers under Barack Obama , estimates that it would be close to zero .
Fox News points to another recent estimate of the impact of canceling student debt which also concluded that the impact on the economy would be very limited .
Why ?
Because almost no one with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all off this year .
So wiping out that debt benefits some people for years to come but makes only a small impact on their spending in the short term .
A recently published report from the Committee for a Responsible Budget shows that forgiving all student loan debt would provide just a small bump to the economy , increasing cash flow by about $ 90 billion per year , even though it would cost close to $ 1.7 trillion… Although eliminating the entirety of student loan debt in the U.S. would cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not equivalent to the federal government sending $ 1.5 trillion in cash to households across the country .
Instead of giving the average household an extra $ 15,000 to spend , it would relieve them of their monthly interest payments , freeing up about $ 200 per month for the typical borrower , the analysis shows .
“ In other words , because borrowers often pay back their loans over 10 , 15 , or even 30 years , debt cancellation will increase their available cash by only a fraction of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
The Fox story also points out that “ more than 70 % of laid-off workers do not have a bachelor ’ s degree.
” So eliminating student debt not only doesn ’ t help much in the short term , it primarily helps people who aren ’ t most seriously impacted by the pandemic-downturn in the economy .
In short , this is such a terrifically ill-timed idea that I ’ m surprised it is being floated at all .
Biden would have to be an idiot to go with this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do something for the bitter left-wing of his party .
With the loss of seats in the House and the likely GOP control of the Senate , all they have left are things like this which could be implemented through executive order .
They want something out of Biden even if it doesn ’ t make much sense .
The Bloomberg editorial concludes , “ it would be an economic and political mistake — one that would cast doubt on Biden ’ s pledge to govern for all Americans .
”

Bloomberg News published an editorial today arguing that canceling student loan debt would “backfire on Biden.” That’s because while it purports to be a progressive step forward and is backed by Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer, canceling student debt (or some portion of it) really winds up mostly benefitting people at the top.
No matter how it’s designed, student-debt forgiveness is very poorly targeted. A lot of the money tends to go to the relatively well off, who are more likely to attend college and hence to have debt. Consider the $10,000 proposal: An analysis by the Urban Institute suggests that it would cost almost $370 billion, about $150 billion of which would accrue to the top two-fifths of U.S. households by income. Applied elsewhere, that $150 billion could head off evictions for a year by increasing federal rental assistance, or ensure that the millions of U.S. children currently going hungry are fed for the next two years… Also, it would do little to improve the immediate cash flow of the many debtors who — because they’re in default or in income-based repayment plans — are making small or no monthly payments. As a result, the effect on the broader economy would be much weaker than if the government just sent people money. Jason Furman, who headed the Council of Economic Advisers under Barack Obama, estimates that it would be close to zero.
Fox News points to another recent estimate of the impact of canceling student debt which also concluded that the impact on the economy would be very limited. Why? Because almost no one with student debt was planning to pay it all off this year. So wiping out that debt benefits some people for years to come but makes only a small impact on their spending in the short term.
A recently published report from the Committee for a Responsible Budget shows that forgiving all student loan debt would provide just a small bump to the economy, increasing cash flow by about $90 billion per year, even though it would cost close to $1.7 trillion… Although eliminating the entirety of student loan debt in the U.S. would cost about $1.5 trillion, that’s not equivalent to the federal government sending $1.5 trillion in cash to households across the country. Instead of giving the average household an extra $15,000 to spend, it would relieve them of their monthly interest payments, freeing up about $200 per month for the typical borrower, the analysis shows. “In other words, because borrowers often pay back their loans over 10, 15, or even 30 years, debt cancellation will increase their available cash by only a fraction of the total loan forgiveness,” the report said.
The Fox story also points out that “more than 70% of laid-off workers do not have a bachelor’s degree.” So eliminating student debt not only doesn’t help much in the short term, it primarily helps people who aren’t most seriously impacted by the pandemic-downturn in the economy.
In short, this is such a terrifically ill-timed idea that I’m surprised it is being floated at all. Biden would have to be an idiot to go with this but I suppose he feels the need to do something for the bitter left-wing of his party. With the loss of seats in the House and the likely GOP control of the Senate, all they have left are things like this which could be implemented through executive order. They want something out of Biden even if it doesn’t make much sense. The Bloomberg editorial concludes, “it would be an economic and political mistake — one that would cast doubt on Biden’s pledge to govern for all Americans.”


hotair--2020-11-23--Man charged with assault for... breathing on someone

I suppose we should have seen this one coming .
As elected officials continue to essentially weaponize their executive orders intended to control the spread of the pandemic , we ’ ve already seen threats of arrests and fines for those who refuse to comply .
But one case out of Virginia this week takes things to an entirely new level .
During a pair of demonstrations in Sterling , Virginia this weekend , taking place outside of Donald Trump ’ s golf course , supporters and detractors of the President were facing off as so often happens these days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and approached some of the other protesters .
61-year-old Raymond Deskins confronted two women while not wearing a face mask , causing the women to shout at him about his failure to observe social distancing protocols .
That ’ s when Deskins “ assaulted ” them by taking a deep breath and exhaling .
And yes… he was later charged with assault .
( NBC News ) Kathy Beynette told News4 that she and another woman were protesting President Trump outside the Trump National Golf Club on Saturday .
Across the street , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesting .
“ Then , quite out of nowhere , the guy came over from across the street , came charging across the street , ” Beynette said .
She captured video of the man , wearing a Trump t-shirt and a pool float with Trump ’ s likeness around his waist , confronting them .
In the video , a woman can be heard telling him , “ You ’ re in my face and you don ’ t have a mask , so you need to back off.
” The man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The encounter was captured on video .
You can watch it here from the NBC News feed .
What Deskins did was certainly , at a minimum , rude .
And there is a standing executive order for people to wear face masks in public .
But being rude isn ’ t a crime and he wasn ’ t charged with violating an executive order .
Deskins was charged with misdemeanor assault .
I ’ m having a hard time seeing how this stands up in court if Deskins has an even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it turns out that he was knowingly spreading the virus then I suppose I could see some sort of charge being appropriate .
But there ’ s no indication given suggesting that the man is infected with the virus .
Even if he tests positive but hadn ’ t been tested previously he can make a fully credible argument that he didn ’ t know he had been exposed .
So if Deskins is either uninfected or was unaware that he was , the only thing he ’ s guilty of is breathing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One component of an assault charge , even as a misdemeanor , is intent .
And the victim has to be able to demonstrate that some harm was suffered as a result .
Neither of those elements will wind up being present absent the conditions I mentioned above .
Breathing on people isn ’ t a crime in this country… at least not yet .
That doesn ’ t mean that the women didn ’ t have justifiable cause for concern .
This is in some ways reminiscent of some of the horror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 80s when the HIV-AIDS epidemic was kicking into full gear .
We saw reports of people taking home one-night-stands only to wake up in the morning and find a note scribbled somewhere saying that their partner for the evening was infected with the virus and now the victim probably was too .
Sometimes that turned out to be an empty threat , but there were also people who were knowingly going around and engaging in unprotected sex with people after having been diagnosed .
That later became a crime in some cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that level with the novel coronavirus at this point .
And Deskins didn ’ t claim to have the virus in an attempt to scare the women .
He just breathed on them .
If that ’ s going to qualify as assault in a court of law in the future , we ’ re entering a dark chapter in the country ’ s legal history .

I suppose we should have seen this one coming. As elected officials continue to essentially weaponize their executive orders intended to control the spread of the pandemic, we’ve already seen threats of arrests and fines for those who refuse to comply. But one case out of Virginia this week takes things to an entirely new level.
During a pair of demonstrations in Sterling, Virginia this weekend, taking place outside of Donald Trump’s golf course, supporters and detractors of the President were facing off as so often happens these days. One Trump supporter crossed the street and approached some of the other protesters. 61-year-old Raymond Deskins confronted two women while not wearing a face mask, causing the women to shout at him about his failure to observe social distancing protocols. That’s when Deskins “assaulted” them by taking a deep breath and exhaling. And yes… he was later charged with assault. (NBC News)
Kathy Beynette told News4 that she and another woman were protesting President Trump outside the Trump National Golf Club on Saturday. Across the street, a group of Trump supporters were counter protesting. “Then, quite out of nowhere, the guy came over from across the street, came charging across the street,” Beynette said. She captured video of the man, wearing a Trump t-shirt and a pool float with Trump’s likeness around his waist, confronting them. In the video, a woman can be heard telling him, “You’re in my face and you don’t have a mask, so you need to back off.” The man then takes a deep breath and blows.
The encounter was captured on video. You can watch it here from the NBC News feed.
What Deskins did was certainly, at a minimum, rude. And there is a standing executive order for people to wear face masks in public. But being rude isn’t a crime and he wasn’t charged with violating an executive order. Deskins was charged with misdemeanor assault.
I’m having a hard time seeing how this stands up in court if Deskins has an even marginally competent attorney defending him. If it turns out that he was knowingly spreading the virus then I suppose I could see some sort of charge being appropriate. But there’s no indication given suggesting that the man is infected with the virus. Even if he tests positive but hadn’t been tested previously he can make a fully credible argument that he didn’t know he had been exposed.
So if Deskins is either uninfected or was unaware that he was, the only thing he’s guilty of is breathing in the vicinity of someone else. One component of an assault charge, even as a misdemeanor, is intent. And the victim has to be able to demonstrate that some harm was suffered as a result. Neither of those elements will wind up being present absent the conditions I mentioned above. Breathing on people isn’t a crime in this country… at least not yet.
That doesn’t mean that the women didn’t have justifiable cause for concern. This is in some ways reminiscent of some of the horror stories that were going around back in the 80s when the HIV-AIDS epidemic was kicking into full gear. We saw reports of people taking home one-night-stands only to wake up in the morning and find a note scribbled somewhere saying that their partner for the evening was infected with the virus and now the victim probably was too. Sometimes that turned out to be an empty threat, but there were also people who were knowingly going around and engaging in unprotected sex with people after having been diagnosed. That later became a crime in some cases.
But we haven’t reached that level with the novel coronavirus at this point. And Deskins didn’t claim to have the virus in an attempt to scare the women. He just breathed on them. If that’s going to qualify as assault in a court of law in the future, we’re entering a dark chapter in the country’s legal history.


hotair--2020-11-23--Breaking: Third Circuit grants "emergency expedited review" on Team Trump's

Breaking: Third Circuit grants "emergency expedited review" on Team Trump's PA appeal

A faint glimmer of hope on the horizon , or just the headlight of another oncoming train bearing down on Team Trump ?
The Third Circuit agreed to an expedited review of the campaign ’ s appeal of their loss in Pennsylvania this weekend , which is good news .
The bad news is that they ’ re only appealing the denial by the trial judge of their ability to refile the case that got aggressively quashed : Read the application for emergency expedited review here .
They ’ re claiming that they can redraft the lawsuit to cure all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge this weekend , and that the judge erred in not letting them amend the complaint a second time : 6 .
Further , Plaintiffs believe that the Second Amended Complaint cures any deficiencies noted by the District Court regarding , inter alia , standing , equal protection , and remedy because its allegations are very different than those in the Amended Complaint .
Plaintiffs have specifically pled claims based on this Court ’ s decision in Marks v. Stinson .
However , to be clear , Plaintiffs do not intend to waive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ District Court ’ s decision may have been wrongly decided , including , inter alia , the District Court ’ s denial of Appellants ’ claim for standing and Equal Protection , and can provide supplemental briefing on any such issues if the Court requests .
7 .
Appellants request that the Court grant expedited briefing on its appeal from the District Court ’ s decision denying Appellants ’ Motion to Amend to File a Second Amended Complaint solely on the basis of undue delay after dismissing Appellants ’ Amended Complaint with prejudice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request that this Court reverse denial of the Motion to Amend , direct the District Court to promptly decide it on the merits , decide Appellants ’ motions regarding discovery ( Docs .
118 and 171 ) and proceed expeditiously to a hearing to enjoin certification of the results of the Presidential Election ( or order decertification of already certified ) if the Second Amended Complaint is held to state valid claims .
The obvious question that the appellate court will ask is : why didn ’ t Trump ’ s lawyers get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After an unfavorable ruling in another court obviated a central argument in the original complaint , Team Trump shuffled its lawyers and amended the complaint to get around the obstacles .
Judge Matthew Brann allowed that to take place , but balked the second time when Rudy Giuliani tried to get another delay to withdraw and refile after the hearing had already taken place .
In essence , this appeal will only decide whether to undo Brann ’ s decision to dismiss with prejudice , which means the same complaint can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touch on the substance of the complaint , but the state of Pennsylvania will no doubt ask the appellate panel to read Brann ’ s caustic analysis of the claims .
Can a claim described as a “ Frankenstein ’ s monster ” be cured ?
Plaintiffs ’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection .
This claim , like Frankenstein ’ s Monster , has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent .
The general thrust of this claim is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discretion to adopt a notice-and-cure policy .
Invoking Bush v. Gore , Plaintiffs assert that such local control is unconstitutional because it creates an arbitrary system where some persons are allowed to cure procedurally defective mail-in ballots while others are not .
… In other words , Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters .
This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election , in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when seeking such a startling outcome , a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption , such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens .
That has not happened .
Instead , this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations , unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence .
In the United States of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a single voter , let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state .
Our people , laws , and institutions demand more .
At bottom , Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted .
The problem for the Trump campaign ’ s lawyers will be explaining to the appellate court how an amended complaint would cure the myriad ills that Brann extensively documents in his 37-page opinion .
They can ’ t argue that Brann doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — it ’ s a basic authority for all judges — so they have to convince the Third Circuit panel that they have a formula that answers all of Brann ’ s findings .
Even then , the appellate court might well just take the path of least resistance and tell the Trump campaign that they should have hired better lawyers from the get-go .
At least the Third Circuit has given Team Trump an opportunity to make the argument , though .
That ’ s at least a momentary win .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the court hearing oral arguments .
If they don ’ t , it ’ s not likely to be good news for long .

A faint glimmer of hope on the horizon, or just the headlight of another oncoming train bearing down on Team Trump? The Third Circuit agreed to an expedited review of the campaign’s appeal of their loss in Pennsylvania this weekend, which is good news. The bad news is that they’re only appealing the denial by the trial judge of their ability to refile the case that got aggressively quashed:
🚨NEW: Third Circuit Court of Appeals grants expedited review for Team Trump’s appeal from Pennsylvania. pic.twitter.com/LKJDnPGRSn — Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) November 23, 2020
Read the application for emergency expedited review here. They’re claiming that they can redraft the lawsuit to cure all of the ills cited by the trial judge this weekend, and that the judge erred in not letting them amend the complaint a second time:
6. Further, Plaintiffs believe that the Second Amended Complaint cures any deficiencies noted by the District Court regarding, inter alia, standing, equal protection, and remedy because its allegations are very different than those in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have specifically pled claims based on this Court’s decision in Marks v. Stinson. However, to be clear, Plaintiffs do not intend to waive any claim that any part of the District Court’s decision may have been wrongly decided, including, inter alia, the District Court’s denial of Appellants’ claim for standing and Equal Protection, and can provide supplemental briefing on any such issues if the Court requests. 7. Appellants request that the Court grant expedited briefing on its appeal from the District Court’s decision denying Appellants’ Motion to Amend to File a Second Amended Complaint solely on the basis of undue delay after dismissing Appellants’ Amended Complaint with prejudice. Appellants will, inter alia, request that this Court reverse denial of the Motion to Amend, direct the District Court to promptly decide it on the merits, decide Appellants’ motions regarding discovery (Docs. 118 and 171) and proceed expeditiously to a hearing to enjoin certification of the results of the Presidential Election (or order decertification of already certified) if the Second Amended Complaint is held to state valid claims.
The obvious question that the appellate court will ask is: why didn’t Trump’s lawyers get it right the first two times? After an unfavorable ruling in another court obviated a central argument in the original complaint, Team Trump shuffled its lawyers and amended the complaint to get around the obstacles. Judge Matthew Brann allowed that to take place, but balked the second time when Rudy Giuliani tried to get another delay to withdraw and refile after the hearing had already taken place.
In essence, this appeal will only decide whether to undo Brann’s decision to dismiss with prejudice, which means the same complaint can’t be refiled. It may not even touch on the substance of the complaint, but the state of Pennsylvania will no doubt ask the appellate panel to read Brann’s caustic analysis of the claims. Can a claim described as a “Frankenstein’s monster” be cured?
Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent. The general thrust of this claim is that it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to give states discretion to adopt a notice-and-cure policy. Invoking Bush v. Gore, Plaintiffs assert that such local control is unconstitutional because it creates an arbitrary system where some persons are allowed to cure procedurally defective mail-in ballots while others are not. … In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The problem for the Trump campaign’s lawyers will be explaining to the appellate court how an amended complaint would cure the myriad ills that Brann extensively documents in his 37-page opinion. They can’t argue that Brann doesn’t have authority to dismiss a case with prejudice — it’s a basic authority for all judges — so they have to convince the Third Circuit panel that they have a formula that answers all of Brann’s findings. Even then, the appellate court might well just take the path of least resistance and tell the Trump campaign that they should have hired better lawyers from the get-go.
At least the Third Circuit has given Team Trump an opportunity to make the argument, though. That’s at least a momentary win. We’ll see if the pleadings result in the court hearing oral arguments. If they don’t, it’s not likely to be good news for long.


hotair--2020-11-23--In New York the urge to party is stronger than COVID restrictions

New York just shut down public schools again because of a rise in the positivity rate .
But it ’ s not the schools that are creating the problem .
Today New York Magazine published a lengthy piece about the underground party scene in New York City , where ever weekend groups of young people gather to dance and drink with no masks and no social distancing as if the pandemic never happened .
By late July , when positivity rates lingered around 1.5 percent and the orders were eased to allow gatherings of up to 50 people , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ varied as the aboveground one used to be .
There were boat parties , pool parties , karaoke parties , sex parties , silent-disco parties , park parties , house parties , warehouse parties , and roof parties .
There were Meatpacking table-service affairs that required shelling out a few grand for a couple of seats and hotel parties in Long Island City that mandated a dubious COVID test for entry… In July and August , a small park under the Kosciuszko Bridge became infamous for its giant parties , one of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund-raiser , according to Gothamist… In October , 28 people faced charges after two warehouses were shut down for hosting costumed Halloween raves , one with 400 people in Brooklyn and the other with 550 in the Bronx .
After that weekend , the New York Times wrote , “ It was not clear if organizers failed to understand or simply ignored the dangers of large indoor gatherings.
” Just yesterday Gov .
Cuomo was expressing his displeasure over word of a large Jewish wedding in Brooklyn .
“ If it turns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction was , ‘ Well we ’ ll have a secret wedding , ’ that would be really shocking and totally deceitful , ” he said .
Why New York ’ s leaders are so fixated on Jewish people is anyone ’ s guess but the magazine piece makes it very clear that large underground parties have been taking place regularly in the city .
Here was Ben Shapiro ’ s reaction to the story : The author tries to frame this , at least briefly , as the triumph of libertarianism over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he gives up and admits people aren ’ t really thinking about it that deeply : Like many people I spoke with , Samuel thinks the parties need to happen so the people can just have some goddamn fun in this achingly depressing year .
He calls DJ-ing an “ art people need , ” not unlike “ dance or musical theater.
” Despite his professed liberal beliefs , he doesn ’ t see a lot of irony in the scenario taking place around us : young , seemingly lefty people like him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a libertarian-tinged belief that partying is their constitutional privilege .
It ’ s a collapse of the political spectrum .
Bushwick kids and Ole Miss frat boys aren ’ t that different if their activities are isolated to the wee hours of the weekend .
The politics of partying is something no one here really wants to discuss .
Ignoring reality is part of the premise .
The 20-somethings sharing spit particles on the dance floor seem to have a generational nihilistic streak , born as they were into a dying world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left to them by their elders .
And now , the pandemic .
Not to mention that so many young people , despite the virus ’ s horrifying impact , never forgot those early days of being told they were less at risk .
Eight months in , their sense of invincibility has just grown stronger .
Asked whether other people at the party believe in the virus , Samuel says , “ That ’ s a funny question.
” There have really been two standards set up for public gatherings since at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time religious people ( Jewish or Christian ) or conservative Trump supporters want to gather it ’ s a big problem worthy of attention and condemnation from the media and the left .
But if a bunch of left-wing protesters want to march or ostensibly left-wing kids in NYC want to party , that all warrants a pass and a litany of excuses , i.e .
they were outside , they wore masks .
What the New York Magazine piece really clarifies is just how much of a pass a lot of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media .
And there ’ s no indication the latest clampdown in New York will matter to the party people any more than the previous ones did .
An event promoter tells the author she thinks closing everything earlier will only make the illicit party scene bigger : Maybe the Mayor and the Governor can stop focusing all of their attention on orthodox Jews and school children and spare a little of it for the party circuit that seems to be operating relatively unhindered under their noses .

New York just shut down public schools again because of a rise in the positivity rate. But it’s not the schools that are creating the problem. Today New York Magazine published a lengthy piece about the underground party scene in New York City, where ever weekend groups of young people gather to dance and drink with no masks and no social distancing as if the pandemic never happened.
By late July, when positivity rates lingered around 1.5 percent and the orders were eased to allow gatherings of up to 50 people, the underground party scene was as rich and varied as the aboveground one used to be. There were boat parties, pool parties, karaoke parties, sex parties, silent-disco parties, park parties, house parties, warehouse parties, and roof parties. There were Meatpacking table-service affairs that required shelling out a few grand for a couple of seats and hotel parties in Long Island City that mandated a dubious COVID test for entry… In July and August, a small park under the Kosciuszko Bridge became infamous for its giant parties, one of which was billed as a Black Lives Matter fund-raiser, according to Gothamist… In October, 28 people faced charges after two warehouses were shut down for hosting costumed Halloween raves, one with 400 people in Brooklyn and the other with 550 in the Bronx. After that weekend, the New York Times wrote, “It was not clear if organizers failed to understand or simply ignored the dangers of large indoor gatherings.”
Just yesterday Gov. Cuomo was expressing his displeasure over word of a large Jewish wedding in Brooklyn. “If it turns out that because we stopped that wedding the reaction was, ‘Well we’ll have a secret wedding,’ that would be really shocking and totally deceitful,” he said. Why New York’s leaders are so fixated on Jewish people is anyone’s guess but the magazine piece makes it very clear that large underground parties have been taking place regularly in the city. Here was Ben Shapiro’s reaction to the story:
Damn those Orthodox Jews in NYC https://t.co/Ud24HA7k1q — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) November 23, 2020
The author tries to frame this, at least briefly, as the triumph of libertarianism over progressive wisdom, but after a paragraph he gives up and admits people aren’t really thinking about it that deeply:
Like many people I spoke with, Samuel thinks the parties need to happen so the people can just have some goddamn fun in this achingly depressing year. He calls DJ-ing an “art people need,” not unlike “dance or musical theater.” Despite his professed liberal beliefs, he doesn’t see a lot of irony in the scenario taking place around us: young, seemingly lefty people like him who believe in COVID but also possess a libertarian-tinged belief that partying is their constitutional privilege. It’s a collapse of the political spectrum. Bushwick kids and Ole Miss frat boys aren’t that different if their activities are isolated to the wee hours of the weekend. The politics of partying is something no one here really wants to discuss. Ignoring reality is part of the premise. The 20-somethings sharing spit particles on the dance floor seem to have a generational nihilistic streak, born as they were into a dying world, addled by a bunch of bad shit left to them by their elders. And now, the pandemic. Not to mention that so many young people, despite the virus’s horrifying impact, never forgot those early days of being told they were less at risk. Eight months in, their sense of invincibility has just grown stronger. Asked whether other people at the party believe in the virus, Samuel says, “That’s a funny question.”
There have really been two standards set up for public gatherings since at least the end of May. Any time religious people (Jewish or Christian) or conservative Trump supporters want to gather it’s a big problem worthy of attention and condemnation from the media and the left. But if a bunch of left-wing protesters want to march or ostensibly left-wing kids in NYC want to party, that all warrants a pass and a litany of excuses, i.e. they were outside, they wore masks.
What the New York Magazine piece really clarifies is just how much of a pass a lot of people have been getting from the Karens in the media. And there’s no indication the latest clampdown in New York will matter to the party people any more than the previous ones did. An event promoter tells the author she thinks closing everything earlier will only make the illicit party scene bigger:
Even as U.S. cases skyrocket, nervousness about the virus’s spread, she says, doesn’t factor into the party planning. Indeed, the same weekend in mid-November that Governor Cuomo reduced gym, bar, and restaurant capacity and closed bars an hour earlier — which Alaniesse thinks will only encourage illicit partying — the sheriff’s office shut down a 200-person party in Manhattan, a 200-person party in Brooklyn, and a fight club in the Bronx.
Maybe the Mayor and the Governor can stop focusing all of their attention on orthodox Jews and school children and spare a little of it for the party circuit that seems to be operating relatively unhindered under their noses.


hotair--2020-11-23--The first rule of Sex Club is...

The first rule of Sex Club is...

To say that some of the denizens of New York City are taking their social distancing responsibilities a bit on the light side would probably be something of an understatement .
Just last week we learned that the NYPD had been called to break up a real-life “ fight club ” where hundreds of people were drinking , getting high , and , well… fighting , all without the benefit of masks or other safety precautions .
Not to be outdone , a different group was busted by the Gotham Sheriffs for going in the opposite direction and throwing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting , they were engaging in group sex activities .
Described as an “ underground swingers sex club , ” the revelers had advertised a Caligula themed bash in Queens and appeared to be creating quite a ruckus before they were shut down .
( NY Post ) An underground swingers sex party was broken up overnight in Queens for violating pandemic gathering restrictions , the New York City Sheriff ’ s Office announced .
Caligula , which bills itself on Facebook as a “ private upscale on premise swingers club ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 80 people , bumping loud music and unlawfully serving alcohol , Sheriff Joseph Fucito said .
When sheriff deputies arrived , they found three couples having sex in a small room while others were gathered across the venue unlawfully drinking alcohol and socializing , according to the sheriff and pictures of the event .
As with the fight club story from last week , the fact that the Sheriff ’ s deputies had been tipped off means that somebody forgot the First Rule of Sex Club .
You don ’ t talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another similarity is that the cops apparently weren ’ t charging anyone with operating a swinger ’ s club .
( Maybe that ’ s legal and I just didn ’ t realize it ? )
They got them for violating the Mayor ’ s social distancing rules and serving alcohol without a license .
I suppose we can understand the social distancing aspect of the situation , whether you agree with the lockdown orders or not .
When you have what ’ s being described as “ a small room ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and a group of people in various states of undress “ getting busy ” with each other , a mask probably isn ’ t going to do much to flatten the curve .
One of the many strange aspects of this story is the fact that only one of the 80 or more people attending the party was arrested .
But she wasn ’ t one of the organizers and wasn ’ t even engaging in any sexual activity .
Jennifer Hayes , 47 , insists that she was one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and she was only there for the DJ and the music because “ there ’ s no other options .
You can ’ t go anywhere.
” She wound up mouthing off to the Sheriff ’ s deputies and getting in their faces , leading to her eventual arrest .
Perhaps I just lead a sheltered life , but I really wasn ’ t aware this sort of thing was still going on in the modern era , particularly in the middle of a pandemic .
We only recently learned that there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases in Michigan this year , so perhaps there ’ s a lot more of this going on than I would have imagined .
And after this report , we should probably keep an eye on the STD numbers in the Big Apple as well .
People have to think up things to keep themselves occupied during the lockdowns , right ?
And joining “ swinger ” clubs is apparently one of the options on the menu now .

To say that some of the denizens of New York City are taking their social distancing responsibilities a bit on the light side would probably be something of an understatement. Just last week we learned that the NYPD had been called to break up a real-life “fight club” where hundreds of people were drinking, getting high, and, well… fighting, all without the benefit of masks or other safety precautions. Not to be outdone, a different group was busted by the Gotham Sheriffs for going in the opposite direction and throwing a similarly large gathering, but instead of fighting, they were engaging in group sex activities. Described as an “underground swingers sex club,” the revelers had advertised a Caligula themed bash in Queens and appeared to be creating quite a ruckus before they were shut down. (NY Post)
An underground swingers sex party was broken up overnight in Queens for violating pandemic gathering restrictions, the New York City Sheriff’s Office announced. Caligula, which bills itself on Facebook as a “private upscale on premise swingers club” in Astoria, was caught hosting more than 80 people, bumping loud music and unlawfully serving alcohol, Sheriff Joseph Fucito said. When sheriff deputies arrived, they found three couples having sex in a small room while others were gathered across the venue unlawfully drinking alcohol and socializing, according to the sheriff and pictures of the event.
As with the fight club story from last week, the fact that the Sheriff’s deputies had been tipped off means that somebody forgot the First Rule of Sex Club. You don’t talk about Sex Club… particularly to law enforcement.
Another similarity is that the cops apparently weren’t charging anyone with operating a swinger’s club. (Maybe that’s legal and I just didn’t realize it?) They got them for violating the Mayor’s social distancing rules and serving alcohol without a license. I suppose we can understand the social distancing aspect of the situation, whether you agree with the lockdown orders or not. When you have what’s being described as “a small room” with four beds and a couch crammed into it and a group of people in various states of undress “getting busy” with each other, a mask probably isn’t going to do much to flatten the curve.
One of the many strange aspects of this story is the fact that only one of the 80 or more people attending the party was arrested. But she wasn’t one of the organizers and wasn’t even engaging in any sexual activity. Jennifer Hayes, 47, insists that she was one of the few people wearing a mask all evening and she was only there for the DJ and the music because “there’s no other options. You can’t go anywhere.” She wound up mouthing off to the Sheriff’s deputies and getting in their faces, leading to her eventual arrest.
Perhaps I just lead a sheltered life, but I really wasn’t aware this sort of thing was still going on in the modern era, particularly in the middle of a pandemic. We only recently learned that there’s been a big spike in gonorrhea cases in Michigan this year, so perhaps there’s a lot more of this going on than I would have imagined. And after this report, we should probably keep an eye on the STD numbers in the Big Apple as well. People have to think up things to keep themselves occupied during the lockdowns, right? And joining “swinger” clubs is apparently one of the options on the menu now.