hotair--2020-12-15--Lou Dobbs: There's still a mathematical possibility that Congress will make Trump president

Via Mediaite , what happened to Fox Business ?
On Fox News you ’ ll occasionally get reality checks from Trumpist hosts like Tucker Carlson , who famously questioned Sidney Powell ’ s evidence of fraud , and Laura Ingraham , who warned viewers that Trump ’ s election challenges were highly unlikely to prevail .
Fox Business is basically “ Newsmax After Dark.
” It ’ s almost a novelty channel — OAN-style fantasias delivered by nationally famous hosts .
Dobbs ’ s speculation about Congress maybe possibly conceivably handing Trump a second term on January 6 wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the network today .
This was : Maria Bartiromo was once one of the most respected financial TV reporters in America .
Now she does Pink-Lady-style “ news ” bulletins for Trump .
Wha ’ happened ?
Watch 90 seconds or so from this clip , then read on .
Here ’ s a local news story about the Wisconsin court ruling that he mentions .
The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that COVID-19 stay-at-home orders didn ’ t qualify as “ indefinite confinement ” for purposes of voting absentee under Wisconsin law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as grounds for voting by mail could have their ballot challenged .
That would be quite a bombshell if the entire election had come down to Wisconsin , but it didn ’ t .
As it is : Ascertaining whether each individual voter in a poll of 200,000+ was validly or invalidly “ indefinitely confined ” when they voted would be an expensive and time-consuming process for Team Trump .
And given the state supreme court ’ s willingness to bar other Trump claims on grounds of laches , there ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if Trump could prove that a meaningful number of absentee votes were improper .
The court might ask the same question it asked in yesterday ’ s ruling against the president : Why wasn ’ t this challenge brought before Election Day , or during the primary , before people relied on the state ’ s voting procedures to cast their ballots ?
The really goofy part , though , comes when Dobbs claims that “ seven states have chosen a slate of electors for both Joe Biden and President Trump.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , as I explained in this post yesterday .
The Republican “ alternate electors ” who got together yesterday to cast symbolic ballots for Trump weren ’ t acting under color of any state authority .
They were the people chosen by their state party before the election who would have cast the state ’ s electoral votes for Trump *if* Trump had won the state on election night .
But he didn ’ t , so they have no official power to do anything .
The scenario Dobbs mentions in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of electors was discussed before the election , when doomsayers imagined Biden winning a state like Michigan narrowly .
In Michigan the governor is a Democrat and the state legislature is controlled by Republicans ; potentially the governor could have certified Biden ’ s win but the state legislature could have disputed it and formally designated Trump the winner .
In that case there would be competing slates of Michigan electors , one Democratic and one Republican , but with the imprimatur of a branch of Michigan ’ s government .
But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any state won by Biden recognized Trump as the true winner .
So when Dobbs says that seven states chose electors for Biden and Trump , what he should be saying is “ electors in seven states voted for Biden and then groups of unauthorized Republican randos got together and symbolically voted for Trump.
” When he says there ’ s a mathematical possibility that that might lead Congress to hand the election to Trump , he means it in the sense that one in a quintillion is technically a mathematical possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even consider rejecting the electoral college results from a state unless at least one senator objects to them .
Will there be even one ?
No Senate Republicans indicated during the call that they are currently planning to object .
“ Not that I heard , ” said Sen. Mike Rounds ( R-S.D . )
, asked if anyone indicated that they would object during the call .
Sen. John Barrasso ( Wyo . )
, the No .
3 GOP senator , added that he hasn ’ t “ heard of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next month .
“ I think that there was encouragement on the phone for us to accept the result , as much as it ’ s not what we , you know , would have envisioned for the next four years , and to try to do what ’ s best for American people , which is to look forward , ” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( R-W.Va. ) said about the call .
Even if someone objects and a floor vote is held on whether to accept a disputed state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt that there ’ ll be three Republican crossover votes in favor of accepting them ?
Romney , Collins , Murkowski — that ’ s all you ’ d need .
Sasse would probably join too , maybe more .
I think Dobbs knows all this and is just teeing up a predictable rant for the evening of January 6 about Senate Republicans being sellouts and traitors for not trying to stage a de facto coup right there in the chamber by blocking Biden ’ s victory on false pretenses .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Business is a strange place .

Via Mediaite, what happened to Fox Business? On Fox News you’ll occasionally get reality checks from Trumpist hosts like Tucker Carlson, who famously questioned Sidney Powell’s evidence of fraud, and Laura Ingraham, who warned viewers that Trump’s election challenges were highly unlikely to prevail.
Fox Business is basically “Newsmax After Dark.” It’s almost a novelty channel — OAN-style fantasias delivered by nationally famous hosts.
Dobbs’s speculation about Congress maybe possibly conceivably handing Trump a second term on January 6 wasn’t even the most dubious thing on the network today. This was:
https://twitter.com/FirenzeMike/status/1338971066627190788
Maria Bartiromo was once one of the most respected financial TV reporters in America. Now she does Pink-Lady-style “news” bulletins for Trump. Wha’ happened?
Watch 90 seconds or so from this clip, then read on.
Here’s a local news story about the Wisconsin court ruling that he mentions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that COVID-19 stay-at-home orders didn’t qualify as “indefinite confinement” for purposes of voting absentee under Wisconsin law, which means that anyone who cited them as grounds for voting by mail could have their ballot challenged. That would be quite a bombshell if the entire election had come down to Wisconsin, but it didn’t. As it is:
The majority decision stated if voters falsely claimed they were indefinitely confined “their ballots would not count.” But the court did not give license to throw out large numbers of ballots without making determinations about the status of each individual voter, as Trump has sought in his separate lawsuit.
Ascertaining whether each individual voter in a poll of 200,000+ was validly or invalidly “indefinitely confined” when they voted would be an expensive and time-consuming process for Team Trump. And given the state supreme court’s willingness to bar other Trump claims on grounds of laches, there’s no guarantee that the result would be overturned even if Trump could prove that a meaningful number of absentee votes were improper. The court might ask the same question it asked in yesterday’s ruling against the president: Why wasn’t this challenge brought before Election Day, or during the primary, before people relied on the state’s voting procedures to cast their ballots?
The really goofy part, though, comes when Dobbs claims that “seven states have chosen a slate of electors for both Joe Biden and President Trump.” That’s false as false can be, as I explained in this post yesterday. The Republican “alternate electors” who got together yesterday to cast symbolic ballots for Trump weren’t acting under color of any state authority. They were the people chosen by their state party before the election who would have cast the state’s electoral votes for Trump *if* Trump had won the state on election night. But he didn’t, so they have no official power to do anything.
The scenario Dobbs mentions in which Congress has to choose between competing slates of electors was discussed before the election, when doomsayers imagined Biden winning a state like Michigan narrowly. In Michigan the governor is a Democrat and the state legislature is controlled by Republicans; potentially the governor could have certified Biden’s win but the state legislature could have disputed it and formally designated Trump the winner. In that case there would be competing slates of Michigan electors, one Democratic and one Republican, but with the imprimatur of a branch of Michigan’s government.
But that didn’t happen. No legislature in any state won by Biden recognized Trump as the true winner. So when Dobbs says that seven states chose electors for Biden and Trump, what he should be saying is “electors in seven states voted for Biden and then groups of unauthorized Republican randos got together and symbolically voted for Trump.” When he says there’s a mathematical possibility that that might lead Congress to hand the election to Trump, he means it in the sense that one in a quintillion is technically a mathematical possibility.
And remember, Congress won’t even consider rejecting the electoral college results from a state unless at least one senator objects to them. Will there be even one?
No Senate Republicans indicated during the call that they are currently planning to object. “Not that I heard,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), asked if anyone indicated that they would object during the call. Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), the No. 3 GOP senator, added that he hasn’t “heard of any” GOP senator willing to object next month. “I think that there was encouragement on the phone for us to accept the result, as much as it’s not what we, you know, would have envisioned for the next four years, and to try to do what’s best for American people, which is to look forward,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said about the call.
Even if someone objects and a floor vote is held on whether to accept a disputed state’s electoral college results, does anyone doubt that there’ll be three Republican crossover votes in favor of accepting them? Romney, Collins, Murkowski — that’s all you’d need. Sasse would probably join too, maybe more. I think Dobbs knows all this and is just teeing up a predictable rant for the evening of January 6 about Senate Republicans being sellouts and traitors for not trying to stage a de facto coup right there in the chamber by blocking Biden’s victory on false pretenses. But I don’t know anymore. Fox Business is a strange place.


hotair--2020-12-15--Report: Russian agents attempted to kill opposition leader a second time before he was flown to Germ

Report: Russian agents attempted to kill opposition leader a second time before he was flown to Germany

There ’ s been a lot of news in the past few days about the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny .
In case you ’ ve forgotten the details , Navalny got on a plane headed back to Moscow in August .
After the plane left the ground , Navalny started to feel very ill .
Months later he would describe it as a feeling worse than pain : “ Pain makes you feel like you ’ re alive .
But in this case , you sense : This is the end.
” As he faded into unconsciouness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And he would have been if not for two individuals who saved his life .
The first was the plane ’ s pilot who immediately asked for permission to land at the nearest airport .
The pilot was told the airport was closed because of a bomb threat , but he landed the plane anyway .
That gave Navalny a chance .
The second person who saved his life was the EMT who met him at the plane and injected him with atropine , a drug that counteracts poisons , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poisoned with .
But it turns out the ordeal was far from over .
While Navalny remained in a coma , government agents took up residence in the hospital where he was being treated .
After a two day delay his wife was given permission to fly him to a hospital in Germany .
According to a report in the London Times this weekend , that was also created a second chance for his poisoners to kill him .
After failing to kill him on the first attempt , suspected state security agents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fiercest critic with a second dose of poison before he could be flown to safety in Berlin , western intelligence sources have told us… After international pressure , Putin eventually agreed to let Navalny go to Berlin .
German security sources have told their associates in the UK that the attackers struck again as Navalny lay in an induced coma before being put on a medical flight to Germany .
“ This was with a view to him being dead by the time he arrived in Berlin , ” one source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Giving a second dose of novichok would undoubtedly increase the chances of killing , ” said Alastair Hay , professor of environmental toxicology at Leeds University .
“ But if he were already ‘ atropinised ’ this would counteract the nerve agent , although it might mean prolonging his coma .
The toxin would take longer to be degraded in the liver.
” They failed the second time obviously but it was a close thing .
It took several weeks before Navalny was out of the induced coma he ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the hospital in Omsk , who denied Navalny had been poisoned , seems to have benefitted from his lies .
The other big news this week was a story published by Bellingcat which detailed the plot against Navalny , identifying many of the people involved in trailing him around the country and also the individuals who were near the hotel where he was apparently poisoned .
From the conclusion of the piece : This investigation has unearthed large volumes of data implicating Russia ’ s preeminent security agency , the FSB , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of time using operatives that have specialized training in chemical weapons , chemistry and medicine – a skillset inconsistent with regular surveillance practices .
These operatives were in the vicinity of the opposition activist in the days and hours of the time-range during which he was poisoned with a military-grade chemical weapon .
They were in the vicinity of Navalny on at least one other occasion when a family member felt inexplicable symptoms consistent with a non-lethal , accidental dosage of the same toxin .
They had previously tailed the opposition figure on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Given this implausible series of coincidences , the burden of proof for an innocent explanation appears to rest purely with the Russian state .
Doctors working for the FSB are trailing Navalny all over the country and both he and his wife are poisoned .
That really is a remarkable coincidence .
But of course , Putin wants everyone to know who is behind this .
That ’ s the point .
He doesn ’ t need poison to kill one opposition figure .
He could have one of his goons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended to terrorize the opposition , i.e .
if you create trouble you ’ ll not only die , you ’ ll die slowly and painfully .

There’s been a lot of news in the past few days about the poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. In case you’ve forgotten the details, Navalny got on a plane headed back to Moscow in August. After the plane left the ground, Navalny started to feel very ill. Months later he would describe it as a feeling worse than pain: “Pain makes you feel like you’re alive. But in this case, you sense: This is the end.”
As he faded into unconsciouness, Navalny was certain he was dead. And he would have been if not for two individuals who saved his life. The first was the plane’s pilot who immediately asked for permission to land at the nearest airport. The pilot was told the airport was closed because of a bomb threat, but he landed the plane anyway. That gave Navalny a chance.
The second person who saved his life was the EMT who met him at the plane and injected him with atropine, a drug that counteracts poisons, including the unique type of Novichok he had been poisoned with.
But it turns out the ordeal was far from over. While Navalny remained in a coma, government agents took up residence in the hospital where he was being treated. After a two day delay his wife was given permission to fly him to a hospital in Germany. According to a report in the London Times this weekend, that was also created a second chance for his poisoners to kill him.
After failing to kill him on the first attempt, suspected state security agents tried to finish off President Vladimir Putin’s fiercest critic with a second dose of poison before he could be flown to safety in Berlin, western intelligence sources have told us… After international pressure, Putin eventually agreed to let Navalny go to Berlin. German security sources have told their associates in the UK that the attackers struck again as Navalny lay in an induced coma before being put on a medical flight to Germany. “This was with a view to him being dead by the time he arrived in Berlin,” one source said. Atropine probably saved him again. “Giving a second dose of novichok would undoubtedly increase the chances of killing,” said Alastair Hay, professor of environmental toxicology at Leeds University. “But if he were already ‘atropinised’ this would counteract the nerve agent, although it might mean prolonging his coma. The toxin would take longer to be degraded in the liver.”
They failed the second time obviously but it was a close thing. It took several weeks before Navalny was out of the induced coma he’d been put in.
The chief doctor at the hospital in Omsk, who denied Navalny had been poisoned, seems to have benefitted from his lies.
The Kremlin’s denials are often accompanied by a smirking nod and a wink. Alexander Murakhovsky, the head doctor at the Omsk hospital who obliged the Kremlin with his denial that Navalny had been poisoned, was promoted to regional health minister last month in what looks like a reward.
The other big news this week was a story published by Bellingcat which detailed the plot against Navalny, identifying many of the people involved in trailing him around the country and also the individuals who were near the hotel where he was apparently poisoned. From the conclusion of the piece:
This investigation has unearthed large volumes of data implicating Russia’s preeminent security agency, the FSB, in tailing Navalny over a long period of time using operatives that have specialized training in chemical weapons, chemistry and medicine – a skillset inconsistent with regular surveillance practices. These operatives were in the vicinity of the opposition activist in the days and hours of the time-range during which he was poisoned with a military-grade chemical weapon. They were in the vicinity of Navalny on at least one other occasion when a family member felt inexplicable symptoms consistent with a non-lethal, accidental dosage of the same toxin. They had previously tailed the opposition figure on over 37 trips in the last four years. Given this implausible series of coincidences, the burden of proof for an innocent explanation appears to rest purely with the Russian state.
Doctors working for the FSB are trailing Navalny all over the country and both he and his wife are poisoned. That really is a remarkable coincidence. But of course, Putin wants everyone to know who is behind this. That’s the point. He doesn’t need poison to kill one opposition figure. He could have one of his goons use a bullet. The poison is intended to terrorize the opposition, i.e. if you create trouble you’ll not only die, you’ll die slowly and painfully.


hotair--2020-12-15--Bad news, New Yorkers: Cuomo says his days as governor "nowhere near over"

That ’ s good news for the incoming Biden administration , whether they realize it or not .
For some reason , the Associated Press heard that Joe Biden had Andrew Cuomo on his short list for Attorney General , a move that would have made exactly zero sense even before one of his aides began accusing Cuomo of sexual harassment .
Even given Biden ’ s penchant for retreads , Cuomo is more trouble than he ’ s worth — and not just for his nursing-home disaster in the COVID-19 pandemic .
Just how much of a disaster ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up a warning late yesterday about Cuomo ’ s integrity via Politico , a warning that shouldn ’ t have been necessary in the first place : A number of corruption-focused , good government types — including some from within the Justice Department — are raising red flags amid reporting that New York Gov .
ANDREW CUOMO is under consideration for attorney general .
One federal prosecutor focused on anti-corruption cases told us that “ Cuomo may have various merits , but he is just too tainted with allegations of corruption to credibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his close associates have been convicted of federal corruption crimes , and Cuomo himself was under investigation for his suspicious closure of the Moreland Commission.
” The prosecutor continued : “ The DOJ needs leadership whose integrity is 100 % beyond reproach .
Cuomo falls short and his appointment would devastate the rank and file.
” If you want a taste of the integrity of Cuomo ’ s leadership , just do a search on “ Buffalo Billion.
” Jazz has written about it a few times here , as the scandal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It resulted in federal convictions of Cuomo cronies , including his former right-hand man Joe Percoco .
Cuomo claimed that then-US Attorney Preet Bharara had only gone after Percoco to get to him , and that Percoco ’ s conviction was a vindication of his leadership , or something : For years , Joe Percoco acted as Cuomo ’ s political enforcer , as well as his eyes and ears , recognizing problems before they turned into headaches and brokering compromises .
Percoco played a pivotal role in the 2011 Marriage Equality Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Orthodox Jewish community not to fight the proposal .
Percoco was more than a top aide , though : At Mario ’ s funeral , Andrew described him as his father ’ s “ third son.
” In March , Percoco was found guilty of three felonies for soliciting and accepting $ 300,000 in bribes from the executives of two companies doing business with the state during a brief period when he was off the state payroll .
… Cuomo argues that the Buffalo and Percoco cases are the deeds of isolated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , had a sterling track record , had worked for multiple prior New York governors , and was under the supervision of SUNY administrators .
“ Percoco did really stupid things .
Hurtful and disgusting and stupid , but stupid .
And I had absolutely nothing to do with anything , ” he says .
“ So in Cuomo ’ s administration there was a guy who was dirty ?
Yes .
Well , that ’ s terrible .
And I ’ m going to condemn him for it .
If I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart , I say , Preet Bharara ” — then the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York — “ doesn ’ t go after Percoco to go after Percoco .
He ’ s going after Percoco to get the governor .
That means they had to go through every piece of paper and every email for two years .
And that they couldn ’ t find any connection whatsoever , in many ways it ’ s the most credible exoneration in history , because Preet was a scalp hunter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If he had Joe Percoco and every file from Joe Percoco and he can ’ t find a whisper on me , that is a hell of a thing.
” That ’ s a hell of an argument , even for a gubernatorial campaign : The DoJ didn ’ t nail me !
It ’ s an even more bizarre argument in terms of becoming the head of the DoJ .
Bharara — not exactly a crypto-conservative — found Cuomo ’ s spin amusing at best , and entirely deceptive : How much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of Politico ’ s sources ?
Anyway , Cuomo apparently doesn ’ t want to press his luck in a Senate confirmation hearing , either on Buffalo Billion or on his nursing-home edict .
He told reporters yesterday that he ’ s too busy to take Biden ’ s call : That ’ s good news for the rest of us , but bad news for New Yorkers .
You won ’ t get rid of The Love Gov that easily .
Speaking of which , here ’ s Cuomo in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s accusation of sexual harassment .
If this were Cuomo ( R ) , the media would be instantly telling us that the governor ’ s denials are themselves an indictment of the patriarchy .
As it stands , though , Boylan had better be prepared to watch the media give Cuomo the ( D ) treatment .
She can ask Tara Reade how that works .

That’s good news for the incoming Biden administration, whether they realize it or not. For some reason, the Associated Press heard that Joe Biden had Andrew Cuomo on his short list for Attorney General, a move that would have made exactly zero sense even before one of his aides began accusing Cuomo of sexual harassment. Even given Biden’s penchant for retreads, Cuomo is more trouble than he’s worth — and not just for his nursing-home disaster in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Just how much of a disaster? Some Department of Justice career officials sent up a warning late yesterday about Cuomo’s integrity via Politico, a warning that shouldn’t have been necessary in the first place:
A number of corruption-focused, good government types — including some from within the Justice Department — are raising red flags amid reporting that New York Gov. ANDREW CUOMO is under consideration for attorney general. One federal prosecutor focused on anti-corruption cases told us that “Cuomo may have various merits, but he is just too tainted with allegations of corruption to credibly serve as the attorney general. Some of his close associates have been convicted of federal corruption crimes, and Cuomo himself was under investigation for his suspicious closure of the Moreland Commission.” The prosecutor continued: “The DOJ needs leadership whose integrity is 100% beyond reproach. Cuomo falls short and his appointment would devastate the rank and file.”
If you want a taste of the integrity of Cuomo’s leadership, just do a search on “Buffalo Billion.” Jazz has written about it a few times here, as the scandal had unfolded over a few years. It resulted in federal convictions of Cuomo cronies, including his former right-hand man Joe Percoco. Cuomo claimed that then-US Attorney Preet Bharara had only gone after Percoco to get to him, and that Percoco’s conviction was a vindication of his leadership, or something:
For years, Joe Percoco acted as Cuomo’s political enforcer, as well as his eyes and ears, recognizing problems before they turned into headaches and brokering compromises. Percoco played a pivotal role in the 2011 Marriage Equality Act, persuading leaders of the state’s Orthodox Jewish community not to fight the proposal. Percoco was more than a top aide, though: At Mario’s funeral, Andrew described him as his father’s “third son.” In March, Percoco was found guilty of three felonies for soliciting and accepting $300,000 in bribes from the executives of two companies doing business with the state during a brief period when he was off the state payroll. … Cuomo argues that the Buffalo and Percoco cases are the deeds of isolated bad actors. Kaloyeros, he says, had a sterling track record, had worked for multiple prior New York governors, and was under the supervision of SUNY administrators. “Percoco did really stupid things. Hurtful and disgusting and stupid, but stupid. And I had absolutely nothing to do with anything,” he says. “So in Cuomo’s administration there was a guy who was dirty? Yes. Well, that’s terrible. And I’m going to condemn him for it. If I’m you, and I’m smart, I say, Preet Bharara” — then the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York — “doesn’t go after Percoco to go after Percoco. He’s going after Percoco to get the governor. That means they had to go through every piece of paper and every email for two years. And that they couldn’t find any connection whatsoever, in many ways it’s the most credible exoneration in history, because Preet was a scalp hunter and that’s all he was. If he had Joe Percoco and every file from Joe Percoco and he can’t find a whisper on me, that is a hell of a thing.”
That’s a hell of an argument, even for a gubernatorial campaign: The DoJ didn’t nail me! It’s an even more bizarre argument in terms of becoming the head of the DoJ.
Bharara — not exactly a crypto-conservative — found Cuomo’s spin amusing at best, and entirely deceptive:
Bharara, during eight years as the U.S. attorney, won about a dozen corruption convictions of state politicians, including the leaders of both houses of the State Legislature. “I appreciate Andrew Cuomo’s need to spin,” Bharara tells me. “But I don’t think he has anything to be proud of in the Buffalo Billion scandals or, frankly, in his record on corruption generally.”
How much do you want to bet that Bharara is one of Politico’s sources?
Anyway, Cuomo apparently doesn’t want to press his luck in a Senate confirmation hearing, either on Buffalo Billion or on his nursing-home edict. He told reporters yesterday that he’s too busy to take Biden’s call:
On Monday, Cuomo reiterated what he has said several times before: He does not intend to join the Biden administration. “My job as New York governor is nowhere near over,” said Cuomo, a longtime Biden supporter. “I’m flattered to be considered, but that hasn’t changed my thinking.”
That’s good news for the rest of us, but bad news for New Yorkers. You won’t get rid of The Love Gov that easily. Speaking of which, here’s Cuomo in the same presser denying Lindsey Boylan’s accusation of sexual harassment. If this were Cuomo (R), the media would be instantly telling us that the governor’s denials are themselves an indictment of the patriarchy. As it stands, though, Boylan had better be prepared to watch the media give Cuomo the (D) treatment. She can ask Tara Reade how that works.


hotair--2020-12-15--Report: High-level Fox News execs have reached out to Trump but "he wants to make them pay"

A fun bit from Axios , especially the detail about Trump interrupting people randomly to ask them about ratings .
I still don ’ t understand what Fox did to piss him off so much besides having some Democrats on and calling Arizona correctly , if prematurely , for Biden .
But I look forward to him explaining his grievances in detail as he prosecutes this feud .
Trump also has been telling confidants that “ people at the highest levels of Fox ” have reached out to his people to try to repair the relationship but that he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He wants to make them pay , ” said a source who discussed Fox News with Trump in recent days .
He ’ s focused in particular on Chris Wallace , Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum .
Trump interrupted a recent conversation that had nothing to do with Fox to ask the person he was talking to whether they ’ d heard that Newsmax ’ s Greg Kelly recently beat MacCallum in the 7 p.m. hour .
— Good morning , sir .
We ’ ll start with Iran .
We have evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons and is looking to smuggle them into– — Did you hear that Greg Kelly beat Martha MacCallum in the demo ?
Just one night , but still .
Wow !
Is Trump ’ s public aggravation at Fox real or is his promotion of Newsmax and OAN really just a form of playing hard to get , like flirting with one person in front of a second in order to make the latter jealous ?
The aggravation is real , I ’ m sure , inasmuch as he ’ s sincerely ticked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and for running periodic segments during the daytime hard news hours debunking some of his election conspiracy theories .
But is he serious about trying to make Newsmax a viable alternative or is he just “ working the refs ” at Fox , so to speak , by halfheartedly reminding them that there are now other options for him if he wants a right-wing TV megaphone ?
Behind the scenes , Trump has told others that pitting Newsmax and OAN against Fox News puts pressure on the larger network to cover him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern in public and private about Fox News ’ s coverage in the final months of the campaign , when the network confirmed reports that Trump had been heard calling fallen military service members “ suckers ” and “ losers , ” and later declared Joe Biden the election winner , despite Trump ’ s protests .
He has since complained about the amount of coverage the network has given to his legal team , including former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and attorney Jenna Ellis .
“ He thinks it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , ” Christopher Ruddy , the founder of Newsmax and a Trump confidant , said of the president ’ s anger with Fox News .
“ He is happy with the Hannitys and the Laura Ingrahams , but he has been disappointed with the overall coverage.
” Ruddy told WaPo that he ’ s already offered Trump his own show on Newsmax but expects the president will remain a free agent in hopes of maximizing his media presence across all networks — which can only mean Fox , right ?
He wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an open question whether CNN would even have him on post-presidency .
Every anchor on that network has inveighed against him on camera as a font of endless lies ; they ’ ve got a guy on staff whose entire job is to fact-check Trump when he speaks and to call him out publicly on his misstatements .
As an ethical matter , I don ’ t know if they ’ ll give him a platform once they ’ re no longer basically required to because his job title makes everything he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump won ’ t commit to Newsmax , it must mean that he still wants a relationship with Fox .
Which makes sense : Not only is it the most-watched cable news network , it ’ s poised to grow its audience further once Biden takes office and it reverts to its old comfortable niche as leader of opposition media .
For all the hype lately about Newsmax , CNN , and MSNBC each making inroads with cable-news viewers at Fox ’ s expense , it ’ s easier to imagine Fox singularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than to imagine its competitors continuing to eat into its ratings .
Conservative viewers , not liberals , will be hungry for scandal and incompetence by the Biden administration and Fox ’ s rivals understand that keenly .
“ Nobody will need MSNBC the way they needed it the last four years , ” said one MSNBC host to Vanity Fair .
“ The TV will go off.
” The Times also nabbed a showy quote from an MSNBC on-air personality : “ What happens when you don ’ t need us ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN and MSNBC with Biden in the White House .
It might have a little something to fear from Newsmax as the GOP base turns more radical , but having to report on the Biden administration ’ s foibles every day will help put Fox ’ s news division back on “ the team.
” And the primetime hosts will of course be every bit as adversarial to Team Biden as Newsmax ’ s hosts will be , further reducing the need for Fox viewers to turn the channel to scratch their itch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that Biden ’ s presidency will be focused in its earliest stages on a common national goal , the distribution of the COVID vaccine .
That will mean Fox ’ s news coverage will be somewhat less adversarial at first , creating an opening for Newsmax to supply a diet of nonstop daytime rejectionism for viewers looking for that sort of thing .
They ’ re not going to pass Fox , but they may have a few months left to draw some new viewers before Fox pulls away again .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer on speaking terms with the president at last check due to his belief that Biden won the election , insisting last night that Biden won the election .

A fun bit from Axios, especially the detail about Trump interrupting people randomly to ask them about ratings. I still don’t understand what Fox did to piss him off so much besides having some Democrats on and calling Arizona correctly, if prematurely, for Biden.
But I look forward to him explaining his grievances in detail as he prosecutes this feud.
Trump also has been telling confidants that “people at the highest levels of Fox” have reached out to his people to try to repair the relationship but that he has no desire to do that. “He wants to make them pay,” said a source who discussed Fox News with Trump in recent days. He’s focused in particular on Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. Trump interrupted a recent conversation that had nothing to do with Fox to ask the person he was talking to whether they’d heard that Newsmax’s Greg Kelly recently beat MacCallum in the 7 p.m. hour.
I’m imagining the Presidential Daily Brief:
— Good morning, sir. We’ll start with Iran. We have evidence that the regime has produced six nuclear weapons and is looking to smuggle them into–
— Did you hear that Greg Kelly beat Martha MacCallum in the demo? Just one night, but still. Wow!
Is Trump’s public aggravation at Fox real or is his promotion of Newsmax and OAN really just a form of playing hard to get, like flirting with one person in front of a second in order to make the latter jealous? The aggravation is real, I’m sure, inasmuch as he’s sincerely ticked off at FNC for calling Arizona for Biden and for running periodic segments during the daytime hard news hours debunking some of his election conspiracy theories. But is he serious about trying to make Newsmax a viable alternative or is he just “working the refs” at Fox, so to speak, by halfheartedly reminding them that there are now other options for him if he wants a right-wing TV megaphone?
WaPo says he’s working the refs:
Behind the scenes, Trump has told others that pitting Newsmax and OAN against Fox News puts pressure on the larger network to cover him more favorably. He has also expressed concern in public and private about Fox News’s coverage in the final months of the campaign, when the network confirmed reports that Trump had been heard calling fallen military service members “suckers” and “losers,” and later declared Joe Biden the election winner, despite Trump’s protests. He has since complained about the amount of coverage the network has given to his legal team, including former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and attorney Jenna Ellis. “He thinks it’s the big difference between 2020 and 2016,” Christopher Ruddy, the founder of Newsmax and a Trump confidant, said of the president’s anger with Fox News. “He is happy with the Hannitys and the Laura Ingrahams, but he has been disappointed with the overall coverage.”
Ruddy told WaPo that he’s already offered Trump his own show on Newsmax but expects the president will remain a free agent in hopes of maximizing his media presence across all networks — which can only mean Fox, right? He wouldn’t do MSNBC and it’s an open question whether CNN would even have him on post-presidency. Every anchor on that network has inveighed against him on camera as a font of endless lies; they’ve got a guy on staff whose entire job is to fact-check Trump when he speaks and to call him out publicly on his misstatements. As an ethical matter, I don’t know if they’ll give him a platform once they’re no longer basically required to because his job title makes everything he says qualify as news.
So if Trump won’t commit to Newsmax, it must mean that he still wants a relationship with Fox. Which makes sense: Not only is it the most-watched cable news network, it’s poised to grow its audience further once Biden takes office and it reverts to its old comfortable niche as leader of opposition media. For all the hype lately about Newsmax, CNN, and MSNBC each making inroads with cable-news viewers at Fox’s expense, it’s easier to imagine Fox singularly dominant once again six months from now than to imagine its competitors continuing to eat into its ratings. Conservative viewers, not liberals, will be hungry for scandal and incompetence by the Biden administration and Fox’s rivals understand that keenly. “Nobody will need MSNBC the way they needed it the last four years,” said one MSNBC host to Vanity Fair. “The TV will go off.” The Times also nabbed a showy quote from an MSNBC on-air personality: “What happens when you don’t need us?”
Fox has nothing to fear from CNN and MSNBC with Biden in the White House. It might have a little something to fear from Newsmax as the GOP base turns more radical, but having to report on the Biden administration’s foibles every day will help put Fox’s news division back on “the team.” And the primetime hosts will of course be every bit as adversarial to Team Biden as Newsmax’s hosts will be, further reducing the need for Fox viewers to turn the channel to scratch their itch. The one potential wrinkle for FNC is that Biden’s presidency will be focused in its earliest stages on a common national goal, the distribution of the COVID vaccine. That will mean Fox’s news coverage will be somewhat less adversarial at first, creating an opening for Newsmax to supply a diet of nonstop daytime rejectionism for viewers looking for that sort of thing. They’re not going to pass Fox, but they may have a few months left to draw some new viewers before Fox pulls away again.
Here’s Geraldo Rivera, who was no longer on speaking terms with the president at last check due to his belief that Biden won the election, insisting last night that Biden won the election.


hotair--2020-12-15--LA County DA drops special circumstances against man who shot a police deputy (Update)

As Jazz pointed out last week , LA County has a new District Attorney .
Immediately upon taking office George Gascon announced that he would be doing away with the death penalty , cash bail and special circumstances enhancements which add additional jail time in certain cases .
Now we ’ re starting to see what that will mean in some actual cases .
The families of the victims are not happy about it .
In June 2019 , police say Rhett Nelson shot LASD deputy Joseph Gilbert Solano in the back of the head while he was waiting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Box while off-duty… FOX 11 confirmed that Gascon ’ s office is seeking to dismiss all gun enhancements and special circumstances of multiple murders against Nelson .
If a judge signs off on the dismissals , life without parole would be off the table for Nelson if he were to be convicted , and he could potentially be released from prison at some point in the future .
Solano ’ s sister said Gascon has never spoken to her about the decision .
To her it makes no sense , “ I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to let these murderers out of jail , I don ’ t get it , he ’ s like the Devil , I don ’ t understand it.
” Another case impacted by Gascon ’ s decision about circumstances involves a woman who severely injured a 6-month old child : “ He ’ s running a social experiment that is dangerous for all of us because his whole goal is to release all these criminals out there in the street , and somehow they ’ re magically going to behave .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said attorney Samuel Dordulian , who is representing several families of crime victims .
In one case , a baby sitter is accused of beating a 6-month-old girl with a blunt object , shattering the baby ’ s skull and causing severe brain damage .
The girl , now 3-years-old , is blind and forced to eat through a feeding tube .
Dordulian says under Gascon ’ s new directives , the baby sitter can no longer be charged with a great bodily injury enhancement which could have sent the woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A third case involves a DUI that killed a passenger in another vehicle : “ This is not fair , this is not justice , ” says Michelle Scianni .
She is devastated to learn District Attorney Gascon is planning to drop some of the charges against 21-year-old Austin Redden .
On May 13 , 2019 , detectives say Redden was driving under the influence of drugs and crashed into a tow truck .
Scianni ’ s nephew , Jacob Scianni , was a passenger in the vehicle .
He was killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also suffered severe injuries .
Attorney Sam Dordulian says this was Redden ’ s third DUI .
He was facing special circumstance allegations that would have given him more time in prison but under Gascon ’ s new directives , prosecutors were in court on Friday to ask a judge to dismiss those extra allegations .
I can ’ t imagine why LA County would want to see Redden back on the streets and potentially behind the wheel of a car again .
Seems like after his third DUI and killing someone we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while .
But not in LA County .
In fact , Dordulian , the family ’ s attorney , says he saw a special adviser walk up to the defense attorneys in court and announce in a loud voice “ Mr .
Gascon is very concerned and wants to be aware of everything that is said about this case and about the proceedings and he wants to make sure everyone follows the special directive.
” Dourdulian said the message sent to prosecutors was “ we ’ re listening , we ’ re watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But it seems the threat didn ’ t work .
The judge refused to drop the enhancements in this case .
These three cases are just a handful of examples .
How many more like this are out there that haven ’ t been reported yet ?
How many violent and dangerous people are going to get another chance to walk the streets thanks to George Gascon ’ s new directives ?
Update : A former San Francisco Assistant District Attorney who worked for Gascon says he “ wreaked havoc ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city .
Also , former LA County DA Steve Cooley really doesn ’ t seem to like Gascon much , referring to him as a “ functional outlaw ” and calling him “ a George Soros puppet .
”

As Jazz pointed out last week, LA County has a new District Attorney. Immediately upon taking office George Gascon announced that he would be doing away with the death penalty, cash bail and special circumstances enhancements which add additional jail time in certain cases. Now we’re starting to see what that will mean in some actual cases. The families of the victims are not happy about it.
NEW: Under new D.A. George Gascon’s reforms, I’ve confirmed his office is trying to dismiss all enhancements & special circumstances against the alleged double murderer/cop killer accused of shooting LASD deputy Gilbert Solano in the back of his head. His sister is irate. @FOXLA pic.twitter.com/SxnPiOuRPG — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) December 15, 2020
From Fox 11:
In June 2019, police say Rhett Nelson shot LASD deputy Joseph Gilbert Solano in the back of the head while he was waiting in line at an Alhambra Jack in the Box while off-duty… FOX 11 confirmed that Gascon’s office is seeking to dismiss all gun enhancements and special circumstances of multiple murders against Nelson. If a judge signs off on the dismissals, life without parole would be off the table for Nelson if he were to be convicted, and he could potentially be released from prison at some point in the future.
Solano’s sister said Gascon has never spoken to her about the decision. To her it makes no sense, “I don’t understand what his purpose is to let these murderers out of jail, I don’t get it, he’s like the Devil, I don’t understand it.” Another case impacted by Gascon’s decision about circumstances involves a woman who severely injured a 6-month old child:
“He’s running a social experiment that is dangerous for all of us because his whole goal is to release all these criminals out there in the street, and somehow they’re magically going to behave. And that simply isn’t going to happen,” said attorney Samuel Dordulian, who is representing several families of crime victims. In one case, a baby sitter is accused of beating a 6-month-old girl with a blunt object, shattering the baby’s skull and causing severe brain damage. The girl, now 3-years-old, is blind and forced to eat through a feeding tube. Dordulian says under Gascon’s new directives, the baby sitter can no longer be charged with a great bodily injury enhancement which could have sent the woman to prison for up to 10 years.
A third case involves a DUI that killed a passenger in another vehicle:
“This is not fair, this is not justice,” says Michelle Scianni. She is devastated to learn District Attorney Gascon is planning to drop some of the charges against 21-year-old Austin Redden. On May 13, 2019, detectives say Redden was driving under the influence of drugs and crashed into a tow truck. Scianni’s nephew, Jacob Scianni, was a passenger in the vehicle. He was killed in the crash and two other passengers also suffered severe injuries. Attorney Sam Dordulian says this was Redden’s third DUI. He was facing special circumstance allegations that would have given him more time in prison but under Gascon’s new directives, prosecutors were in court on Friday to ask a judge to dismiss those extra allegations.
I can’t imagine why LA County would want to see Redden back on the streets and potentially behind the wheel of a car again. Seems like after his third DUI and killing someone we might want him to go away for while. But not in LA County. In fact, Dordulian, the family’s attorney, says he saw a special adviser walk up to the defense attorneys in court and announce in a loud voice “Mr. Gascon is very concerned and wants to be aware of everything that is said about this case and about the proceedings and he wants to make sure everyone follows the special directive.” Dourdulian said the message sent to prosecutors was “we’re listening, we’re watching, do not say anything against us.”
But it seems the threat didn’t work. The judge refused to drop the enhancements in this case.
These three cases are just a handful of examples. How many more like this are out there that haven’t been reported yet? How many violent and dangerous people are going to get another chance to walk the streets thanks to George Gascon’s new directives?
Update: A former San Francisco Assistant District Attorney who worked for Gascon says he “wreaked havoc” on the DA’s office in that city. Also, former LA County DA Steve Cooley really doesn’t seem to like Gascon much, referring to him as a “functional outlaw” and calling him “a George Soros puppet.”


hotair--2020-12-15--Doctor tells MSNBC: After you're vaccinated you shouldn't be traveling or taking off your mask

His point is simple enough .
For months to come , even with thousands of people being vaccinated every day , it ’ ll nonetheless be true that Americans who aren ’ t immune from COVID greatly outnumber those who are .
It *may* also be true that those who ’ ve been vaccinated are still capable of passing along the virus to others even though they ’ re protected from serious illness themselves .
( I say “ may ” because Moderna ’ s data suggests that the vaccine might make recipients less infectious , which would be fantastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re vaccinated and you ’ re drinking at a bar with a bunch of people who aren ’ t , it ’ s conceivable that you might carry the virus in there with you and infect everyone in the joint .
The way to protect those around you is to continue to take precautions until either ( a ) science confirms that vaccine recipients don ’ t transmit the virus to others or ( b ) the great majority of the country has been vaccinated , making the risk of infection negligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cautious approach .
Annnnnnnnd literally about two percent of people who get vaccinated , I ’ d guess , will actually follow that approach instead of tearing off their masks on the day of their second dose and spinning around in a crowd like Julie Andrews on the hilltop in “ The Sound of Music , ” spewing particles in every direction .
This country can ’ t convince people to stop going to restaurants now , when there are 200,000 new cases a day .
Good luck trying to convince them after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to keep masking up and avoiding gatherings for another three , four , five months .
Honestly , I ’ m expecting this coming April and May to look like one big national block party .
A keg on every corner .
Watch , then read on .
I wonder if there ’ ll be a surprise surge of infections in March or April as we reach a moment in which a lot of people have already been vaccinated and are flinging off their masks with the arrival of spring but most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be immunized .
If — if — those who ’ ve been vaccinated can still get infected and transmit the virus , we could have a burst of new cases as the first group abandons precautions , mingles freely with the second , and ends up seeding new outbreaks .
Relatedly , because the data from Pfizer and Moderna suggest that the first dose alone provides a decent amount of immunity , scientists are debating whether the U.S. should use its entire initial supply of the vaccine to administer first doses to many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half that supply to make sure that a smaller number of people get both doses in the three- to four-week window , as the manufacturers advise .
A few days ago a data scientist at MIT calculated that if we maximize the number of people who get doses early by distributing the initial supply instead of holding half of it back , we could reach herd immunity months sooner than everyone expects : The catch is what happens if the supply can ’ t be replenished quickly enough to make sure people get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you get your first dose on January 1 and then , due to manufacturing hiccups , don ’ t get your second until March 1 , does that mean your immunity going forward won ’ t be as durable ?
Might the side effects from the second dose be more severe than expected ( or less severe ) on that timeline ?
That ’ s a hell of an experiment to run on tens of millions of people .
I ’ ll leave you with Scott Gottlieb , who supports the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible into the population , then worry about the second doses .
The partial immunity from the wave of first doses will help slow down community spread more quickly than if we held back half the supply for second doses .

You serious, bro?
His point is simple enough. For months to come, even with thousands of people being vaccinated every day, it’ll nonetheless be true that Americans who aren’t immune from COVID greatly outnumber those who are. It *may* also be true that those who’ve been vaccinated are still capable of passing along the virus to others even though they’re protected from serious illness themselves. (I say “may” because Moderna’s data suggests that the vaccine might make recipients less infectious, which would be fantastic if confirmed.) So if you’re vaccinated and you’re drinking at a bar with a bunch of people who aren’t, it’s conceivable that you might carry the virus in there with you and infect everyone in the joint. The way to protect those around you is to continue to take precautions until either (a) science confirms that vaccine recipients don’t transmit the virus to others or (b) the great majority of the country has been vaccinated, making the risk of infection negligible.
It’s a sensible, cautious approach. Annnnnnnnd literally about two percent of people who get vaccinated, I’d guess, will actually follow that approach instead of tearing off their masks on the day of their second dose and spinning around in a crowd like Julie Andrews on the hilltop in “The Sound of Music,” spewing particles in every direction. This country can’t convince people to stop going to restaurants now, when there are 200,000 new cases a day. Good luck trying to convince them after they’ve been immunized that they need to keep masking up and avoiding gatherings for another three, four, five months.
Honestly, I’m expecting this coming April and May to look like one big national block party. A keg on every corner. Watch, then read on.
MSNBC’s @VinGuptaMD: "Just because you get vaccinated after the second dose does not mean you should be … traveling … or that you’re liberated from masks." pic.twitter.com/DqT134hrBp — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) December 15, 2020
I wonder if there’ll be a surprise surge of infections in March or April as we reach a moment in which a lot of people have already been vaccinated and are flinging off their masks with the arrival of spring but most of the population still has yet to be immunized. If — if — those who’ve been vaccinated can still get infected and transmit the virus, we could have a burst of new cases as the first group abandons precautions, mingles freely with the second, and ends up seeding new outbreaks.
Relatedly, because the data from Pfizer and Moderna suggest that the first dose alone provides a decent amount of immunity, scientists are debating whether the U.S. should use its entire initial supply of the vaccine to administer first doses to many people or whether it should hold back half that supply to make sure that a smaller number of people get both doses in the three- to four-week window, as the manufacturers advise. A few days ago a data scientist at MIT calculated that if we maximize the number of people who get doses early by distributing the initial supply instead of holding half of it back, we could reach herd immunity months sooner than everyone expects:
This involves allocating the initial (limited) supply of vaccines based on two main criteria: 1) Each individual receives only one dose instead of two.
2) We prioritize individuals who have not had a prior infection. This would be temporary, until supply catches up. — Youyang Gu (@youyanggu) December 11, 2020
With the existing approach, my model estimates that by the time the US reaches herd immunity in summer 2021, we would've distributed ~300M doses. That's an "efficiency" of 100M / 300M = 33% If we follow the two criteria from above, I believe we can double the efficiency to 70%. — Youyang Gu (@youyanggu) December 11, 2020
Of course, I'm not necessarily advocating for this approach. More studies would need to be carried out first. But I do feel like this is not being talked about enough.@michaelmina_lab and @zeynep have also raised this issue (I recommend the thread).https://t.co/yKhaic7zOZ — Youyang Gu (@youyanggu) December 11, 2020
The catch is what happens if the supply can’t be replenished quickly enough to make sure people get their second doses in a timely way. If you get your first dose on January 1 and then, due to manufacturing hiccups, don’t get your second until March 1, does that mean your immunity going forward won’t be as durable? Might the side effects from the second dose be more severe than expected (or less severe) on that timeline? That’s a hell of an experiment to run on tens of millions of people.
I’ll leave you with Scott Gottlieb, who supports the idea. Get as many first doses as possible into the population, then worry about the second doses. The partial immunity from the wave of first doses will help slow down community spread more quickly than if we held back half the supply for second doses.


hotair--2020-12-15--The latest New Jersey anti-cop bill really isn't all that anti-cop

Most of the legislative efforts we ’ ve seen thus far that ostensibly seek to enact “ police reform ” actually are intended to weaken the police and make it harder for them to do their jobs .
This has been true in New York City , Minneapolis , Los Angeles , and other cities .
The latest news on this front out of New Jersey is somewhat different , however .
State legislators have introduced a plan to change the way arrest records are compiled and how they are used .
You ’ d be forgiven if such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats who cooked up the plan probably thought they were doing something to keep the police in check , but it ’ s actually not a bad idea .
In fact , the police unions almost immediately came out in favor of it as well .
( Washington Examiner ) A New Jersey Senate committee has advanced a bill that would bar law enforcement agencies from looking at arrest numbers when evaluating an officer ’ s overall performance or making decisions about whether to promote or fire an officer .
The Senate Law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance Senate Bill No .
1322 .
The measure is a companion to Assembly Bill 4058 .
Under current state law , local and state law enforcement agencies can not mandate officers meet arrest and citation quotas .
However , agencies may consider arrest and citation data as part of an officer ’ s performance evaluation .
So the bottom line is that , under this legislation , police departments wouldn ’ t be able to track the number of citations and arrests coming from individual law enforcement officers and use that information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
State Sen. Shirley Turner , a Democrat , released a statement about the bill that contained much of the usual language we ’ ve come to expect .
She talked about how quotas drive police to make arrests that “ have a detrimental effect on our communities , ” and “ have fallen hardest upon low-income individuals and people of color.
” The effort is being pitched as a way “ to advance issues of social justice and create a more equitable criminal justice system.
” You get the idea , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the demographic breakdown of arrest stats and tickets another day , but this is a very real issue that causes problems for everyone .
All of you who have ever driven a significant distance have probably either encountered or heard warnings about towns with “ speed traps , ” where the posted speed limit will suddenly drop drastically just as you round a bend .
And there ’ s always a cop miraculously sitting right there ready to hit the flashing lights .
Some of these towns derive significant portions of their revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas , police who have to take on traffic duty are just given a minimum quota of tickets they have to write .
A failure to hit that magic number can be detrimental to their careers .
Other LEOs are given a minimum quota of arrests to make .
This is simply unproductive at best and detrimental at worst .
If the end of the month is coming up and you haven ’ t met your quota , the temptation is going to be there to go out and “ find ” a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And in the worst cases , if there ’ s no crime taking place at the moment , you might need to invent one .
So of course the police are going to welcome this for the most part .
The only fly in the ointment I see here is the reality that most police departments are still going to know which officers are making the most collars and which aren ’ t .
Even if the numbers aren ’ t being officially tallied for that purpose , they still have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not like the information would be impossible to ferret out .
But this still seems better than nothing .
It ’ s probably an idea that other states and municipalities should look at adopting .

Most of the legislative efforts we’ve seen thus far that ostensibly seek to enact “police reform” actually are intended to weaken the police and make it harder for them to do their jobs. This has been true in New York City, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and other cities. The latest news on this front out of New Jersey is somewhat different, however. State legislators have introduced a plan to change the way arrest records are compiled and how they are used. You’d be forgiven if such a description makes you suspicious, and the Democrats who cooked up the plan probably thought they were doing something to keep the police in check, but it’s actually not a bad idea. In fact, the police unions almost immediately came out in favor of it as well. (Washington Examiner)
A New Jersey Senate committee has advanced a bill that would bar law enforcement agencies from looking at arrest numbers when evaluating an officer’s overall performance or making decisions about whether to promote or fire an officer. The Senate Law and Public Safety Committee voted 6-0 to advance Senate Bill No. 1322. The measure is a companion to Assembly Bill 4058. Under current state law, local and state law enforcement agencies cannot mandate officers meet arrest and citation quotas. However, agencies may consider arrest and citation data as part of an officer’s performance evaluation.
So the bottom line is that, under this legislation, police departments wouldn’t be able to track the number of citations and arrests coming from individual law enforcement officers and use that information when making decisions about promotions or raises. State Sen. Shirley Turner, a Democrat, released a statement about the bill that contained much of the usual language we’ve come to expect. She talked about how quotas drive police to make arrests that “have a detrimental effect on our communities,” and “have fallen hardest upon low-income individuals and people of color.”
The effort is being pitched as a way “to advance issues of social justice and create a more equitable criminal justice system.” You get the idea, I’m sure. We can debate the demographic breakdown of arrest stats and tickets another day, but this is a very real issue that causes problems for everyone.
All of you who have ever driven a significant distance have probably either encountered or heard warnings about towns with “speed traps,” where the posted speed limit will suddenly drop drastically just as you round a bend. And there’s always a cop miraculously sitting right there ready to hit the flashing lights. Some of these towns derive significant portions of their revenue from traffic tickets.
In many other areas, police who have to take on traffic duty are just given a minimum quota of tickets they have to write. A failure to hit that magic number can be detrimental to their careers. Other LEOs are given a minimum quota of arrests to make. This is simply unproductive at best and detrimental at worst. If the end of the month is coming up and you haven’t met your quota, the temptation is going to be there to go out and “find” a crime that you can arrest someone for. And in the worst cases, if there’s no crime taking place at the moment, you might need to invent one.
So of course the police are going to welcome this for the most part. The only fly in the ointment I see here is the reality that most police departments are still going to know which officers are making the most collars and which aren’t. Even if the numbers aren’t being officially tallied for that purpose, they still have to maintain arrest records, so it’s not like the information would be impossible to ferret out. But this still seems better than nothing. It’s probably an idea that other states and municipalities should look at adopting.


hotair--2020-12-15--Shocker: Insurers refusing to underwrite Portland businesses for some odd reason

Go figure .
What insurer wouldn ’ t love to issue policies in cities where , ah … [ checks notes ] … rioters controlled the streets for months on end , separatists harassed and extorted business owners , and prosecutors refused to bring cases when malefactors did get arrested at all ?
Shorter ask : What insurer wants to go broke while others get woke ?
None , as it turns out in Portland : Commercial insurance premiums were rising even before the coronavirus , while coverage was decreasing .
The pandemic exacerbated those trends .
Premiums for commercial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average of almost 11 % in the second quarter of 2020 , according to the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers .
But brokers say insurance companies have become particularly wary about covering Portland businesses , especially those downtown , as ongoing protests have given the city a reputation for upheaval and led to a spike in vandalism and destruction , often committed by a small group of people .
… Jessica Getman , president of Brown & Brown Insurance Northwest , said that some insurance carriers have placed moratoriums on issuing new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing customers in downtown Portland , creating a barrier for anyone trying to open a new business .
She said it is not uncommon for carriers to place temporary pauses on issuing new policies in areas where there is a perceived increased risk , such as when there are wildfires nearby .
While Getman said most insurance carriers aren ’ t walking away from existing customers in downtown Portland , she said owners who have had to file claims for property loss and damage this year could have a harder time renewing their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property coverage .
Business owners both in downtown and elsewhere in Portland where there have been instances of vandalism say they ’ ve run into this issue .
“ The civil unrest and riots that have occurred have put Portland on the map , ” Getman said .
“ We ’ re talking about insurance carriers that not only have a footprint here in Oregon , but nationally , and many are based outside of Oregon .
So , they are seeing all of this heightened awareness of crime and damaged buildings over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more sensitive.
” No kidding .
Insurance carriers manage risk by pooling large groups of people in order to allow for the occasional need to invoke coverage .
They don ’ t stay in business long by re-insuring businesses in the middle of riots or in places where crime waves have spiked .
The latter on its own requires a much higher assessment of risk , and not just in business insurance , either .
Minneapolis residents — and those in the suburbs — might get some unpleasant surprises when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 537 % this year .
And that ’ s not limited to Minneapolis or Portland either : The assault on Williams , captured on surveillance video recently released by the Chicago police in an effort to identify and catch his killers , focused attention on a dramatic spike in carjackings there .
In all of 2019 , there were 501 incidents of that crime .
So far that number has more than doubled to 1,125 this year , according to the latest Chicago police statistics .
But Chicago is neither the only nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend .
Minneapolis police report that carjackings there have shot up 537 % this year .
Carjacking calls to 911 in New Orleans are up 126 % .
Oakland police cite an increase of 38 % .
And while many police departments do not keep carjacking-specific numbers , instead classifying them as auto theft or armed robbery , crime experts like Chris Herrmann , a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice , say anecdotal reports of a carjacking surge are coming in from metropolitan areas around the country including Milwaukee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Data for auto theft is easier to come by and , according to Herrmann , the numbers show that crime is also spiking in many cities this year , including a rise of 68 % in New York , 36 % in Los Angeles and 34 % in Philadelphia .
But carjackings draw attention as the violent , potentially fatal version of auto theft .
That rise in crime and the necessity of increased payouts means that the risk pool has to contribute more to cover those losses .
Those costs are assessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the location of the property to be ensured .
It doesn ’ t matter , as the Oregonian attempts to argue above , that these crimes are only being committed by a “ small number of people.
” It ’ s that the large number of crimes , and the damage they do , is exponentially larger than it was a year ago .
Either insurers have to increase the premiums in those areas to anticipate the risks , or simply stop doing business in those places altogether .
The efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to make insurers even more skittish .
In Portland , though , the Multnomah County prosecutors refuse to prosecute these criminals even when police do apprehend them .
The political leadership in that county , and especially in Portland , have all but advertised impunity for property crimes in their jurisdiction .
Why should anyone be surprised when insurers tell their constituents not to expect coverage for future business losses ?
This won ’ t end with Portland , either .
Insurers are going to be very careful about policies they write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If cities want to revitalize their inner cores and attract businesses and jobs , they ’ d better start enforcing the law .
Otherwise , no one will invest money in those jurisdictions , and no one will create jobs for those citizens as a consequence .
It will take decades for these cities to recover from the damage they are doing to themselves in 2020 .

Go figure. What insurer wouldn’t love to issue policies in cities where, ah … [checks notes] … rioters controlled the streets for months on end, separatists harassed and extorted business owners, and prosecutors refused to bring cases when malefactors did get arrested at all?
Shorter ask: What insurer wants to go broke while others get woke? None, as it turns out in Portland:
Commercial insurance premiums were rising even before the coronavirus, while coverage was decreasing. The pandemic exacerbated those trends. Premiums for commercial property and casualty insurance increased by an average of almost 11% in the second quarter of 2020, according to the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers. But brokers say insurance companies have become particularly wary about covering Portland businesses, especially those downtown, as ongoing protests have given the city a reputation for upheaval and led to a spike in vandalism and destruction, often committed by a small group of people. … Jessica Getman, president of Brown & Brown Insurance Northwest, said that some insurance carriers have placed moratoriums on issuing new commercial insurance policies or increasing coverage for existing customers in downtown Portland, creating a barrier for anyone trying to open a new business. She said it is not uncommon for carriers to place temporary pauses on issuing new policies in areas where there is a perceived increased risk, such as when there are wildfires nearby. While Getman said most insurance carriers aren’t walking away from existing customers in downtown Portland, she said owners who have had to file claims for property loss and damage this year could have a harder time renewing their policies or finding affordable options that offer property coverage. Business owners both in downtown and elsewhere in Portland where there have been instances of vandalism say they’ve run into this issue. “The civil unrest and riots that have occurred have put Portland on the map,” Getman said. “We’re talking about insurance carriers that not only have a footprint here in Oregon, but nationally, and many are based outside of Oregon. So, they are seeing all of this heightened awareness of crime and damaged buildings over the news. That has made carriers more sensitive.”
No kidding. Insurance carriers manage risk by pooling large groups of people in order to allow for the occasional need to invoke coverage. They don’t stay in business long by re-insuring businesses in the middle of riots or in places where crime waves have spiked. The latter on its own requires a much higher assessment of risk, and not just in business insurance, either. Minneapolis residents — and those in the suburbs — might get some unpleasant surprises when it comes to auto insurance after carjackings went up by 537% this year.
And that’s not limited to Minneapolis or Portland either:
The assault on Williams, captured on surveillance video recently released by the Chicago police in an effort to identify and catch his killers, focused attention on a dramatic spike in carjackings there. In all of 2019, there were 501 incidents of that crime. So far that number has more than doubled to 1,125 this year, according to the latest Chicago police statistics. But Chicago is neither the only nor the worst example of this disturbing crime trend. Minneapolis police report that carjackings there have shot up 537% this year. Carjacking calls to 911 in New Orleans are up 126%. Oakland police cite an increase of 38%. And while many police departments do not keep carjacking-specific numbers, instead classifying them as auto theft or armed robbery, crime experts like Chris Herrmann, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, say anecdotal reports of a carjacking surge are coming in from metropolitan areas around the country including Milwaukee, Louisville, Nashville and Kansas City. Data for auto theft is easier to come by and, according to Herrmann, the numbers show that crime is also spiking in many cities this year, including a rise of 68% in New York, 36% in Los Angeles and 34% in Philadelphia. But carjackings draw attention as the violent, potentially fatal version of auto theft.
That rise in crime and the necessity of increased payouts means that the risk pool has to contribute more to cover those losses. Those costs are assessed by specific risk attributes, very much including the location of the property to be ensured. It doesn’t matter, as the Oregonian attempts to argue above, that these crimes are only being committed by a “small number of people.” It’s that the large number of crimes, and the damage they do, is exponentially larger than it was a year ago. Either insurers have to increase the premiums in those areas to anticipate the risks, or simply stop doing business in those places altogether.
The efforts to defund the police in these cities are going to make insurers even more skittish. In Portland, though, the Multnomah County prosecutors refuse to prosecute these criminals even when police do apprehend them. The political leadership in that county, and especially in Portland, have all but advertised impunity for property crimes in their jurisdiction. Why should anyone be surprised when insurers tell their constituents not to expect coverage for future business losses?
This won’t end with Portland, either. Insurers are going to be very careful about policies they write for urban locations in the future. If cities want to revitalize their inner cores and attract businesses and jobs, they’d better start enforcing the law. Otherwise, no one will invest money in those jurisdictions, and no one will create jobs for those citizens as a consequence. It will take decades for these cities to recover from the damage they are doing to themselves in 2020.


hotair--2020-12-15--McConnell, Thune warn Senate GOP: Please don't object to any of the electoral college results on Jan

McConnell, Thune warn Senate GOP: Please don't object to any of the electoral college results on January 6

This is a no-win vote shaping up for Senate Republicans from purplish states .
On January 6 , when Congress meets to officially record the votes of the electoral college , any state ’ s electoral votes can be challenged if one member of the House *and* one member of the Senate object .
In that case , each chamber would debate for two hours and then hold a floor vote on whether to accept those electoral votes or not .
If the two chambers deadlock , with the House voting yes and the Senate voting no , then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state become the tiebreaker .
Which is a fancy way of saying that there ’ s no way to block Biden ’ s victory .
Even if Senate Republicans provide 51 votes to reject Georgia ’ s electoral votes , for instance , the Democratic House would obviously vote to accept them .
Brian Kemp ’ s certification of Biden ’ s win would then break the deadlock .
The same would be true for Arizona , Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania , all of which have certified Biden ’ s victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can do to stop Sleepy Joe .
A sane political party would reason that there ’ s no point in having a fight which it ’ s doomed to lose , but the modern GOP has always had a soft spot for pointless moral victories in which key players get to grandstand in hopes of ingratiating themselves to the base .
( Trump ’ s threat to veto the defense spending bill because it doesn ’ t repeal Section 230 is a nice demonstration . )
The quintessential example is Ted Cruz leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2013 in hopes of thwarting the implementation of ObamaCare .
Didn ’ t work , of course : They successfully shut down the government but that was destined to end before long , since Democrats weren ’ t about to give up on Obama ’ s biggest policy achievement just because of a Ted Cruz ransom demand .
The only suspense on January 6 is whether Cruz or some other Republican in the Senate will wage another pointless fight to reject certain states ’ electoral votes .
Rep. Mo Brooks has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that ’ s missing is a Senate counterpart to join him .
McConnell and the leadership are already worried about it and angling to make sure there isn ’ t one .
Imagine you ’ re Marco Rubio , running for reelection in two years in a state that ’ s still … sort of purplish .
( Purplish red , let ’ s call Florida . )
You ’ re not worried about losing the general election but you are worried about a potential primary challenge from some kooky Trumpist figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your behalf , since he knows that a successful primary of Rubio by a kook might just fumble away a Senate seat that would otherwise be easily held by the Republican incumbent .
If some objector forces a floor vote on January 6 on whether to accept Georgia ’ s results , Rubio suddenly faces a tough choice .
Does he vote no , joining the rejectionist MAGA chorus intent on treating Biden as an illegitimate president ?
Or does he vote yes , risking a serious primary challenge ?
The only winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have that floor vote at all .
That ’ s why McConnell and Thune are getting out early to try to dissuade it .
Although we ’ re left to wonder : If no one in the caucus objects , would that in itself trigger primary challenges to vulnerable senators ?
Why didn ’ t you object when you had the chance , Marco ?
Why did you “ surrender ” ?
Kevin McCarthy also sees the peril here for Senate Republicans , but there ’ s probably nothing he can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Matt Gaetz or Jim Jordan or some other MAGA loyalist from objecting .
It ’ ll have to be Senate Republicans that thwart the effort : Thus far , Brooks ’ s gambit has received no backing from senior GOP leaders .
And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) seemed to tip his hand in opposition to Brooks ’ s tactics on Monday , telling Fox Business Network that taking election challenges to Congress is “ the wrong method.
” “ The president is right to go to the courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” McCarthy said .
“ And he said he still has more opportunity to do that , so we ’ ll wade through and see what happens.
” … Asked how much support there was in the GOP conference for Brooks ’ s effort , another conservative GOP lawmaker tersely replied : “ Little to none.
” Some Republican House members are in the same position as Rubio is in their home districts .
A bunch of them just won tight races against Democrats and will face another purple electorate in the 2022 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to partner with some Senate Republican by forcing a floor vote is successful , all of those members will be forced to take a no-win floor vote themselves .
Probably several , as I assume there ’ ll be objections to the results in every swing state where the race was tight .
What do you do if you ’ re forced to cast that ballot ?
Embarrass yourself and the party by voting to reject , potentially angering swing voters back home ?
Or vote to accept the results and end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
This is such a knotty dilemma for Republicans that I wonder if some Senate Democrat won ’ t make mischief by objecting to the swing-state results himself .
In tandem with Brooks ’ s objection in the House , that would force a floor vote on the results .
Maybe the Dems will make the GOP eat it on this even if McConnell succeeds in convincing his own caucus not to object .
Here ’ s Brooks making the case for a floor fight on January 6 on Lou Dobbs ’ s @ @ @ @

This is a no-win vote shaping up for Senate Republicans from purplish states. On January 6, when Congress meets to officially record the votes of the electoral college, any state’s electoral votes can be challenged if one member of the House *and* one member of the Senate object. In that case, each chamber would debate for two hours and then hold a floor vote on whether to accept those electoral votes or not. If the two chambers deadlock, with the House voting yes and the Senate voting no, then the results certified by the governor of that state become the tiebreaker.
Which is a fancy way of saying that there’s no way to block Biden’s victory. Even if Senate Republicans provide 51 votes to reject Georgia’s electoral votes, for instance, the Democratic House would obviously vote to accept them. Brian Kemp’s certification of Biden’s win would then break the deadlock. The same would be true for Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, all of which have certified Biden’s victory. There’s nothing congressional Republicans can do to stop Sleepy Joe.
A sane political party would reason that there’s no point in having a fight which it’s doomed to lose, but the modern GOP has always had a soft spot for pointless moral victories in which key players get to grandstand in hopes of ingratiating themselves to the base. (Trump’s threat to veto the defense spending bill because it doesn’t repeal Section 230 is a nice demonstration.) The quintessential example is Ted Cruz leading the Senate GOP to block government funding in 2013 in hopes of thwarting the implementation of ObamaCare. Didn’t work, of course: They successfully shut down the government but that was destined to end before long, since Democrats weren’t about to give up on Obama’s biggest policy achievement just because of a Ted Cruz ransom demand. The only suspense on January 6 is whether Cruz or some other Republican in the Senate will wage another pointless fight to reject certain states’ electoral votes. Rep. Mo Brooks has already vowed to object in the House; all that’s missing is a Senate counterpart to join him.
McConnell and the leadership are already worried about it and angling to make sure there isn’t one.
🚨NEW On a Senate R call just now, @senatemajldr, @RoyBlunt & @SenJohnThune all pleaded with Senate Rs to NOT object to the election results Jan. 6. MCCONNEL: it’s a “terrible vote” for the GOP. They’d have to vote it down, which makes it seem like they are anti Trump, he said — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 15, 2020
Jake beat me to it before we could publish, but I can confirm this. A source on the call said McConnell told the conference:
“I hope there’s zero sentiment for it” Thune said: “It would be great if there were no members that took up that issue” https://t.co/pqrIw4HZAc — Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) December 15, 2020
Imagine you’re Marco Rubio, running for reelection in two years in a state that’s still … sort of purplish. (Purplish red, let’s call Florida.) You’re not worried about losing the general election but you are worried about a potential primary challenge from some kooky Trumpist figure. And McConnell’s worried on your behalf, since he knows that a successful primary of Rubio by a kook might just fumble away a Senate seat that would otherwise be easily held by the Republican incumbent. If some objector forces a floor vote on January 6 on whether to accept Georgia’s results, Rubio suddenly faces a tough choice. Does he vote no, joining the rejectionist MAGA chorus intent on treating Biden as an illegitimate president? Or does he vote yes, risking a serious primary challenge?
The only winning move is not to play, to not have that floor vote at all. That’s why McConnell and Thune are getting out early to try to dissuade it. Although we’re left to wonder: If no one in the caucus objects, would that in itself trigger primary challenges to vulnerable senators? Why didn’t you object when you had the chance, Marco?
Why did you “surrender”?
Kevin McCarthy also sees the peril here for Senate Republicans, but there’s probably nothing he can do in his own chamber to stop Brooks or Matt Gaetz or Jim Jordan or some other MAGA loyalist from objecting. It’ll have to be Senate Republicans that thwart the effort:
Thus far, Brooks’s gambit has received no backing from senior GOP leaders. And House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) seemed to tip his hand in opposition to Brooks’s tactics on Monday, telling Fox Business Network that taking election challenges to Congress is “the wrong method.” “The president is right to go to the courts, have his legal challenges heard,” McCarthy said. “And he said he still has more opportunity to do that, so we’ll wade through and see what happens.”… Asked how much support there was in the GOP conference for Brooks’s effort, another conservative GOP lawmaker tersely replied: “Little to none.”
Some Republican House members are in the same position as Rubio is in their home districts. A bunch of them just won tight races against Democrats and will face another purple electorate in the 2022 midterms. If Brooks’s effort to partner with some Senate Republican by forcing a floor vote is successful, all of those members will be forced to take a no-win floor vote themselves. Probably several, as I assume there’ll be objections to the results in every swing state where the race was tight.
What do you do if you’re forced to cast that ballot? Embarrass yourself and the party by voting to reject, potentially angering swing voters back home? Or vote to accept the results and end up being primaried by some creature like this?
This is such a knotty dilemma for Republicans that I wonder if some Senate Democrat won’t make mischief by objecting to the swing-state results himself. In tandem with Brooks’s objection in the House, that would force a floor vote on the results. Maybe the Dems will make the GOP eat it on this even if McConnell succeeds in convincing his own caucus not to object.
Here’s Brooks making the case for a floor fight on January 6 on Lou Dobbs’s show last night.


hotair--2020-12-15--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Vaccines endorsed, NFL's TV cost, election exhaust, Cuomo crossed, <i>A

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Vaccines endorsed, NFL's TV cost, election exhaust, Cuomo crossed, <i>America Lost</i>, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
The NFL is having to refund its advertisers because 2020 — where are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to date on the election news , the curiously incurious coverage of Andrew Cuomo , and lots more !
• Get ready for a fresh look at urban issues and economic policies in the new film America Lost .
Christopher Rufo joins us to discuss economic decline and “ the new American poverty.
” Watch the trailer below : The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. The NFL is having to refund its advertisers because 2020 — where are the viewers? We’ll bring you up to date on the election news, the curiously incurious coverage of Andrew Cuomo, and lots more!
Get ready for a fresh look at urban issues and economic policies in the new film America Lost. Christopher Rufo joins us to discuss economic decline and “the new American poverty.” Watch the trailer below:
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-12-15--The vaccine naysayers got it wrong (Update)

Today I ’ m reminded of the host of media experts who flogged the seriousness and reliability of the Steele dossier for months and years only to evaporate when we later learned that document wasn ’ t reliable .
To his great credit , the Washington Post ’ s Erik Wemple devoted 10 articles to tracking down some of the dossier ’ s promoters and asking them how they felt about it in retrospect .
As I pointed out at the time , a lot of the journalists he spoke with had no comment .
People like MSNBC ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key part of her program for years simply moved on to greener pastures .
There was zero price to pay for being so wrong for so long about something so important .
I ’ m reminded of that today because of this Twitter thread by Glenn Greenwald highlighted by Twitchy .
Greenwald points out that some of the same outlets flogging the the dossier were also confident that a vaccine by the end of the year was a pipe dream .
Stop and enjoy the smug condescension in this first clip from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was wrong , but Greenwald argues he never made any real effort to get it right .
MSNBC ’ s anti-Trump mandate took precedence .
His job was to give people the news of impending failure they wanted and that ’ s what he did .
Greenwald focuses on a couple of individuals but as this clip put together by MRC TV demonstrates , the naysaying by the media was pretty widespread at the time ( though it seemed especially prevalent at MSNBC ) : So here we are in mid-December and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being given to a nurse in New York .
The media oversold the idea that this was impossible because it suited their pre-determined narrative .
Now that we know they were wrong is there any accountability for that ?
I don ’ t mean people being fired .
How about a public admission that they downplayed this and they were wrong .
Maybe a few individuals like Dr. Redlener have made those admissions but that still leaves a lot of people who haven ’ t .
Update : Found a few more of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this from the Washington Post :

Today I’m reminded of the host of media experts who flogged the seriousness and reliability of the Steele dossier for months and years only to evaporate when we later learned that document wasn’t reliable. To his great credit, the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple devoted 10 articles to tracking down some of the dossier’s promoters and asking them how they felt about it in retrospect. As I pointed out at the time, a lot of the journalists he spoke with had no comment. People like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who made the dossier a key part of her program for years simply moved on to greener pastures. There was zero price to pay for being so wrong for so long about something so important.
I’m reminded of that today because of this Twitter thread by Glenn Greenwald highlighted by Twitchy. Greenwald points out that some of the same outlets flogging the the dossier were also confident that a vaccine by the end of the year was a pipe dream. Stop and enjoy the smug condescension in this first clip from MSNBC:
In May — after Trump said there'd be a COVID vaccine by year's end — MSNBC put on its medical expert, @IrwinRedlenerMD, to assure viewers that it was *impossible* — not unlikely, but "impossible" — for there to be a safe and effective vaccine ready before 2021. pic.twitter.com/tLCM8ILHUg — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 15, 2020
So both MSNBC and CNN analysts spread extreme mistrust about the impossibility of the COVID vaccine that has now arrived — purely for their own selfish ends. They spent 4 years saying *anything*, without regard if it was true, just to feed anti-Trump fanatics what they wanted. — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 15, 2020
Dr. Redlener has since admitted he was wrong, but Greenwald argues he never made any real effort to get it right. MSNBC’s anti-Trump mandate took precedence. His job was to give people the news of impending failure they wanted and that’s what he did.
In a separate tweet, Dr. Redlener claims he was "wrong" about this. He wasn't "wrong." That implies a good faith effort to get it right. His job, like everyone on MSNBC, was so to spread disinformation to help Dems & keep the MSNBC audience addicted to endorphins & fear. 👇 pic.twitter.com/cZ4MrXI0ZE — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 15, 2020
Greenwald focuses on a couple of individuals but as this clip put together by MRC TV demonstrates, the naysaying by the media was pretty widespread at the time (though it seemed especially prevalent at MSNBC):
So here we are in mid-December and yesterday we had the first vaccine dose being given to a nurse in New York.
The media oversold the idea that this was impossible because it suited their pre-determined narrative. Now that we know they were wrong is there any accountability for that? I don’t mean people being fired. How about a public admission that they downplayed this and they were wrong. Maybe a few individuals like Dr. Redlener have made those admissions but that still leaves a lot of people who haven’t.
Update: Found a few more of these confident naysayers on Twitter:
Every expert has said that there will be no vaccine before the end of the year, but here is Trump repeating his lie that he wants a vaccine by the end of the year or sooner. pic.twitter.com/iDN8J9cqSD — Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) May 15, 2020
Could a vaccine be ready by the end of the year, as President Trump has suggested? @edyong209: “This particular administration has a track record of making exaggerated claims… Optimism isn’t going to deliver one; research will, and research takes a lot of time.” pic.twitter.com/KHw6PFGR8G — Christiane Amanpour (@camanpour) May 15, 2020
The president said today he that he wants the nation to return to normal, with or without a vaccine. Still, he says a vaccine will be ready by the end of the year – a timeline experts say is unlikely.
@PaulaReidCBS reports pic.twitter.com/EsClFtt8NC — Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) May 15, 2020
President Trump said he hopes to have a coronavirus vaccine by the end of the year. “I don't see a path by which any vaccine is licensed — whether it’s emergency use or otherwise — until the third quarter of 2021,” Dr. Peter Hotez says. https://t.co/8GKQJj9VJJ pic.twitter.com/NQaS6zVdRg — CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) May 15, 2020
FAUCI: Optimistic that a #COVID19 vaccine will be found in a year or two. TRUMP: "We're going to have a vaccine by the end of the year."@realdonaldtrump continues the undermine medical expertise & lie to "save face." He cannot be trusted. pic.twitter.com/dUVMZ7kO2I — American Bridge 21st Century (@American_Bridge) May 14, 2020
#coronavirus vaccine doses by year's end as #Trump admin says? Unlikely, says Dr @amyleecp3 whose own team at @ProvHosp is working on vaccines. Also, where's the #CDC playbook? "We'd like to see the CDC unchained". And is the public getting complacent? #COVID19 pic.twitter.com/W5XjZWnmnX — Michael Holmes (@holmescnn) May 16, 2020
Discussing vaccine timeline with @drsanjaygupta on @CNNSitRoom: I have a hard time seeing how we can get a vaccine developed, manufactured & administered by end of the year, especially seeing the inability of getting widespread testing out. #covid19 pic.twitter.com/sB9KDkbmLf — Leana Wen, M.D. (@DrLeanaWen) May 15, 2020
And this from the Washington Post:
President Trump’s optimistic assessment that a coronavirus vaccine will be ready by the end of the year just got doused in cold water by a former top vaccine official.