hotair--2020-10-19--Cuomo: Yes, Americans should be skeptical of a vaccine approved by Trump's FDA

He must be jealous that New Jersey still leads his state in COVID deaths per capita and is doing what he can to try to make up the gap .
Here ’ s the political backdrop against which this idiot is discouraging people from trusting the FDA : The good news is that there ’ s reason to think confidence in the vaccine will increase within both parties in the months ahead .
It won ’ t be approved before the election but it might be authorized in the weeks following and in all likelihood by the end of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Trump ’ s watch irrespective of the outcome on November 3 , which should boost trust among Republicans .
And of course , if Biden wins , he ’ ll become the vaccine salesman-in-chief come January 21st , giving Democrats reason to abandon their own partisan skepticism .
But the more suspicious Americans are now , the lower the baseline will be next year of people willing to get the vaccine and thus the more time and effort it ’ ll take to bring holdouts along .
Why isn ’ t Darth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any politician on whether to trust the FDA is balancing the need to encourage public acceptance of the vaccine with the plain fact that Trump *has* politicized the FDA approval process , and not for the first time .
He leaned on the agency successfully to authorize hydroxychloroquine and later convalescent plasma for emergency use despite the fact that there were no randomized clinical trials affirming the efficacy of either .
That gave the FDA a black eye among doctors and scientists — but , to his credit , FDA chief Stephen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing lately to try to rebuild public trust that the vaccine approval process will be different .
The agency ’ s new rules slowing down the phase three trials are aimed at showing Americans that authorization will happen on a timetable warranted by scientific method , not the president ’ s electoral interests .
Trump being Trump , he naturally didn ’ t like that and took a moment recently to undermine confidence in the FDA himself : Cuomo should have pointed to that FDA rule change in his interview this morning as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the vaccine when it arrives .
It ’ s fine for him to have his own independent medical panel analyze the data from the phase three trials — doctors all over the country will be doing the same thing and opining on TV and in print media , lending consensus support for the vaccine ( hopefully ) — but Hahn and his agency are doing their best lately to show good faith .
Yet here ’ s Cuomo pissing away an opportunity to highlight that , knowing that it means inevitably that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more hesitant to get the vaccine once it arrives .
Inexcusable , especially since there ’ s still a chance that Trump will be president next year .
If Democrats are all-in on “ you can ’ t trust Trump ’ s FDA ” as a message , a lot of work will need to be done to bring their base back into the pro-vaccine fold in 2021 .
At least when Kamala Harris expressed some skepticism of Trump ’ s FDA , she added that she ’ d take the vaccine if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ll leave you with this bit from last night ’ s “ 60 Minutes .
”

He must be jealous that New Jersey still leads his state in COVID deaths per capita and is doing what he can to try to make up the gap.
Gov. @andrewcuomo: Americans “should be” skeptical of any Covid vaccine the CDC/FDA clear for use pic.twitter.com/yBkVsXIOWn — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 19, 2020
Here’s the political backdrop against which this idiot is discouraging people from trusting the FDA:
The good news is that there’s reason to think confidence in the vaccine will increase within both parties in the months ahead. It won’t be approved before the election but it might be authorized in the weeks following and in all likelihood by the end of the year. All of that will happen on Trump’s watch irrespective of the outcome on November 3, which should boost trust among Republicans. And of course, if Biden wins, he’ll become the vaccine salesman-in-chief come January 21st, giving Democrats reason to abandon their own partisan skepticism.
But the more suspicious Americans are now, the lower the baseline will be next year of people willing to get the vaccine and thus the more time and effort it’ll take to bring holdouts along. Why isn’t Darth Cuomo thinking about that?
The dilemma for any politician on whether to trust the FDA is balancing the need to encourage public acceptance of the vaccine with the plain fact that Trump *has* politicized the FDA approval process, and not for the first time. He leaned on the agency successfully to authorize hydroxychloroquine and later convalescent plasma for emergency use despite the fact that there were no randomized clinical trials affirming the efficacy of either. That gave the FDA a black eye among doctors and scientists — but, to his credit, FDA chief Stephen Hahn seems to be doing the right thing lately to try to rebuild public trust that the vaccine approval process will be different. The agency’s new rules slowing down the phase three trials are aimed at showing Americans that authorization will happen on a timetable warranted by scientific method, not the president’s electoral interests.
Trump being Trump, he naturally didn’t like that and took a moment recently to undermine confidence in the FDA himself:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313647605134614529
Cuomo should have pointed to that FDA rule change in his interview this morning as a reason why Americans *should* be confident in the vaccine when it arrives. It’s fine for him to have his own independent medical panel analyze the data from the phase three trials — doctors all over the country will be doing the same thing and opining on TV and in print media, lending consensus support for the vaccine (hopefully) — but Hahn and his agency are doing their best lately to show good faith. Yet here’s Cuomo pissing away an opportunity to highlight that, knowing that it means inevitably that New Yorkers and other Democrats will be more hesitant to get the vaccine once it arrives.
Inexcusable, especially since there’s still a chance that Trump will be president next year. If Democrats are all-in on “you can’t trust Trump’s FDA” as a message, a lot of work will need to be done to bring their base back into the pro-vaccine fold in 2021. At least when Kamala Harris expressed some skepticism of Trump’s FDA, she added that she’d take the vaccine if Fauci recommended it.
Speaking of which, I’ll leave you with this bit from last night’s “60 Minutes.”


hotair--2020-10-19--Trump approves funding for revolutionary nuclear power plant

Back in August , we looked at an exciting new energy project that ’ s unfolding in Idaho but which has run into funding issues along with some political skulduggery .
The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems is working with a company named NuScale to build the first Small Modular Reactor ( SMR ) in the nation .
This revolutionary technology involves a nuclear reactor that can be constructed from small , individual modules ( as the name suggests ) that are assembled at a central facility and can then be transported to the site where they will be put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added as demand increases , offering more flexibility .
The finished plant also takes up far less land than conventional reactors .
Unfortunately , the plan has been criticized for the total costs involved .
In addition , as I pointed out in the article linked above , a liberal activist group from California ( posing as a group of “ concerned ” Utah hunters and fishermen ) have been lobbying against the proposal and trying to convince the local utility companies to pull out of the project .
Some of those cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however .
The Trump administration has approved a $ 1.4 billion grant through the Department of Energy to make the SMR installation more affordable .
( Washington Examiner ) A company racing to be among the first to operate a small nuclear reactor in the United States received a vote of confidence from the federal government Friday after encountering recent roadblocks .
The Energy Department approved a $ 1.4 billion grant to help defray costs for a group of utilities that are the first in line to buy power from the reactors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Associated Municipal Power Systems , a group of small , community-owned utilities in six Western states , had previously indicated the group might pull out of the NuScale project unless it received the extra funding from the government .
I ’ ll confess that government funding of projects in the energy industry always sets my teeth on edge .
This grant definitely carries the appearance of the federal government picking winners and losers , something that rarely works out well in the long run .
It ’ s reminiscent of Washington ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethanol industry at the expense of the oil and gas industry , which has proven to be a disaster .
This project , however , has some unique aspects that should probably lead us to tolerate this sort of financial intervention .
Ethanol was already a long-proven technology when Uncle Sam stuck his beak into the matter .
These SMRs are new , cutting edge technology that may need some short-term incentivizing to demonstrate the viability of the concept .
In addition to the smaller physical footprint I mentioned above , these reactors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of spent fuel rods .
They should be able to operate for many decades with lower operational and security costs .
And for those of you who remain focused on carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses , nuclear power plants don ’ t produce any .
It ’ s some of the “ greenest ” energy available on the planet aside from solar and hydroelectric .
We ’ re pretty much maxed out on waterfalls at the moment and nuclear power plants keep working after the sun goes down .
With all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayer money could be seen as a justifiable investment if it allows this nascent technology to get off the ground .
America ’ s nuclear power industry is basically in its death throes right now , due almost entirely to oppressive government regulation of traditional nuclear power plants .
It ’ s simply too expensive to build a plant and get it approved so utility companies have been very reluctant to try building new ones .
NuScale ’ s process could make nuclear power far more attractive again and solve many of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond .
America is the world leader in oil and gas energy at the moment , but that ’ s not going to last forever .
Clean , safe nuclear power may well be our saving grace in the future .

Back in August, we looked at an exciting new energy project that’s unfolding in Idaho but which has run into funding issues along with some political skulduggery. The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems is working with a company named NuScale to build the first Small Modular Reactor (SMR) in the nation. This revolutionary technology involves a nuclear reactor that can be constructed from small, individual modules (as the name suggests) that are assembled at a central facility and can then be transported to the site where they will be put in operation. New modules can be added as demand increases, offering more flexibility. The finished plant also takes up far less land than conventional reactors.
Unfortunately, the plan has been criticized for the total costs involved. In addition, as I pointed out in the article linked above, a liberal activist group from California (posing as a group of “concerned” Utah hunters and fishermen) have been lobbying against the proposal and trying to convince the local utility companies to pull out of the project. Some of those cost concerns may have been allayed this week, however. The Trump administration has approved a $1.4 billion grant through the Department of Energy to make the SMR installation more affordable. (Washington Examiner)
A company racing to be among the first to operate a small nuclear reactor in the United States received a vote of confidence from the federal government Friday after encountering recent roadblocks. The Energy Department approved a $1.4 billion grant to help defray costs for a group of utilities that are the first in line to buy power from the reactors produced by NuScale Power. The Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, a group of small, community-owned utilities in six Western states, had previously indicated the group might pull out of the NuScale project unless it received the extra funding from the government.
I’ll confess that government funding of projects in the energy industry always sets my teeth on edge. This grant definitely carries the appearance of the federal government picking winners and losers, something that rarely works out well in the long run. It’s reminiscent of Washington’s incentives and mandates designed to bolster the ethanol industry at the expense of the oil and gas industry, which has proven to be a disaster.
This project, however, has some unique aspects that should probably lead us to tolerate this sort of financial intervention. Ethanol was already a long-proven technology when Uncle Sam stuck his beak into the matter. These SMRs are new, cutting edge technology that may need some short-term incentivizing to demonstrate the viability of the concept.
In addition to the smaller physical footprint I mentioned above, these reactors create far less hazardous waste in the form of spent fuel rods. They should be able to operate for many decades with lower operational and security costs. And for those of you who remain focused on carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses, nuclear power plants don’t produce any. It’s some of the “greenest” energy available on the planet aside from solar and hydroelectric. We’re pretty much maxed out on waterfalls at the moment and nuclear power plants keep working after the sun goes down.
With all that in mind, a one-time injection of taxpayer money could be seen as a justifiable investment if it allows this nascent technology to get off the ground. America’s nuclear power industry is basically in its death throes right now, due almost entirely to oppressive government regulation of traditional nuclear power plants. It’s simply too expensive to build a plant and get it approved so utility companies have been very reluctant to try building new ones. NuScale’s process could make nuclear power far more attractive again and solve many of our energy issues into the next century and beyond. America is the world leader in oil and gas energy at the moment, but that’s not going to last forever. Clean, safe nuclear power may well be our saving grace in the future.


hotair--2020-10-19--Ratcliffe to Schiff: No, the intel community hasn't called Hunter's laptop "Russian disinformation"

What DNI John Ratcliffe doesn ’ t say here is almost more important than what he does say .
Is Hunter Biden ’ s laptop part of a Russian disinformation campaign , as Adam Schiff claims the intelligence community believes ?
That ’ s news to Ratcliffe , who tells Fox ’ s Maria Bartiromo that the intelligence community hasn ’ t been consulted on the topic .
Ratcliffe blasts Schiff for making false claims about intelligence estimates , and says he took the job as DNI in order to prevent people like Schiff from politicizing intelligence .
Ratcliffe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question of authenticity , noting pointedly that the FBI has jurisdiction , not intelligence agencies : Ratcliffe ’ s correct about jurisdiction , to a point .
Under FISA laws , Hunter Biden is a US person and therefore excluded from intelligence gathering without a FISA warrant .
That jurisdiction belongs to the FBI , which has its own counter-intelligence operations .
If this did involve Russian disinformation , however , the FBI would likely be consulting with intelligence agencies for information on those efforts .
The Patriot Act allows for that kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ratcliffe , specifically the National Counterintelligence and Security Center ( NCSC ) .
That would allow the intelligence agencies to work in tandem on this particular potential penetration , if the laptop was seeded with agitprop disinformation .
It ’ s worth noting , on jurisdiction , that Schiff could have gotten that estimate from the FBI rather than the agencies under Ratcliffe .
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have some oversight of the FBI ’ s counter-intel work .
It does seem unlikely , though , that the FBI would reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
Or at least without Ratcliffe being aware of those assessments .
Note too that Ratcliffe avoids answering Bartiromo on the authenticity of the data .
All Ratcliffe is saying is that Schiff ’ s lying about intelligence estimates on the issue , not opining on the legitimacy of the e-mails .
If Ratcliffe ’ s correct and the FBI hasn ’ t shared the data with the intelligence community , then he ’ s right to avoid answering it .
How can he know whether it ’ s authentic when his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to review it ?
And that raises other questions .
If the FBI hasn ’ t brought the laptop to Ratcliffe ’ s agencies , then they must not be terribly concerned about the laptop being a component of a foreign disinformation campaigns — Russian or otherwise .
They ’ ve had it for almost a year , too ; if it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign , why didn ’ t the FBI inform the relevant intelligence committees in the House and Senate before now ?
Sen. Ron Johnson and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it from an “ intermediary ” of the computer repairman who worked on the laptop .
Ratcliffe notes that the FBI also has jurisdiction on “ fraud.
” It ’ s possible that this isn ’ t an intelligence or corruption issue , but just plain ol ’ fraud — someone using hacked material to perpetrate a fraud for domestic political purposes .
That ’ s a possibility to keep in mind too , especially for something that dropped into the FBI ’ s lap in the middle of an impeachment … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Post three weeks before an election .
Read Byron York ’ s warning to Republicans and conservatives about the trap of leaping to belief on the basis of non-refutation .
That didn ’ t work out too well for Democrats in the end with the Steele dossier .

What DNI John Ratcliffe doesn’t say here is almost more important than what he does say. Is Hunter Biden’s laptop part of a Russian disinformation campaign, as Adam Schiff claims the intelligence community believes? That’s news to Ratcliffe, who tells Fox’s Maria Bartiromo that the intelligence community hasn’t been consulted on the topic. Ratcliffe blasts Schiff for making false claims about intelligence estimates, and says he took the job as DNI in order to prevent people like Schiff from politicizing intelligence.
Ratcliffe, however, keeps his distance from the question of authenticity, noting pointedly that the FBI has jurisdiction, not intelligence agencies:
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe blasts Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff for leveraging a political narrative. "Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign." pic.twitter.com/49SSjhfQuN — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) October 19, 2020
Ratcliffe’s correct about jurisdiction, to a point. Under FISA laws, Hunter Biden is a US person and therefore excluded from intelligence gathering without a FISA warrant. That jurisdiction belongs to the FBI, which has its own counter-intelligence operations. If this did involve Russian disinformation, however, the FBI would likely be consulting with intelligence agencies for information on those efforts. The Patriot Act allows for that kind of coordination within the counterintel bureaus under Ratcliffe, specifically the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC). That would allow the intelligence agencies to work in tandem on this particular potential penetration, if the laptop was seeded with agitprop disinformation.
It’s worth noting, on jurisdiction, that Schiff could have gotten that estimate from the FBI rather than the agencies under Ratcliffe. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have some oversight of the FBI’s counter-intel work. It does seem unlikely, though, that the FBI would reach that conclusion without engaging Ratcliffe’s office. Or at least without Ratcliffe being aware of those assessments.
Note too that Ratcliffe avoids answering Bartiromo on the authenticity of the data. All Ratcliffe is saying is that Schiff’s lying about intelligence estimates on the issue, not opining on the legitimacy of the e-mails. If Ratcliffe’s correct and the FBI hasn’t shared the data with the intelligence community, then he’s right to avoid answering it. How can he know whether it’s authentic when his agencies haven’t had a chance to review it?
And that raises other questions. If the FBI hasn’t brought the laptop to Ratcliffe’s agencies, then they must not be terribly concerned about the laptop being a component of a foreign disinformation campaigns — Russian or otherwise. They’ve had it for almost a year, too; if it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign, why didn’t the FBI inform the relevant intelligence committees in the House and Senate before now? Sen. Ron Johnson and other members of Congress only found out about it from an “intermediary” of the computer repairman who worked on the laptop.
Ratcliffe notes that the FBI also has jurisdiction on “fraud.” It’s possible that this isn’t an intelligence or corruption issue, but just plain ol’ fraud — someone using hacked material to perpetrate a fraud for domestic political purposes. That’s a possibility to keep in mind too, especially for something that dropped into the FBI’s lap in the middle of an impeachment … and then into the hands of the New York Post three weeks before an election. Read Byron York’s warning to Republicans and conservatives about the trap of leaping to belief on the basis of non-refutation. That didn’t work out too well for Democrats in the end with the Steele dossier.


hotair--2020-10-19--Aurora, Colorado residents figure out that the police aren't protecting them anymore

We ’ ve already seen two instances where the police in Aurora , Colorado have “ stood down ” when facing violent felons .
The first incident involved a guy with a lengthy rap sheet who was exposing himself to young girls , destroying property , and threatening harm to the residents of an apartment complex .
The cops stood down twice in two days rather than taking him into custody .
The more recent incident involved a child abuse suspect with multiple warrants and who was on parole , who barricaded himself inside his home with one of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walked away that time also and the perpetrator is still on the loose .
After that discouraging encounter , I pondered whether people would begin to notice the fact that the men and women in blue who are supposed to be protecting and serving don ’ t seem to be doing as much of either these days .
I also noted that their new Chief of Police had publicly announced an agenda of having fewer “ conflicts ” with suspects where her cops might have to use force against a dangerous criminal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the locals have indeed noticed this pattern and they ’ re telling reporters about it .
( CBS4 Denver ) When Aurora City Councilman Dave Gruber sat down for an interview with CBS4 , he said he had just received an email from one of his constituents .
“ Please deal with crime .
I don ’ t feel safe in Aurora anymore , ” Gruber quoted the email as saying .
Indeed , Aurora has seen a significant rise in violent crime .
When CBS4 compared the first nine months of 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it showed significant increases in major violent crimes .
So just how bad has it gotten in Aurora ?
As of the end of the last reporting period , murders were up 72.2 % over the same period last year .
Armed assaults were up 34.3 % and robberies were up 31 % .
All major violent crime categories were up 24.4 % and Grand Theft Auto ( not the video game ) was up 53.3 % from last year , while burglaries are up 13.9 % .
I don ’ t care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s far more than a statistical blip .
Here ’ s the kicker that ties into what I mentioned above about the new Chief of Police .
Physical arrests of suspects are down 44.6 % from 2019 .
In other words , crime in virtually every category is going up but the police are arresting barely half as many people .
Can that really just be a coincidence ?
The City Councilman that CBS4 spoke to is blaming the rising crime on a number of factors .
The Councilman seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit here .
He ’ s blaming “ less respect for the police ” as well as cops who are “ more reluctant to go hands-on.
” I would argue that the two factors are completely interrelated .
Do you really believe that the cops decided to be less interactive on their own ?
And when they aren ’ t going after the suspects as much , the criminals notice and feel freer to run wild .
The head of the local police union was less subtle about it .
Union President Judy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a recent Senate Bill that restricted the arrest tactics cops can use , and “ social justice warrior police leadership.
” That last point is obviously a shot across the bow at Chief Wilson , who put most of these new rules in place .
But the Police Chief serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and the City Council .
If concerned citizens have reached the point where they are telling their elected leaders that they literally “ no longer feel safe , ” then isn ’ t it time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonsense and get a Police Chief who actually wants to arrest criminals ?
If not , perhaps it ’ s time for the citizens of Aurora to elect some leaders with a clue .

We’ve already seen two instances where the police in Aurora, Colorado have “stood down” when facing violent felons. The first incident involved a guy with a lengthy rap sheet who was exposing himself to young girls, destroying property, and threatening harm to the residents of an apartment complex. The cops stood down twice in two days rather than taking him into custody. The more recent incident involved a child abuse suspect with multiple warrants and who was on parole, who barricaded himself inside his home with one of his children and some firearms. The cops walked away that time also and the perpetrator is still on the loose.
After that discouraging encounter, I pondered whether people would begin to notice the fact that the men and women in blue who are supposed to be protecting and serving don’t seem to be doing as much of either these days. I also noted that their new Chief of Police had publicly announced an agenda of having fewer “conflicts” with suspects where her cops might have to use force against a dangerous criminal. As it turns out, some of the locals have indeed noticed this pattern and they’re telling reporters about it. (CBS4 Denver)
When Aurora City Councilman Dave Gruber sat down for an interview with CBS4, he said he had just received an email from one of his constituents. “Please deal with crime. I don’t feel safe in Aurora anymore,” Gruber quoted the email as saying. Indeed, Aurora has seen a significant rise in violent crime. When CBS4 compared the first nine months of 2020 to the same period in 2019, it showed significant increases in major violent crimes.
So just how bad has it gotten in Aurora? As of the end of the last reporting period, murders were up 72.2% over the same period last year. Armed assaults were up 34.3% and robberies were up 31%. All major violent crime categories were up 24.4% and Grand Theft Auto (not the video game) was up 53.3% from last year, while burglaries are up 13.9%. I don’t care what you try to ascribe this to. It’s far more than a statistical blip.
Here’s the kicker that ties into what I mentioned above about the new Chief of Police. Physical arrests of suspects are down 44.6% from 2019. In other words, crime in virtually every category is going up but the police are arresting barely half as many people. Can that really just be a coincidence?
The City Councilman that CBS4 spoke to is blaming the rising crime on a number of factors.
“Crime across the board is going up. We’re having a lot of problems,” said Gruber. He believes there are a number of factors including increased gang violence, major car theft rings, less respect for police and a police force that is more reluctant to go “hands-on.”
The Councilman seems to be dancing around the subject a bit here. He’s blaming “less respect for the police” as well as cops who are “more reluctant to go hands-on.” I would argue that the two factors are completely interrelated. Do you really believe that the cops decided to be less interactive on their own? And when they aren’t going after the suspects as much, the criminals notice and feel freer to run wild. The head of the local police union was less subtle about it.
Union President Judy Lutkin blamed emboldened criminals, the passage of a recent Senate Bill that restricted the arrest tactics cops can use, and “social justice warrior police leadership.” That last point is obviously a shot across the bow at Chief Wilson, who put most of these new rules in place. But the Police Chief serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and the City Council. If concerned citizens have reached the point where they are telling their elected leaders that they literally “no longer feel safe,” then isn’t it time to dial back most of this social justice nonsense and get a Police Chief who actually wants to arrest criminals? If not, perhaps it’s time for the citizens of Aurora to elect some leaders with a clue.


hotair--2020-10-19--Johnson to Wray: Tell us everything about Hunter Biden's alleged laptop

Ron Johnson asks a good question , even if he may not like the eventual answer .
Why didn ’ t the FBI make the information on Hunter Biden ’ s alleged laptop available to the House and Senate during the impeachment of Donald Trump ?
According to the New York Post , the hard drive contained information relating to the issue of potential corruption between the Bidens and Ukraine , the probe of which touched off impeachment in the first place .
There are two possibilities , both of which the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee shares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Ron Johnson is calling on FBI Director Christopher Wray to confirm or deny details regarding a laptop said to have belonged to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter Biden .
Johnson , R-Wis. , said in a letter to Wray obtained by Fox News that a whistleblower contacted his committee on September 24 , claiming to possess a laptop that Hunter Biden left at his business , and that he had turned it over to the FBI .
Johnson noted that staff immediately asked the FBI to confirm certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the bureau said they would not confirm or deny any of the information included in their request .
“ I have a responsibility to validate and verify the contents of any information produced to my committee , ” Johnson said in his letter .
“ The committee must know if it receives information that could be fraudulent or not accurate.
” Johnson mentioned the possibility that the information could be the result of foreign election interference , in which case a defensive briefing would be appropriate .
He also acknowledged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that could be a crime .
“ For these reasons , the committee must know whether the FBI has assessed the validity of materials the whistleblower has provided , and what , if any , actions the FBI has taken since obtaining this information , ” Johnson continued .
If the laptop and data are on the level , then Wray has some explaining to do .
The FBI would have been duty bound to alert the congressional committees to the existence of this evidence , especially in the context of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it also would have been necessary in the context of a presidential contest in which a potentially corrupt politician was vying for and won the nomination from one of the two major parties .
Even if the FBI couldn ’ t develop the information quickly , it certainly should have been able to get that information to Johnson ’ s committee , or the Senate Intelligence or Judiciary committees , in time for the trial .
However , the second scenario — mentioned explicitly by Johnson to Bartiromo — might explain why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the laptop was planted by a foreign intelligence service that blended Hunter Biden ’ s data ( hacked ) with false information in the form of phony Burisma e-mails , it could take the FBI a long time to unwind the authentic from the phony .
In that case , the FBI would need to remain quiet about the probe until it settled how much of this was authentic , and how much was potential disinformation and election interference .
Briefing Congress could have meant a leak of the information that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other , depending on what was reported and when .
This scenario would explain why the Biden camp is still being cautious about denials , although it ’ s getting pretty late in the game for that now .
If some of the e-mails are authentic while others are not , they may be parsing their words until they can see the data for themselves and point out which is which .
A broad denial on their part would backfire if other e-mails and messages in the same trove get authenticated .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committing to a position , or at least it was at first .
Unfortunately , we ’ re well past the stages of manipulation and spin now .
The only way to settle this is to get the FBI to meet with all of the relevant congressional committees and detail their findings — if any — about the laptop .
They have had almost a year to figure out which of the two most likely scenarios is true , or if neither of them are true and there ’ s a third scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Ron Johnson asks a good question, even if he may not like the eventual answer. Why didn’t the FBI make the information on Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop available to the House and Senate during the impeachment of Donald Trump? According to the New York Post, the hard drive contained information relating to the issue of potential corruption between the Bidens and Ukraine, the probe of which touched off impeachment in the first place.
There are two possibilities, both of which the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee shares with Fox’s Maria Bartiromo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1QwK1A7MtE
Sen. Ron Johnson is calling on FBI Director Christopher Wray to confirm or deny details regarding a laptop said to have belonged to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Johnson, R-Wis., said in a letter to Wray obtained by Fox News that a whistleblower contacted his committee on September 24, claiming to possess a laptop that Hunter Biden left at his business, and that he had turned it over to the FBI. Johnson noted that staff immediately asked the FBI to confirm certain details in order to validate the claim, but the bureau said they would not confirm or deny any of the information included in their request. “I have a responsibility to validate and verify the contents of any information produced to my committee,” Johnson said in his letter. “The committee must know if it receives information that could be fraudulent or not accurate.” Johnson mentioned the possibility that the information could be the result of foreign election interference, in which case a defensive briefing would be appropriate. He also acknowledged that if the whistleblower knowingly provided false information, that could be a crime. “For these reasons, the committee must know whether the FBI has assessed the validity of materials the whistleblower has provided, and what, if any, actions the FBI has taken since obtaining this information,” Johnson continued.
If the laptop and data are on the level, then Wray has some explaining to do. The FBI would have been duty bound to alert the congressional committees to the existence of this evidence, especially in the context of an impeachment proceeding. For that matter, it also would have been necessary in the context of a presidential contest in which a potentially corrupt politician was vying for and won the nomination from one of the two major parties. Even if the FBI couldn’t develop the information quickly, it certainly should have been able to get that information to Johnson’s committee, or the Senate Intelligence or Judiciary committees, in time for the trial.
However, the second scenario — mentioned explicitly by Johnson to Bartiromo — might explain why the FBI is still grinding its gears. If the laptop was planted by a foreign intelligence service that blended Hunter Biden’s data (hacked) with false information in the form of phony Burisma e-mails, it could take the FBI a long time to unwind the authentic from the phony. In that case, the FBI would need to remain quiet about the probe until it settled how much of this was authentic, and how much was potential disinformation and election interference. Briefing Congress could have meant a leak of the information that could get manipulated by one party or the other, depending on what was reported and when.
This scenario would explain why the Biden camp is still being cautious about denials, although it’s getting pretty late in the game for that now. If some of the e-mails are authentic while others are not, they may be parsing their words until they can see the data for themselves and point out which is which. A broad denial on their part would backfire if other e-mails and messages in the same trove get authenticated. It’s better for them to avoid committing to a position, or at least it was at first.
Unfortunately, we’re well past the stages of manipulation and spin now. The only way to settle this is to get the FBI to meet with all of the relevant congressional committees and detail their findings — if any — about the laptop. They have had almost a year to figure out which of the two most likely scenarios is true, or if neither of them are true and there’s a third scenario we haven’t yet seen.


hotair--2020-10-20--SCOTUS allows 3 day extension for PA ballots

Thanks to the Supreme Court , the odds of knowing who won the presidential election on the night of November 3rd just fell even lower .
Pennsylvania voters have been requesting absentee ballots in record numbers this year and those ballots traditionally had to be received by election day so the counting could begin as soon as the polls closed .
But state Democrats went to court asking for ballots to be considered valid if they were postmarked by election day and received within three days later , on November 6th .
The state supreme court sided with the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis .
Last night the nation ’ s highest court weighed in by failing to weigh in .
The court was deadlocked 4-4 , allowing the state court ’ s decision to stand .
( Associated Press ) The Supreme Court will allow Pennsylvania to count ballots received up to three days after the election , rejecting a Republican plea .
The justices divided 4-4 Monday , an outcome that upholds a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed election officials to receive and count ballots until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have a clear postmark .
Republicans , including President Donald Trump ’ s campaign , have opposed such an extension , arguing that it violates federal law that sets Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and that such a decision constitutionally belongs to lawmakers , not the courts .
Some of the breathless arguments I ’ m already seeing on cable news this morning over this decision are probably a bit overblown .
This is more of a procedural question than one that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election .
While there will no doubt be a significantly larger number of absentee ballots this year than in previous elections , most of them have already been sent out .
If you ’ re a voter who is engaged in the process to the point where you took the trouble to request a ballot in advance , what are the odds that you ’ re going to wait until the actual day of the election has arrived to mail it in ?
I can ’ t imagine the numbers being all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s argument that this rule violates the requirement for the election to end on election day , I can understand how some might see their side of it .
But at the same time , if you vote in person , particularly if your state uses those optical scanning machines , your vote is “ cast ” when you have filled out your selections and fed the ballot into the machine .
So there ’ s a valid argument to be made that mail-in voters have “ cast ” their ballots when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot in the envelope and drop it in the mailbox .
It doesn ’ t sound like that much of a deal-breaker to me .
The bigger news in this story , at least in my opinion , is how the Supreme Court wound up being deadlocked .
No opinions were issued for this emergency ruling ( as usual ) but we know that Chief Justice John Roberts once again sided with the three remaining liberal justices in favor of the Democrats ’ request .
If you still needed more proof as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed and seated as soon as possible , this should be a good reminder .
John Roberts has stated repeatedly that he doesn ’ t want his court to be stigmatized as being ideologically and predictably locked between conservative and liberal justices .
Anthony Kennedy used to fill the role of the “ swing vote ” to detract from that perception .
But with Kennedy and Ginsberg both gone , it appears that Roberts is increasingly taking on that role for himself .
I ’ m guessing he saw the opportunity to project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a case like this one that really could have gone either way and he took it , siding with the liberal justices yet again .
With Barrett on the court , we ’ ll have five solidly conservative , originalist justices making up a majority and Roberts can go vote with the liberals until he ’ s blue in the face if he likes .

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the odds of knowing who won the presidential election on the night of November 3rd just fell even lower. Pennsylvania voters have been requesting absentee ballots in record numbers this year and those ballots traditionally had to be received by election day so the counting could begin as soon as the polls closed. But state Democrats went to court asking for ballots to be considered valid if they were postmarked by election day and received within three days later, on November 6th. The state supreme court sided with the Democrats on Saturday and the issue was appealed to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. Last night the nation’s highest court weighed in by failing to weigh in. The court was deadlocked 4-4, allowing the state court’s decision to stand. (Associated Press)
The Supreme Court will allow Pennsylvania to count ballots received up to three days after the election, rejecting a Republican plea. The justices divided 4-4 Monday, an outcome that upholds a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed election officials to receive and count ballots until Nov. 6, even if they don’t have a clear postmark. Republicans, including President Donald Trump’s campaign, have opposed such an extension, arguing that it violates federal law that sets Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and that such a decision constitutionally belongs to lawmakers, not the courts.
Some of the breathless arguments I’m already seeing on cable news this morning over this decision are probably a bit overblown. This is more of a procedural question than one that’s likely to have a major impact on the election. While there will no doubt be a significantly larger number of absentee ballots this year than in previous elections, most of them have already been sent out. If you’re a voter who is engaged in the process to the point where you took the trouble to request a ballot in advance, what are the odds that you’re going to wait until the actual day of the election has arrived to mail it in? I can’t imagine the numbers being all that huge.
As to the GOP’s argument that this rule violates the requirement for the election to end on election day, I can understand how some might see their side of it. But at the same time, if you vote in person, particularly if your state uses those optical scanning machines, your vote is “cast” when you have filled out your selections and fed the ballot into the machine. So there’s a valid argument to be made that mail-in voters have “cast” their ballots when they mark their selections, place the ballot in the envelope and drop it in the mailbox. It doesn’t sound like that much of a deal-breaker to me.
The bigger news in this story, at least in my opinion, is how the Supreme Court wound up being deadlocked. No opinions were issued for this emergency ruling (as usual) but we know that Chief Justice John Roberts once again sided with the three remaining liberal justices in favor of the Democrats’ request. If you still needed more proof as to why Amy Coney Barrett needs to be confirmed and seated as soon as possible, this should be a good reminder.
John Roberts has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t want his court to be stigmatized as being ideologically and predictably locked between conservative and liberal justices. Anthony Kennedy used to fill the role of the “swing vote” to detract from that perception. But with Kennedy and Ginsberg both gone, it appears that Roberts is increasingly taking on that role for himself. I’m guessing he saw the opportunity to project the impression of “bipartisanship” in a case like this one that really could have gone either way and he took it, siding with the liberal justices yet again. With Barrett on the court, we’ll have five solidly conservative, originalist justices making up a majority and Roberts can go vote with the liberals until he’s blue in the face if he likes.


hotair--2020-10-19--Hope: New York City schools find just 28 COVID infections in 16,000+ tests

Lotta grim news about COVID this past week , as has been the case for nearly the entirety of the past seven months .
The percentages of cases and hospitalizations were up double digits across the U.S. last week .
According to this site , the virus is spreading in 42 states right now and slowing down in just nine ( including D.C. ) .
The United States has the highest total number of cases per capita of any nation in the world with a population of over 40 million , although that may be due to the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of our friends in Europe .
But there is a bright spot .
An important one .
If you read this post , you know that the early data on infections among students and staff at newly reopened schools has been surprisingly and mercifully low .
A study being conducted by an economist at Brown University found that students are typically testing positive at a rate of 0.15 percent or so while staff are testing positive only a tinge more frequently , at around 0.25 percent .
Those numbers suggest that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools , especially elementary schools with younger children , will be mass incubators of the virus .
New York City runs the country ’ s biggest public-school system and has been doing testing of its own .
Result : A positivity rate among students and staff of 0.17 percent , perfectly in line with Brown ’ s findings .
The virus just isn ’ t spreading very much in class , it seems .
Out of 16,348 staff members and students tested randomly by the school system in the first week of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back results for 16,298 .
There were only 28 positives : 20 staff members and eight students .
And when officials put mobile testing units at schools near Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods that have had new outbreaks , only four positive cases turned up — out of more than 3,300 tests conducted since the last week of September… If students can continue to return to class , and parents have more confidence that they can go back to work , that could provide a boost to New York City ’ s halting recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it holds , suggests that the city ’ s efforts for its 1.1 million public school students could serve as an influential model for school districts across the nation .
The data from the mobile testing units works out to a positivity rate of 0.12 percent , again almost spot on with what the study at Brown has measured across hundreds of thousands of students from the data submitted by schools in her study .
In fact , as chance would have it , new data for the period from September 28 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers overseeing that study this afternoon .
Now that students have been back in class for a month or so , might it be that infections are finally on the upswing ?
Nope .
Steady as she goes .
The positivity rate among staff has ticked up slightly , but it ’ s still remarkably low : If I ’ m not mistaken , New York has the lowest statewide positivity rate in the country at 1.21 percent .
Even with rock-bottom community spread , you ’ re less at risk from COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school than you are on average .
Word has gotten around that schools seem to be safer than anyone could have reasonably hoped .
Big school districts are opening up .
Of the 50 largest school districts , 24 have resumed in-person classes for large groups of students , and 11 others plan to in the coming weeks , according to a Washington Post survey .
An additional four have opened , or plan to open , for small groups of students who need extra attention .
Many are in Florida and Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classes , but schools are also open in New York City , Greenville , S.C. , and Alpine , Utah , the state ’ s largest district .
Returns are planned in Charlotte , Baltimore and Denver… The trend is evident , too , in tracking by the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington at Bothell .
In the beginning of September , 24 of 106 mostly urban districts were open for at least some in-person school .
By the end of October , that will rise to 69 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their announced plans .
There ’ s a real I-told-you-so opportunity here for Trump with Election Day bearing down .
Schools were part of his “ reopen everything ” push ; he recognized that getting kids back in class was a necessary first step to getting parents back to work , although of course the jury is still out on whether infections in office spaces would be as uncommon as they are in schools .
If he can stop attacking Fauci for five minutes , he has data here which he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s making progress in getting back to normal despite the threat from the virus .
If nothing else , it ’ s a way for him to parry criticism of how he ’ s handled the pandemic at Thursday ’ s debate : “ There ’ s a cost to keeping things closed too , and sometimes that cost is incurred foolishly .
We took a chance on reopening schools and it ’ s paying off for millions of kids whose educations would have been upended if we stuck to virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see if he seizes the opportunity .

Lotta grim news about COVID this past week, as has been the case for nearly the entirety of the past seven months. The percentages of cases and hospitalizations were up double digits across the U.S. last week. According to this site, the virus is spreading in 42 states right now and slowing down in just nine (including D.C.). The United States has the highest total number of cases per capita of any nation in the world with a population of over 40 million, although that may be due to the fact that we’re testing more aggressively than most of our friends in Europe.
But there is a bright spot. An important one.
If you read this post, you know that the early data on infections among students and staff at newly reopened schools has been surprisingly and mercifully low. A study being conducted by an economist at Brown University found that students are typically testing positive at a rate of 0.15 percent or so while staff are testing positive only a tinge more frequently, at around 0.25 percent. Those numbers suggest that there’s no reason to fear that schools, especially elementary schools with younger children, will be mass incubators of the virus.
New York City runs the country’s biggest public-school system and has been doing testing of its own. Result: A positivity rate among students and staff of 0.17 percent, perfectly in line with Brown’s findings. The virus just isn’t spreading very much in class, it seems.
Out of 16,348 staff members and students tested randomly by the school system in the first week of its testing regimen, the city has gotten back results for 16,298. There were only 28 positives: 20 staff members and eight students. And when officials put mobile testing units at schools near Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods that have had new outbreaks, only four positive cases turned up — out of more than 3,300 tests conducted since the last week of September… If students can continue to return to class, and parents have more confidence that they can go back to work, that could provide a boost to New York City’s halting recovery. The absence of early outbreaks, if it holds, suggests that the city’s efforts for its 1.1 million public school students could serve as an influential model for school districts across the nation.
The data from the mobile testing units works out to a positivity rate of 0.12 percent, again almost spot on with what the study at Brown has measured across hundreds of thousands of students from the data submitted by schools in her study. In fact, as chance would have it, new data for the period from September 28 through October 11 was posted by the researchers overseeing that study this afternoon. Now that students have been back in class for a month or so, might it be that infections are finally on the upswing?
Nope. Steady as she goes.
The positivity rate among staff has ticked up slightly, but it’s still remarkably low:
If I’m not mistaken, New York has the lowest statewide positivity rate in the country at 1.21 percent. Even with rock-bottom community spread, you’re less at risk from COVID if you work in a New York school than you are on average.
Word has gotten around that schools seem to be safer than anyone could have reasonably hoped. Big school districts are opening up.
Of the 50 largest school districts, 24 have resumed in-person classes for large groups of students, and 11 others plan to in the coming weeks, according to a Washington Post survey. An additional four have opened, or plan to open, for small groups of students who need extra attention. Many are in Florida and Texas, where Republican governors are requiring in-person classes, but schools are also open in New York City, Greenville, S.C., and Alpine, Utah, the state’s largest district. Returns are planned in Charlotte, Baltimore and Denver… The trend is evident, too, in tracking by the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington at Bothell. In the beginning of September, 24 of 106 mostly urban districts were open for at least some in-person school. By the end of October, that will rise to 69 out of 106, assuming districts stick with their announced plans.
There’s a real I-told-you-so opportunity here for Trump with Election Day bearing down. Schools were part of his “reopen everything” push; he recognized that getting kids back in class was a necessary first step to getting parents back to work, although of course the jury is still out on whether infections in office spaces would be as uncommon as they are in schools. If he can stop attacking Fauci for five minutes, he has data here which he could tout on the stump as proof that America’s making progress in getting back to normal despite the threat from the virus. If nothing else, it’s a way for him to parry criticism of how he’s handled the pandemic at Thursday’s debate: “There’s a cost to keeping things closed too, and sometimes that cost is incurred foolishly. We took a chance on reopening schools and it’s paying off for millions of kids whose educations would have been upended if we stuck to virtual learning this fall.” We’ll see if he seizes the opportunity.


hotair--2020-10-19--BLM's Marxist co-founders sign on to reap the rewards of capitalism

The three women co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement have all signed on with creative talent representation agencies .
They are all self-avowed “ trained Marxists ” and now they are ready to cash in on capitalism .
It doesn ’ t get much more 2020 than this , does it ?
This is worthy of a *chef ’ s kiss* .
I began noticing that the women were making moves to ink deals with talent agencies beginning last summer .
The irony of their goal of tearing down our capitalist society and replacing it with a Marxist society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all along .
The three women , Patrisse Cullors , Alicia Garza , and Opal Tometi , have all signed on to Hollywood agencies .
Over the weekend , Patrisse Cullors made news for signing a deal with Warner Brothers Television Group ( WBTVG ) .
It is a multi-year , wide-ranging deal .
Generally speaking , Cullors will develop and produce original programming across “ all platforms , including broadcast , cable , and streaming.
” More specifically , her deal includes “ scripted and unscripted series , longform series , animated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital content.
” In other words , she ’ s been given carte blanche by Warner Brothers .
Details of the deal were not announced .
The Marxist doesn ’ t want you to know exactly how big she is cashing in with capitalism , you see .
“ Black voices , especially Black voices who have been historically marginalized , are important and integral to today ’ s storytelling .
Our perspective and amplification is necessary and vital to helping shape a new narrative for our families and communities .
I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new creative role with the Warner Bros. family , ” Cullors said in a statement .
“ As a long time community organizer and social justice activist , I believe that my work behind the camera will be an extension of the work I ’ ve been doing for the last twenty years .
I look forward to amplifying the talent and voices of other Black creatives through my work.
” When Cullors speaks of “ our perspective ” I do wonder if she is speaking about black people in general or black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the thought of Marxist propaganda filtering down to children ’ s programming strike you ?
She has one book out now that is written for young people .
It ’ s title is “ When They Call You a Terrorist : A Story of Black Lives Matter and The Power to Change the World ” .
On her website is a petition to sign to support the Defund the Police movement , as well as a call for abolishing prisons .
She ’ s been influencing young people as a mentor and educator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next generation of AOCs , right ?
First socialists infiltrated schools , now it ’ s Marxists .
What can go wrong ?
A video surfaced from 2015 that shows Cullors describing herself and the other co-founders of BLM as “ trained Marxists ” .
She is a protege Eric Mann , who worked with Bill Ayers , a domestic terrorist from his days in the Weather Underground and friend of Barack Obama .
BLM co-founder Alicia Garza signed with ICM Partners for representation in August .
She is an Oakland-based writer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , influences the next generation as the Principal at the Black Futures Lab and the Black to the Future Action Fund .
Co-founder Opal Tometi also has Hollywood representation .
She signed on with WME last July .
Her focus is on social media and online platforms , as well as immigration rights .
She is here thanks to the generosity of America and was groomed to be a community activist at a young age .
As one of three co-founders of Black Lives Matter , Tometi spearheaded and launched # BLM ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online platforms .
For nearly a decade , she served as the first female Executive Director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration , the leading Black organization for immigrant rights .
A daughter of Nigerian immigrants , Tometi has first-hand experience when it comes to challenges that her tight-knit Black immigrant community faced while growing up in Arizona .
She witnessed the human rights crisis at the US-Mexico border , and at a young age became an outspoken community organizer .
All of these women have received numerous awards , including TIME @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Century , and are currently featured in the Smithsonian ’ s National Museum for African History and Culture .
They are living the dream in capitalist America , free to pursue their Marxist goals .
They are celebrated for their work in bringing about a revolution , inciting riots in the streets in the name of social justice .
Don ’ t be surprised to see Black Lives Matter themes in programming for children as well as adults .
Patrisse Cullors is already ahead in that as a staff writer for Freeform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trouble .
She also was given a role in the show .
I cover that show for NewsBusters and the play on Rep. John Lewis ’ words in the title is no mistake .
The lead characters are social activists and last season ’ s main story centered around the BLM movement .
That show targets a teenage audience and those in their early twenties .

The three women co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement have all signed on with creative talent representation agencies. They are all self-avowed “trained Marxists” and now they are ready to cash in on capitalism. It doesn’t get much more 2020 than this, does it? This is worthy of a *chef’s kiss*.
I began noticing that the women were making moves to ink deals with talent agencies beginning last summer. The irony of their goal of tearing down our capitalist society and replacing it with a Marxist society has been a part of the story all along. The three women, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi, have all signed on to Hollywood agencies. Over the weekend, Patrisse Cullors made news for signing a deal with Warner Brothers Television Group (WBTVG). It is a multi-year, wide-ranging deal. Generally speaking, Cullors will develop and produce original programming across “all platforms, including broadcast, cable, and streaming.” More specifically, her deal includes “scripted and unscripted series, longform series, animated and kids programming, as well as digital content.” In other words, she’s been given carte blanche by Warner Brothers. Details of the deal were not announced. The Marxist doesn’t want you to know exactly how big she is cashing in with capitalism, you see.
“Black voices, especially Black voices who have been historically marginalized, are important and integral to today’s storytelling. Our perspective and amplification is necessary and vital to helping shape a new narrative for our families and communities. I am committed to uplifting these stories in my new creative role with the Warner Bros. family,” Cullors said in a statement. “As a long time community organizer and social justice activist, I believe that my work behind the camera will be an extension of the work I’ve been doing for the last twenty years. I look forward to amplifying the talent and voices of other Black creatives through my work.”
When Cullors speaks of “our perspective” I do wonder if she is speaking about black people in general or black women specifically or Marxists. How does the thought of Marxist propaganda filtering down to children’s programming strike you? She has one book out now that is written for young people. It’s title is “When They Call You a Terrorist: A Story of Black Lives Matter and The Power to Change the World”. On her website is a petition to sign to support the Defund the Police movement, as well as a call for abolishing prisons. She’s been influencing young people as a mentor and educator, too.
Patrisse wears another hat as an educator and academic mentor with Prescott University’s new Social and Environmental Arts MFA. She developed and teaches this MFA program at Prescott University to help students intersect art and activism to develop true social change across racial lines.
She’s teaching the next generation of AOCs, right? First socialists infiltrated schools, now it’s Marxists. What can go wrong? A video surfaced from 2015 that shows Cullors describing herself and the other co-founders of BLM as “trained Marxists”. She is a protege Eric Mann, who worked with Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist from his days in the Weather Underground and friend of Barack Obama.
BLM co-founder Alicia Garza signed with ICM Partners for representation in August. She is an Oakland-based writer and public speaker. She, too, influences the next generation as the Principal at the Black Futures Lab and the Black to the Future Action Fund.
Garza, creator and host of the Lady Don’t Take No podcast, has a number of future projects already lined up. Her first book Purpose Of Power: How We Come Together When We Fall Apart will drop on Oct. 20. She is also set to appear alongside Oprah Winfrey for HBO’s adaptation of Between The World And Me, the New York Times bestseller by Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Co-founder Opal Tometi also has Hollywood representation. She signed on with WME last July. Her focus is on social media and online platforms, as well as immigration rights. She is here thanks to the generosity of America and was groomed to be a community activist at a young age.
As one of three co-founders of Black Lives Matter, Tometi spearheaded and launched #BLM’s social media strategy and launching its online platforms. For nearly a decade, she served as the first female Executive Director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, the leading Black organization for immigrant rights. A daughter of Nigerian immigrants, Tometi has first-hand experience when it comes to challenges that her tight-knit Black immigrant community faced while growing up in Arizona. She witnessed the human rights crisis at the US-Mexico border, and at a young age became an outspoken community organizer.
All of these women have received numerous awards, including TIME 100’s Most influential Women of The Century, and are currently featured in the Smithsonian’s National Museum for African History and Culture. They are living the dream in capitalist America, free to pursue their Marxist goals. They are celebrated for their work in bringing about a revolution, inciting riots in the streets in the name of social justice. Don’t be surprised to see Black Lives Matter themes in programming for children as well as adults. Patrisse Cullors is already ahead in that as a staff writer for Freeform network’s television show, Good Trouble. She also was given a role in the show. I cover that show for NewsBusters and the play on Rep. John Lewis’ words in the title is no mistake. The lead characters are social activists and last season’s main story centered around the BLM movement. That show targets a teenage audience and those in their early twenties.


hotair--2020-10-20--Frank Luntz: Trump's campaign is the worst I've ever seen

The temptation here is to say , “ We ’ ll see what voters think about that on November 3.
” If Trump ’ s all-base-all-the-time strategy succeeds in bringing out Fox viewers and talk-radio fans and assorted other working-class whites in numbers that obliterate Biden ’ s polling advantage , he ’ ll seem crazy like a fox .
In an instant , the conventional wisdom will shift from “ What the hell is this guy doing ?
” to “ I can ’ t believe we underestimated this guy again .
He understands the electorate better than anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right and he loses , especially if he loses big , the view that he ran an historically bad campaign will be commonly held across all demographics , including the GOP .
Even populist righties , the audience he ’ s forever pandering to , will find it convenient to believe that Trump lost because he chose the wrong strategy ( to the extent that they ’ re not all-in on the idea that Biden cheated ) .
That ’ s because populists will be scrambling to explain away his defeat in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpopular .
“ Biden cheated !
” Or “ the media defeated Trump !
” Or “ he sent too many tweets !
” Or , yes , even “ he ran a garbage campaign !
A smarter populist will win next time.
” And you know what ?
A smarter populist might .
The point isn ’ t that Trump has no chance to win because he ’ s run a bad campaign .
He does have a chance .
The point is that he ’ d have a much better chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been so confounding .
He might squeak through with something like 275 electoral votes , as it is .
But a president who oversaw a gangbusters economy , who has some real foreign-policy victories to boast of , and who could have parlayed the burst in public support for political leaders during the early days of the pandemic into more durable popularity if he had approached the crisis more shrewdly shouldn ’ t be struggling to get to 270 .
He should be the favorite , comfortably .
Frank Luntz : “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mis-calibrated than the Trump campaign .
Frankly , his staff ought to be brought up on charges of political malpractice , ” Luntz said .
“ It is the worst campaign I ’ ve ever seen and I ’ ve been watching them since 1980 .
They ’ re on the wrong issues .
They ’ re on the wrong message .
They ’ ve got their heads up their assess .
… Your damn job is to get your candidate to talk about things that are relevant to the people you need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do your damn job then get out.
” … “ Nobody cares about Hunter Biden … why is [ Trump ] spending all his time on him ?
” Luntz asked .
“ Hunter Biden does not help put food on the table .
Hunter Biden does not help anyone get a job .
Hunter Biden does not provide health care or solve COVID .
And Donald Trump spends all of his time focused on that and nobody cares.
” Luntz is being kind to the president in blaming his staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Stepien has any control over what Trump ’ s going to be talking about from moment to moment .
I have yet to see a piece that does this in a comprehensive way , but at some point after the election someone will compile the definitive list of all of the policy positions in 2020 which Trump insisted on taking the minority side on .
Whatever the big-picture policy debate du jour happens to be , particularly when it involves COVID , it ’ s a safe bet that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself with the view favored by 40-45 percent of the public .
Masks ?
The public ’ s all-in but Trump remains ambivalent .
Reopening the country for business ?
The public wanted to go slow but Trump didn ’ t .
Race relations ?
The public wanted a conciliatory approach to the BLM protests this summer but Trump wasn ’ t interested .
A new round of coronavirus stimulus ?
Actually , Trump is aligned with the public on that — but only recently and very belatedly , long past the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans to get a deal done .
Ross Douthat flagged that today in a piece titled , “ Trump Is Giving Up.
” All he had to do was be aggressive on an economic rescue and aggressive on containing the virus and he ’ d be golden right now .
Especially since , even more so than Barack Obama , Trump can trust that his base would have followed him no matter what .
The grand irony of him obsessing about Hunter Biden ’ s laptop is that no other president in modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his fans ’ hobbyhorses .
He could have played straight for the center against Sleepy Joe , knowing that MAGA fans would have turned out in droves anyway .
Instead he just flails at whatever target ’ s in front of him on a given day .
Anthony Fauci , a figure almost uniquely trusted on handling COVID , said something mildly critical of him on “ 60 Minutes ” so Trump took to attacking him yesterday .
Susan Collins , a vulnerable incumbent in the fight of her life , said she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett on process grounds — a completely meaningless vote — and Trump lashed out at her too .
There ’ s no strategy to any of this .
The “ strategy ” is simply Trump believing that his instincts are unerring , even though all his instincts ever do is compel him to keep pandering to his base .
Even Fox News hosts like Steve Doocy have taken to nudging him lately to stop talking about whatever Fox is covering and start talking more about the economy .
That ’ s what Luntz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know you ’ re running a bad one when the people from whom you ’ re taking your cues are telling you , “ You probably shouldn ’ t be taking so many cues from me.
” There ’ s also a lot of crap like this lately , more so than usual .
When the president openly orders the Justice Department to investigate his opponent , when he mocks a governor who just dodged a kidnapping and murder plot aimed at her , do you suppose that ’ s a net winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s losing some votes , I suspect , among people who prefer him to Biden on policy but think “ no , sorry , too far ” as they drink in this repulsive spectacle : Whose votes is he winning by doing that ?
Who wasn ’ t going to vote for Trump before but now feels compelled to because he ’ s been even more boorish and irresponsible than usual lately ?
It ’ s hard to convince the people to whom Trump is pandering that he ’ s making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider one other aspect of the bad campaign .
This has nothing to do with Trump ’ s message .
It ’ s a simple numbers question : How did he go from a gigantic fundraising advantage against Biden in the first months of the campaign from having to go dark in some battleground states in the home stretch because he just doesn ’ t have the bread to stay on the air there ?
There ’ s a longer list of seemingly wasteful expenditures towards the end of the story at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Pennsylvania , he , Stepien , and Parscale will be asked to explain why they didn ’ t have the cash reserves they needed at the end of the race to make a more aggressive final push there .
What will they say ?
If there ’ s no obvious answer then that ’ s a bad campaign .
Maybe not a *losing* campaign , but certainly a bad one .
And that ’ ll be a universally held view within the Republican Party , including among Trump ’ s own campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pull a rabbit out of the hat on November 3 .
I ’ ll leave you with this , which is a small thing but also evidence that neither Trump nor his most loyal enablers are fully in touch with the reality of the election .
Needless to say , he has zero chance of winning New York so why waste even a minute entertaining the idea ?
You don ’ t hear Biden insisting that he ’ s going to make a play for Alabama or Wyoming .
If it were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing , but Trump tweeted about competing in New York ( and California and Illinois ) earlier today and Brian Kilmeade ’ s question to him seems in earnest .
The point , it seems , is simply to create an alternate reality for Fox viewers in which Trump is doing so well that it ’ s conceivable he ’ d take a shot at NY , never mind that he ’ s outgunned financially in the battleground states that he actually needs to win .
He ’ s run a bad campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning any solid blue state , but both he and Fox need to convince supporters that he ’ s doing much better than he is and the “ we might win New York ” nonsense is part of that .
If nothing else , it ’ ll make it a bit easier to claim he was cheated if he loses the election .
How could a man who was running a campaign so strong that even New York was in play have possibly lost fair and square ?

The temptation here is to say, “We’ll see what voters think about that on November 3.” If Trump’s all-base-all-the-time strategy succeeds in bringing out Fox viewers and talk-radio fans and assorted other working-class whites in numbers that obliterate Biden’s polling advantage, he’ll seem crazy like a fox. In an instant, the conventional wisdom will shift from “What the hell is this guy doing?” to “I can’t believe we underestimated this guy again. He understands the electorate better than anyone else.”
But if the polls are right and he loses, especially if he loses big, the view that he ran an historically bad campaign will be commonly held across all demographics, including the GOP. Even populist righties, the audience he’s forever pandering to, will find it convenient to believe that Trump lost because he chose the wrong strategy (to the extent that they’re not all-in on the idea that Biden cheated). That’s because populists will be scrambling to explain away his defeat in terms of anything *except* that populism might be unpopular. “Biden cheated!” Or “the media defeated Trump!” Or “he sent too many tweets!” Or, yes, even “he ran a garbage campaign! A smarter populist will win next time.”
And you know what? A smarter populist might.
The point isn’t that Trump has no chance to win because he’s run a bad campaign. He does have a chance. The point is that he’d have a much better chance if his campaign messaging hadn’t been so confounding. He might squeak through with something like 275 electoral votes, as it is. But a president who oversaw a gangbusters economy, who has some real foreign-policy victories to boast of, and who could have parlayed the burst in public support for political leaders during the early days of the pandemic into more durable popularity if he had approached the crisis more shrewdly shouldn’t be struggling to get to 270. He should be the favorite, comfortably. Frank Luntz:
“I’ve never seen a campaign more mis-calibrated than the Trump campaign. Frankly, his staff ought to be brought up on charges of political malpractice,” Luntz said. “It is the worst campaign I’ve ever seen and I’ve been watching them since 1980. They’re on the wrong issues. They’re on the wrong message. They’ve got their heads up their assess. … Your damn job is to get your candidate to talk about things that are relevant to the people you need to reach. And if you can’t do your damn job then get out.”… “Nobody cares about Hunter Biden … why is [Trump] spending all his time on him?” Luntz asked. “Hunter Biden does not help put food on the table. Hunter Biden does not help anyone get a job. Hunter Biden does not provide health care or solve COVID. And Donald Trump spends all of his time focused on that and nobody cares.”
Luntz is being kind to the president in blaming his staff for his poor messaging, as if Bill Stepien has any control over what Trump’s going to be talking about from moment to moment.
I have yet to see a piece that does this in a comprehensive way, but at some point after the election someone will compile the definitive list of all of the policy positions in 2020 which Trump insisted on taking the minority side on. Whatever the big-picture policy debate du jour happens to be, particularly when it involves COVID, it’s a safe bet that he’s ceding the middle to Biden by aligning himself with the view favored by 40-45 percent of the public. Masks? The public’s all-in but Trump remains ambivalent. Reopening the country for business? The public wanted to go slow but Trump didn’t. Race relations? The public wanted a conciliatory approach to the BLM protests this summer but Trump wasn’t interested. A new round of coronavirus stimulus? Actually, Trump is aligned with the public on that — but only recently and very belatedly, long past the point when he should have been throttling Senate Republicans to get a deal done. Ross Douthat flagged that today in a piece titled, “Trump Is Giving Up.”
This context suggested an obvious fall campaign strategy: Push more relief money into the economy, try to ostentatiously take the pandemic seriously and promise the country that mask-wearing and relief dollars are a bridge to a vaccine and normalcy in 2021. Instead Trump has ended up with the opposite approach. He mostly ignored the negotiations over relief money for months, engaging only at a point where he had become so politically weak that both Republican deficit hawks (or the born-again variety, at least) and Democratic free-spenders assume he’ll soon be gone. And meanwhile he’s let himself be drawn ever deeper — especially since his own encounter with the disease — into the libertarian style of Covid-19 contrarianism, which argues that we’re overtesting, overreacting and probably close to herd immunity anyway.
All he had to do was be aggressive on an economic rescue and aggressive on containing the virus and he’d be golden right now. Especially since, even more so than Barack Obama, Trump can trust that his base would have followed him no matter what. The grand irony of him obsessing about Hunter Biden’s laptop is that no other president in modern times has had more leeway to ignore his fans’ hobbyhorses. He could have played straight for the center against Sleepy Joe, knowing that MAGA fans would have turned out in droves anyway. Instead he just flails at whatever target’s in front of him on a given day. Anthony Fauci, a figure almost uniquely trusted on handling COVID, said something mildly critical of him on “60 Minutes” so Trump took to attacking him yesterday. Susan Collins, a vulnerable incumbent in the fight of her life, said she wouldn’t vote for Amy Coney Barrett on process grounds — a completely meaningless vote — and Trump lashed out at her too.
There’s no strategy to any of this. The “strategy” is simply Trump believing that his instincts are unerring, even though all his instincts ever do is compel him to keep pandering to his base. Even Fox News hosts like Steve Doocy have taken to nudging him lately to stop talking about whatever Fox is covering and start talking more about the economy. That’s what Luntz means by a bad campaign. You know you’re running a bad one when the people from whom you’re taking your cues are telling you, “You probably shouldn’t be taking so many cues from me.”
There’s also a lot of crap like this lately, more so than usual. When the president openly orders the Justice Department to investigate his opponent, when he mocks a governor who just dodged a kidnapping and murder plot aimed at her, do you suppose that’s a net winner or net loser for him electorally? He’s losing some votes, I suspect, among people who prefer him to Biden on policy but think “no, sorry, too far” as they drink in this repulsive spectacle:
Pres Trump calling on Atty Gen Barr to launch official investigation on corruption charges against Joe and Hunter Biden. “This is major corruption,” said Trump on @FoxNews, “and has to be known before the election.” “We’ve got to get the Atty Gen to act and act fast,” said Trump. — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) October 20, 2020
I am the Governor's Deputy Digital Director. I see everything that is said about and to her online. Every single time the President does this at a rally, the violent rhetoric towards her immediately escalates on social media. It has to stop. It just has to. https://t.co/eupQXzGydN — Tori Saylor (@tori_saylor) October 17, 2020
Whose votes is he winning by doing that? Who wasn’t going to vote for Trump before but now feels compelled to because he’s been even more boorish and irresponsible than usual lately?
It’s hard to convince the people to whom Trump is pandering that he’s making a mistake by doing so, so consider one other aspect of the bad campaign. This has nothing to do with Trump’s message. It’s a simple numbers question: How did he go from a gigantic fundraising advantage against Biden in the first months of the campaign from having to go dark in some battleground states in the home stretch because he just doesn’t have the bread to stay on the air there?
President Donald Trump’s sprawling political operation has raised well over $1 billion since he took the White House in 2017 — and set a lot of it on fire. Trump bought a $10 million Super Bowl ad when he didn’t yet have a challenger. He tapped his political organization to cover exorbitant legal fees related to his impeachment. Aides made flashy displays of their newfound wealth — including a fleet of luxury vehicles purchased by Brad Parscale, his former campaign manager. Meanwhile, a web of limited liability companies hid more than $310 million in spending from disclosure, records show.
There’s a longer list of seemingly wasteful expenditures towards the end of the story at the link. If he falls just short in Pennsylvania, he, Stepien, and Parscale will be asked to explain why they didn’t have the cash reserves they needed at the end of the race to make a more aggressive final push there. What will they say?
If there’s no obvious answer then that’s a bad campaign. Maybe not a *losing* campaign, but certainly a bad one. And that’ll be a universally held view within the Republican Party, including among Trump’s own campaign staffers, if he doesn’t pull a rabbit out of the hat on November 3.
I’ll leave you with this, which is a small thing but also evidence that neither Trump nor his most loyal enablers are fully in touch with the reality of the election. Needless to say, he has zero chance of winning New York so why waste even a minute entertaining the idea? You don’t hear Biden insisting that he’s going to make a play for Alabama or Wyoming. If it were a wink-wink joke, that would be one thing, but Trump tweeted about competing in New York (and California and Illinois) earlier today and Brian Kilmeade’s question to him seems in earnest. The point, it seems, is simply to create an alternate reality for Fox viewers in which Trump is doing so well that it’s conceivable he’d take a shot at NY, never mind that he’s outgunned financially in the battleground states that he actually needs to win. He’s run a bad campaign, he has practically no shot at winning any solid blue state, but both he and Fox need to convince supporters that he’s doing much better than he is and the “we might win New York” nonsense is part of that. If nothing else, it’ll make it a bit easier to claim he was cheated if he loses the election. How could a man who was running a campaign so strong that even New York was in play have possibly lost fair and square?


hotair--2020-10-20--Google manager: C'mon, of course we're playing God in this election

Lawmakers are rightly concerned with foreign interference in the election , but what if the call is actually coming from inside our house ?
Project Veritas reports on allegations of election interference by Google , using its near-monopoly power to warp search-engine results and content on its platforms to favor Democrats .
Its latest undercover video features a clearly disgusted technical manager at Google accusing his employer of “ playing selective god ” with its market domination in order to advance its “ leftist agenda.
” And speaking of foreign interference , Ritesh Lakhkar also warns PV ’ s undercover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Google and American politicians , too : “ I feel suffocated at Google , ” said Ritesh Lakhkar , a technical program manager in Google ’ s Cloud division , to a Project Veritas undercover journalist .
“ Because on one side you have this professional or unprofessional attitude , and on the other side , you have this ultra-leftist attitude , and your entire existence is questioned.
” Lakhkar said Google exercises deity-like control over the information Americans receive .
“ You ’ re like playing selective God , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it doesn ’ t matter , but for Trump , Melania Trump , it matters , and on the other side , Trump says something , misinformation , you ’ re gon na delete that because it ’ s illegal under whatever pretext , ” he said .
“ If a Democratic leader says that , then you ’ re gon na leave it like that , so I ’ m like , okay , you ’ re not following one way or the other .
You are just plain and simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , the undercover aspect of this video seems almost superfluous .
Lakhkar doesn ’ t seem concerned about Google knowing his opinion .
Also , the video doesn ’ t tell us much that we don ’ t already know by observation — that Google manipulates its search results for its own purposes .
It ’ s not much of a stretch to imagine that they have political purposes , and even less difficult to know what that means in the partisan context .
The problem isn ’ t so much the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s corruption can access .
It ’ s that kind of market power to play God that anti-trust legislation is supposed to prevent , and this administration has finally decided to confront that situation with Google .
The Department of Justice launched a long-awaited anti-trust lawsuit over their monopolistic behavior earlier today : The Department of Justice is expected Tuesday to charge Google with violating federal antitrust law , according to two people familiar with the matter , finding after a year-long investigation that the tech giant wrongfully wielded its digital dominance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumers .
The federal government ’ s imminent lawsuit will touch off a landmark and lengthy legal war between Washington and Silicon Valley , one that could have vast implications not only for Google but the entirety of a tech industry that has faced new , unprecedented scrutiny in recent years for the unrivaled power , money and data it has amassed .
… A federal antitrust lawsuit marks the start , not the end , of the government ’ s gambit against Google .
It could take years for a federal court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s competition laws and , if so , what punishments it should may face .
Only Republican state attorneys general are expected to sign onto the DOJ ’ s complaint , the Post has previously reported .
Other states later may choose to join the Justice Department suit , or they still yet may bring their own lawsuits against the tech giant , widening the legal ground Google must cover to defend its business from serious , potentially far-reaching changes .
But the filing alone still serves as a stunning turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years after the federal government last probed the company for potential antitrust violations — an inquiry that regulators concluded without suing Google or seeking significant penalties , including its breakup .
The inaction in Washington for years has stood in stark contrast to the withering antitrust scrutiny Google has faced in Europe , where competition regulators over the past decade have slapped the Mountain View , California-based tech behemoth with $ 9 billion in fines and sought to secure major changes to the way it offers search , advertising and Android , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google got a few years ’ respite in the US is because it took the requisite lessons from the last time around .
Google used its muscle on behalf of the allies of the previous administration ; its problem this time is that it didn ’ t use it effectively enough in 2016 for those allies .
Even so , Republicans largely allowed them to skate over the past three years even while House Democrats built an anti-trust case against them , resulting in this too-little , too-late effort by the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations playing God with speech and market access , they ’ d better get a lot more comfortable with enforcement of the Sherman Act .
Otherwise , they will find themselves locked out by their own blindness in ignoring the accumulation of political as well as economic capital into the hands of fewer and fewer people .
Those hands don ’ t belong to free-marketeers , nor are they amenable to competition , not in products , services , or ideas .
Addendum : Jeff Dunetz has the court filings embedded in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ monopoly gatekeeper , ” which Lakhkar certainly corroborates .
Be sure to read Jeff ’ s entire post .

Lawmakers are rightly concerned with foreign interference in the election, but what if the call is actually coming from inside our house? Project Veritas reports on allegations of election interference by Google, using its near-monopoly power to warp search-engine results and content on its platforms to favor Democrats. Its latest undercover video features a clearly disgusted technical manager at Google accusing his employer of “playing selective god” with its market domination in order to advance its “leftist agenda.”
And speaking of foreign interference, Ritesh Lakhkar also warns PV’s undercover reporter about China’s increasing influence over Google and American politicians, too:
“I feel suffocated at Google,” said Ritesh Lakhkar, a technical program manager in Google’s Cloud division, to a Project Veritas undercover journalist. “Because on one side you have this professional or unprofessional attitude, and on the other side, you have this ultra-leftist attitude, and your entire existence is questioned.” Lakhkar said Google exercises deity-like control over the information Americans receive. “You’re like playing selective God,” he said. “If it was fraud, it doesn’t matter, but for Trump, Melania Trump, it matters, and on the other side, Trump says something, misinformation, you’re gonna delete that because it’s illegal under whatever pretext,” he said. “If a Democratic leader says that, then you’re gonna leave it like that, so I’m like, okay, you’re not following one way or the other. You are just plain and simple trying to play God.”
In this instance, the undercover aspect of this video seems almost superfluous. Lakhkar doesn’t seem concerned about Google knowing his opinion. Also, the video doesn’t tell us much that we don’t already know by observation — that Google manipulates its search results for its own purposes. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that they have political purposes, and even less difficult to know what that means in the partisan context.
The problem isn’t so much the corruption, but the power that Google’s corruption can access. It’s that kind of market power to play God that anti-trust legislation is supposed to prevent, and this administration has finally decided to confront that situation with Google. The Department of Justice launched a long-awaited anti-trust lawsuit over their monopolistic behavior earlier today:
The Department of Justice is expected Tuesday to charge Google with violating federal antitrust law, according to two people familiar with the matter, finding after a year-long investigation that the tech giant wrongfully wielded its digital dominance to the detriment of corporate rivals and consumers. The federal government’s imminent lawsuit will touch off a landmark and lengthy legal war between Washington and Silicon Valley, one that could have vast implications not only for Google but the entirety of a tech industry that has faced new, unprecedented scrutiny in recent years for the unrivaled power, money and data it has amassed. … A federal antitrust lawsuit marks the start, not the end, of the government’s gambit against Google. It could take years for a federal court to resolve whether the company violated the country’s competition laws and, if so, what punishments it should may face. Only Republican state attorneys general are expected to sign onto the DOJ’s complaint, the Post has previously reported. Other states later may choose to join the Justice Department suit, or they still yet may bring their own lawsuits against the tech giant, widening the legal ground Google must cover to defend its business from serious, potentially far-reaching changes. But the filing alone still serves as a stunning turn of events for Google, roughly seven years after the federal government last probed the company for potential antitrust violations — an inquiry that regulators concluded without suing Google or seeking significant penalties, including its breakup. The inaction in Washington for years has stood in stark contrast to the withering antitrust scrutiny Google has faced in Europe, where competition regulators over the past decade have slapped the Mountain View, California-based tech behemoth with $9 billion in fines and sought to secure major changes to the way it offers search, advertising and Android, its smartphone operating system.
The reason why Google got a few years’ respite in the US is because it took the requisite lessons from the last time around. Google used its muscle on behalf of the allies of the previous administration; its problem this time is that it didn’t use it effectively enough in 2016 for those allies. Even so, Republicans largely allowed them to skate over the past three years even while House Democrats built an anti-trust case against them, resulting in this too-little, too-late effort by the Trump administration.
If conservatives don’t like corporations playing God with speech and market access, they’d better get a lot more comfortable with enforcement of the Sherman Act. Otherwise, they will find themselves locked out by their own blindness in ignoring the accumulation of political as well as economic capital into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Those hands don’t belong to free-marketeers, nor are they amenable to competition, not in products, services, or ideas.
Addendum: Jeff Dunetz has the court filings embedded in his post. The lawsuit calls Google a “monopoly gatekeeper,” which Lakhkar certainly corroborates. Be sure to read Jeff’s entire post.