hotair--2020-12-09--FTC and 46 states file lawsuit accusing Facebook of maintaining a monopoly

The Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general for 46 states have filed parallel lawsuits accusing Facebook of maintaining a monopoly on personal social media by either buying or burying its rivals .
The suit seeks to force the company to divest itself of acquisitions such as Instagram and What ’ s App in order to allow for potential rivals to challenge the company ’ s dominance .
From the FTC lawsuit : Facebook is the world ’ s dominant online social network .
More than 3 billion people regularly use Facebook ’ s services to connect with friends and family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not content with attracting and retaining users through competition on the merits , Facebook has maintained its monopoly position by buying up companies that present competitive threats and by imposing restrictive policies that unjustifiably hinder actual or potential rivals that Facebook does not or can not acquire… Since toppling early rival Myspace and achieving monopoly power , Facebook has turned to playing defense through anticompetitive means .
The lawsuit goes into some detail about Facebook ’ s acquisition of Instagram : Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by September 2011 , Mr. Zuckerberg saw that Facebook had fallen far behind , writing internally : “ In the time it has taken us to get ou [ r ] act together on this [ , ] Instagram has become a large and viable competitor to us on mobile photos , which will increasingly be the future of photos.
” So Facebook fell back on the philosophy that “ it is better to buy than compete.
” In February 2012 , Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged that if left independent—or in the hands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leave Facebook Blue “ very behind in both functionality and brand on how one of the core use cases of Facebook will evolve in the mobile world.
” Emphasizing that this was a “ really scary ” outcome for Facebook , Mr. Zuckerberg suggested “ we might want to consider paying a lot of money ” for Instagram… On April 9 , 2012—the day Facebook announced it was acquiring Instagram—Mr .
Zuckerberg wrote privately to a colleague to celebrate suppressing the threat : “ I remember your internal post about how Instagram @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You were basically right .
One thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.
” The suit goes on to lay out a similar situation with the acquisition of What ’ s App , which Facebook saw had the potential to grow into a mobile phone rival to Facebook .
The parallel lawsuit filed by 46 states says Facebook did the same thing with its early rivals like FriendFeed , which the company bought in 2009 : FriendFeed was a real-time feed aggregator that pulled together feed content from other sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook .
Early conversations about an acquisition of FriendFeed in 2007 focused on the potential value of bringing that company ’ s engineering talent on board .
Ultimately , however , it was the fear that FriendFeed posed a competitive threat on its own or in the hands of a potential rival that drove Facebook to take action .
In August 2009 , believing that Twitter was in the process of trying to acquire FriendFeed , Facebook made an aggressive overture to the company .
Chief Product Officer Chris Cox told Zuckerberg that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of paramount importance , saying : “ Them going to twitter would be a bad scene.
” On August 10 , 2009 , FriendFeed accepted Facebook ’ s offer .
As Facebook employees internally discussed via email on the day of the acquisition , “ I remember you said to me a long time ( 6 months ago ) : ‘ we can just buy them ’ when I said to you that Friendfeed is the company I fear most .
That was prescient !
: ) .
” As for what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedy , it specifically asks that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp be found in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act , a 1914 law which regulates mergers and acquisitions that reduce competition .
The lawsuit also seeks to prevent Facebook from making similar moves in the future toward other competitors .
Facebook hasn ’ t released a response to the lawsuits yet but it did promise one was coming on Twitter : Here ’ s a CNBC report on the lawsuits .
One of the reporters featured here says this is another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook .
There is a backlash against the company from the left and right but the reasons are very different .
The right is upset with Facebook for limiting conservative voices on the site .
The left is upset the company doesn ’ t do more to stifle them .
I do wonder if this lawsuit would be happening if not for the consensus on the left that Facebook was too friendly to President Trump .

The Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general for 46 states have filed parallel lawsuits accusing Facebook of maintaining a monopoly on personal social media by either buying or burying its rivals. The suit seeks to force the company to divest itself of acquisitions such as Instagram and What’s App in order to allow for potential rivals to challenge the company’s dominance. From the FTC lawsuit:
Facebook is the world’s dominant online social network. More than 3 billion people regularly use Facebook’s services to connect with friends and family and enrich their social lives. But not content with attracting and retaining users through competition on the merits, Facebook has maintained its monopoly position by buying up companies that present competitive threats and by imposing restrictive policies that unjustifiably hinder actual or potential rivals that Facebook does not or cannot acquire… Since toppling early rival Myspace and achieving monopoly power, Facebook has turned to playing defense through anticompetitive means.
The lawsuit goes into some detail about Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram:
Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own mobile photo-sharing features. But by September 2011, Mr. Zuckerberg saw that Facebook had fallen far behind, writing internally: “In the time it has taken us to get ou[r] act together on this[,] Instagram has become a large and viable competitor to us on mobile photos, which will increasingly be the future of photos.” So Facebook fell back on the philosophy that “it is better to buy than compete.” In February 2012, Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged that if left independent—or in the hands of another acquirer like Google or Apple—Instagram threatened to leave Facebook Blue “very behind in both functionality and brand on how one of the core use cases of Facebook will evolve in the mobile world.” Emphasizing that this was a “really scary” outcome for Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg
suggested “we might want to consider paying a lot of money” for Instagram… On April 9, 2012—the day Facebook announced it was acquiring Instagram—Mr. Zuckerberg wrote privately to a colleague to celebrate suppressing the threat: “I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. One thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”
The suit goes on to lay out a similar situation with the acquisition of What’s App, which Facebook saw had the potential to grow into a mobile phone rival to Facebook.
The parallel lawsuit filed by 46 states says Facebook did the same thing with its early rivals like FriendFeed, which the company bought in 2009:
FriendFeed was a real-time feed aggregator that pulled together feed content from other sources on its main page, similar to Facebook. Early conversations about an acquisition of FriendFeed in 2007 focused on the potential value of bringing that company’s engineering talent on board. Ultimately, however, it was the fear that FriendFeed posed a competitive threat on its own or in the hands of a potential rival that drove Facebook to take action. In August 2009, believing that Twitter was in the process of trying to acquire FriendFeed, Facebook made an aggressive overture to the company. Chief Product Officer Chris Cox told Zuckerberg that blocking Twitter from acquiring this asset was of paramount importance, saying: “Them going to twitter would be a bad scene.” On August 10, 2009, FriendFeed accepted Facebook’s offer. As Facebook employees internally discussed via email on the day of the acquisition, “I remember you said to me a long time (6 months ago): ‘we can just buy them’ when I said to you that Friendfeed is the company I fear most. That was prescient! :).”
As for what the lawsuit is seeking in terms of a remedy, it specifically asks that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp be found in violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act, a 1914 law which regulates mergers and acquisitions that reduce competition. The lawsuit also seeks to prevent Facebook from making similar moves in the future toward other competitors.
Facebook hasn’t released a response to the lawsuits yet but it did promise one was coming on Twitter:
We're reviewing the complaints & will have more to say soon. Years after the FTC cleared our acquisitions, the government now wants a do-over with no regard for the impact that precedent would have on the broader business community or the people who choose our products every day. — Facebook Newsroom (@fbnewsroom) December 9, 2020
Here’s a CNBC report on the lawsuits. One of the reporters featured here says this is another example of “bipartisan backlash” against Facebook. There is a backlash against the company from the left and right but the reasons are very different. The right is upset with Facebook for limiting conservative voices on the site. The left is upset the company doesn’t do more to stifle them. I do wonder if this lawsuit would be happening if not for the consensus on the left that Facebook was too friendly to President Trump.


hotair--2020-12-09--Influential Dem Tammy Duckworth says she won't support a waiver for Biden's SecDef pick

She ’ s a veteran herself , having lost her legs during combat , and she was under consideration to be Biden ’ s VP before the nod went to Harris .
She ’ s a no on Austin — that is , a no on granting him a waiver from the rule that requires a former officer to have been retired from service for seven years before becoming defense secretary .
But she ’ s a yes on confirmation , assuming Austin gets the 60 votes he needs in the Senate for that waiver .
Last night I wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odd scenario in which Republicans , not Democrats , provide the bulk of the votes in granting Austin a waiver and then Democrats , not Republicans , provide the bulk of the votes to confirm .
Dems don ’ t want to sink Biden ’ s nominee , especially the would-be first black SecDef in U.S. history , but they also want to be kinda sorta consistent with their objections to granting a waiver to James Mattis in 2017 .
Republicans , meanwhile , want to signal their opposition to Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kinda sorta consistent with their support for the Mattis waiver .
And Republicans tend to be more comfortable with having generals or former generals in influential government positions than Democrats are .
So we may end up with a weird bipartisan two-step .
The GOP gets to show that it ’ s pro-military by supporting the waiver and then that it ’ s anti-Biden by voting against Austin .
Democrats gets to show that they support civilian control of the military by opposing the waiver and then that they ’ re pro-Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs is a few crossover votes from each party on each of the two votes to make it happen .
Duckworth thinks he ’ s going to get them .
Chuck Schumer was asked about a waiver for Austin and said he ’ d have to “ study ” the issue but added , “ Bottom line is that Austin ’ s a very good nominee and we ’ ll figure out where to go from there.
” Hmmm .
Biden himself introduced Austin at a press conference today , acknowledging there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the seven-year rule .
“ I would not be asking for this exception if I did not believe this moment doesn ’ t call for it , ” he continued .
But that ’ s just the thing .
Does this moment call for it ?
There are two new critiques of Austin circulating .
First , while he ’ s a fine officer , he ’ s not known for his communication skills .
Rather the opposite — he ’ s famous among those who know him for saying as little as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in someone serving in Washington in a political role .
“ [ R ] unning the Pentagon is one of the world ’ s hardest management jobs ; it requires communications skills hard to learn on the fly , ” notes David Ignatius .
The more substantive criticism , though , has to do with the nature of Austin ’ s service .
As the former U.S. commander in Iraq and head of CENTCOM , he ’ s just the sort of man you ’ d want at the top of the Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be focused on the Middle East .
But what if you don ’ t ?
In particular , national security experts raised concerns about Austin ’ s lack of experience handling what many consider to be the most pressing challenge facing the United States for years to come : an increasingly aggressive China .
“ This suggests quite loudly to me that Biden doesn ’ t take hard power , and the China military threat as seriously and urgently as we need to , ” said Elbridge Colby , a former defense official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense Strategy that laid out the Pentagon ’ s pivot from counterterrorism to great power competition… “ Lloyd Austin has an extremely distinguished military career — but to me that ’ s not really the issue .
What we need is someone who already is at the forefront of thinking and leadership on Asia and China , on aerospace and maritime power , and on technology , ” Colby said .
“ That ’ s what not Austin ’ s background brings to the table , and we ’ re way beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have that.
” “ This guy was a recently retired commander for U.S. Central Command , so very well informed on terrorism and operations in the Middle East , ” said a former speechwriter for Mattis to Politico .
“ But how will he be able to shift gears into the much more strategic issue of the Indo-Pacific ?
” Bear in mind that one of the people on Biden ’ s short list for the important diplomatic post of ambassador to China also has no experience there : Pete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 39 would break the mold of U.S. envoys to Beijing .
Are Austin and Buttigieg the sort of appointees we ’ d expect to see from Sleepy Joe if he were taking the threat from China seriously ?
Here ’ s Austin meeting the media at today ’ s Biden event and promising to approach his job as a civilian , not as a military officer .
I suspect he ’ ll get his waiver .

She’s a veteran herself, having lost her legs during combat, and she was under consideration to be Biden’s VP before the nod went to Harris. She’s a no on Austin — that is, a no on granting him a waiver from the rule that requires a former officer to have been retired from service for seven years before becoming defense secretary.
But she’s a yes on confirmation, assuming Austin gets the 60 votes he needs in the Senate for that waiver. Last night I wrote that we may be headed for an odd scenario in which Republicans, not Democrats, provide the bulk of the votes in granting Austin a waiver and then Democrats, not Republicans, provide the bulk of the votes to confirm. Dems don’t want to sink Biden’s nominee, especially the would-be first black SecDef in U.S. history, but they also want to be kinda sorta consistent with their objections to granting a waiver to James Mattis in 2017. Republicans, meanwhile, want to signal their opposition to Biden’s nominee but they also want to be kinda sorta consistent with their support for the Mattis waiver. And Republicans tend to be more comfortable with having generals or former generals in influential government positions than Democrats are.
So we may end up with a weird bipartisan two-step. The GOP gets to show that it’s pro-military by supporting the waiver and then that it’s anti-Biden by voting against Austin. Democrats gets to show that they support civilian control of the military by opposing the waiver and then that they’re pro-Biden and pro-diversity by confirming Austin. All Biden needs is a few crossover votes from each party on each of the two votes to make it happen. Duckworth thinks he’s going to get them.
.@SenDuckworth, "…we did that in 2007 without any input, and now again for our second Secretary of Defense in a row to request another waiver, I just can't support that on principle." (2/2) #AMRstaff — Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) December 9, 2020
.@SenDuckworth: "…But I expect that the process will be very smooth and I've actually offered to help him go through that process myself because I do think he is an excellent officer." (2/2) #AMRstaff — Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) December 9, 2020
Chuck Schumer was asked about a waiver for Austin and said he’d have to “study” the issue but added, “Bottom line is that Austin’s a very good nominee and we’ll figure out where to go from there.” Hmmm. Biden himself introduced Austin at a press conference today, acknowledging there’s a “good reason” for the seven-year rule. “I would not be asking for this exception if I did not believe this moment doesn’t call for it,” he continued. But that’s just the thing. Does this moment call for it?
I reluctantly supported a waiver for Mattis in 2016 because Trump was a threat to Constitutional governance domestically and the liberal order internationally. Thankfully, Biden is neither, so the circumstances don't support a waiver. — Kori Schake 🌻 (@KoriSchake) December 9, 2020
There are two new critiques of Austin circulating. First, while he’s a fine officer, he’s not known for his communication skills. Rather the opposite — he’s famous among those who know him for saying as little as possible, not necessarily the best attribute in someone serving in Washington in a political role. “[R]unning the Pentagon is one of the world’s hardest management jobs; it requires communications skills hard to learn on the fly,” notes David Ignatius. The more substantive criticism, though, has to do with the nature of Austin’s service. As the former U.S. commander in Iraq and head of CENTCOM, he’s just the sort of man you’d want at the top of the Pentagon if you expect your foreign policy to be focused on the Middle East.
But what if you don’t?
In particular, national security experts raised concerns about Austin’s lack of experience handling what many consider to be the most pressing challenge facing the United States for years to come: an increasingly aggressive China. “This suggests quite loudly to me that Biden doesn’t take hard power, and the China military threat as seriously and urgently as we need to,” said Elbridge Colby, a former defense official and a lead author the 2018 National Defense Strategy that laid out the Pentagon’s pivot from counterterrorism to great power competition… “Lloyd Austin has an extremely distinguished military career — but to me that’s not really the issue. What we need is someone who already is at the forefront of thinking and leadership on Asia and China, on aerospace and maritime power, and on technology,” Colby said. “That’s what not Austin’s background brings to the table, and we’re way beyond the point where we can have someone who doesn’t have that.”
“This guy was a recently retired commander for U.S. Central Command, so very well informed on terrorism and operations in the Middle East,” said a former speechwriter for Mattis to Politico. “But how will he be able to shift gears into the much more strategic issue of the Indo-Pacific?” Bear in mind that one of the people on Biden’s short list for the important diplomatic post of ambassador to China also has no experience there: Pete Buttigieg, who at the tender age of 39 would break the mold of U.S. envoys to Beijing. Are Austin and Buttigieg the sort of appointees we’d expect to see from Sleepy Joe if he were taking the threat from China seriously?
Here’s Austin meeting the media at today’s Biden event and promising to approach his job as a civilian, not as a military officer. I suspect he’ll get his waiver.


hotair--2020-12-09--Reporters are appalled that Republicans would "attack" Warnock

There were two debates scheduled for this weekend in the Georgia runoff elections , one for each of the Senate races being decided .
But only one of the debates actually took place with both of the candidates participating .
Senator David Perdue opted to skip his debate with Jon Ossoff , instead continuing with a bus tour across the state .
That meant that most of the action was focused on the other debate between Senator Kelly Loeffler and Pastor Raphael Warnock .
This may not strike you as a particularly Earth-shattering development , but the election news has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppose everyone needs to find some drama to focus on .
With that in mind , Jonathan Martin and Astead W. Herndon seem to believe they identified and solved a big mystery here .
Why would the GOP make such a choice ?
And the answer is equally obvious to them .
The party wanted everyone ’ s attention focused on the other debate because they plan to “ attack ” Raphael Warnock from now until the polls close on January 5th .
( Yahoo News ) As Georgians prepare to vote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of the Senate , there is little mystery as to which of the two Democratic candidates GOP officials want to elevate as a target as they try to rouse their base : the Rev .
Raphael Warnock , who is running against Georgia ’ s other Republican senator , Kelly Loeffler .
Loeffler made plain the Republican strategy when she called Warnock a “ radical liberal ” 13 times in their debate on Sunday evening .
She repeatedly invoked his past criticism of police officers and a sermon in which he once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the military , ” a theme that has roots in biblical passages .
Her plan of attack followed a similar portrayal by President Donald Trump during his rally on Saturday in Valdosta , Georgia , where Republicans played a video that likened Warnock to the Rev .
Jeremiah Wright , the Chicago pastor whose comments drew scrutiny to his relationship with Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign .
The video included footage of Wright famously saying “ God damn America.
” The article by Martin and Herndon is peppered with all manner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” would make such a choice .
These include some not very veiled insinuations of racism .
They highlight the fact that Warnock is Black and some of his critics have linked him to “ the state ’ s most prominent African American Democrat , Stacey Abrams.
” Yes , that ’ s actually how they described her , even though her primary claim to fame is losing .
But they go on from there to suggest that Republicans want to bolster turnout among “ white conservatives , especially those who harbor racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There ’ s plenty more of that , along with some references to how “ storied ” Warnock ’ s church is and his claims of being someone who brings people together .
There ’ s no word as to whether or not Warnock will have to write this article off as an in-kind contribution to his campaign .
A couple of points should be made here before these stories gain too much traction .
First of all , “ the GOP ” has no ability to dictate who does or doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at either the state or national level .
The decision to skip the debate and stay out on the campaign trail was made by Perdue and his team .
He apparently saw more value in retail politicking with people in an up-close and personal fashion than hanging out in a studio for a debate with a moderator that probably would have favored his opponent anyway .
Perdue has his own race to win and I seriously doubt that he would make a decision about his own debate based on whether or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Loeffler .
In terms of how the “ attack ” ads are going to play out , there ’ s an obvious reason that a lot more focus will be placed on Warnock .
Jon Ossoff is a rather vanilla candidate without much of a paper trail .
That ’ s not to say that some decent oppo research about his extremely progressive/liberal positions hasn ’ t emerged , but most of it is fairly generic for a Democrat .
On the other hand , Raphael Warnock has a lengthy history as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ libraries of videos , sermons and speeches to draw on .
And his many questionable comments , some of which we ’ ve featured here , are all fair game for the Loeffler campaign .
His preaching about abortion being somehow justified in the bible and how no one can serve both God and the military are only the tip of the iceberg .
So none of this adds up to some sort of nefarious , top-secret GOP scheme .
The two campaigns are playing out in a typical fashion on both sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a free pass and they will all definitely be “ attacking ” their opponents by bringing up their records and asking the voters to hold them accountable on that basis .
There ’ s less than a month to go , however , so you can expect more hyperbole like this to be showing up in the political press as we close in on Christmas and New Years .

There were two debates scheduled for this weekend in the Georgia runoff elections, one for each of the Senate races being decided. But only one of the debates actually took place with both of the candidates participating. Senator David Perdue opted to skip his debate with Jon Ossoff, instead continuing with a bus tour across the state. That meant that most of the action was focused on the other debate between Senator Kelly Loeffler and Pastor Raphael Warnock.
This may not strike you as a particularly Earth-shattering development, but the election news has slowed down considerably this month and I suppose everyone needs to find some drama to focus on. With that in mind, Jonathan Martin and Astead W. Herndon seem to believe they identified and solved a big mystery here. Why would the GOP make such a choice? And the answer is equally obvious to them. The party wanted everyone’s attention focused on the other debate because they plan to “attack” Raphael Warnock from now until the polls close on January 5th. (Yahoo News)
As Georgians prepare to vote in two runoffs next month that will decide control of the Senate, there is little mystery as to which of the two Democratic candidates GOP officials want to elevate as a target as they try to rouse their base: the Rev. Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia’s other Republican senator, Kelly Loeffler. Loeffler made plain the Republican strategy when she called Warnock a “radical liberal” 13 times in their debate on Sunday evening. She repeatedly invoked his past criticism of police officers and a sermon in which he once said that “nobody can serve God and the military,” a theme that has roots in biblical passages. Her plan of attack followed a similar portrayal by President Donald Trump during his rally on Saturday in Valdosta, Georgia, where Republicans played a video that likened Warnock to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago pastor whose comments drew scrutiny to his relationship with Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign. The video included footage of Wright famously saying “God damn America.”
The article by Martin and Herndon is peppered with all manner of insinuations about why “the GOP” would make such a choice. These include some not very veiled insinuations of racism. They highlight the fact that Warnock is Black and some of his critics have linked him to “the state’s most prominent African American Democrat, Stacey Abrams.” Yes, that’s actually how they described her, even though her primary claim to fame is losing. But they go on from there to suggest that Republicans want to bolster turnout among “white conservatives, especially those who harbor racist views and are uneasy about Black leadership.”
There’s plenty more of that, along with some references to how “storied” Warnock’s church is and his claims of being someone who brings people together. There’s no word as to whether or not Warnock will have to write this article off as an in-kind contribution to his campaign.
A couple of points should be made here before these stories gain too much traction. First of all, “the GOP” has no ability to dictate who does or doesn’t show up at a debate, at either the state or national level. The decision to skip the debate and stay out on the campaign trail was made by Perdue and his team. He apparently saw more value in retail politicking with people in an up-close and personal fashion than hanging out in a studio for a debate with a moderator that probably would have favored his opponent anyway. Perdue has his own race to win and I seriously doubt that he would make a decision about his own debate based on whether or not it would lead to a larger audience for Loeffler.
In terms of how the “attack” ads are going to play out, there’s an obvious reason that a lot more focus will be placed on Warnock. Jon Ossoff is a rather vanilla candidate without much of a paper trail. That’s not to say that some decent oppo research about his extremely progressive/liberal positions hasn’t emerged, but most of it is fairly generic for a Democrat. On the other hand, Raphael Warnock has a lengthy history as a pastor and public speaker, with libraries of videos, sermons and speeches to draw on. And his many questionable comments, some of which we’ve featured here, are all fair game for the Loeffler campaign. His preaching about abortion being somehow justified in the bible and how no one can serve both God and the military are only the tip of the iceberg.
So none of this adds up to some sort of nefarious, top-secret GOP scheme. The two campaigns are playing out in a typical fashion on both sides. None of the candidates are getting a free pass and they will all definitely be “attacking” their opponents by bringing up their records and asking the voters to hold them accountable on that basis. There’s less than a month to go, however, so you can expect more hyperbole like this to be showing up in the political press as we close in on Christmas and New Years.


hotair--2020-12-09--Hong Kong democracy activists face a choice: Flee or go to jail

Last week three leading democracy activists in Hong Kong were sentenced for their role in a protest that took place in 2019 .
Joshua Wong was given 13 1/2 months , Agnes Chow was sentenced to 10 months and Ivan Lam was given 7 months .
It was the first time Chow has been jailed , and she sobbed as the sentence was read out .
Both Lam and Wong have been to prison before , and dragged before court even more often .
A day later , another iconic opposition figure , Jimmy Lai — the septuagenarian founder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bail after an initial hearing into a fraud case .
He will remain behind bars until the next trial date in April .
In denying bail , the judge deemed the multimillionaire to be a flight risk , though Lai previously vowed to stay in the city and fight , despite facing growing pressure related to his activism .
Tuesday of this week police arrested 8 more activists including former pro-democracy lawmakers : Former pro-democracy lawmakers Wu Chi-wai , Eddie Chu and Leung Kwok Hung were arrested at their homes on charges related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Facebook posts on their respective pages .
Hong Kong police said in a statement that eight men aged between 24 and 64 had been arrested for inciting , organizing and taking part in an unauthorized assembly .
China ’ s crackdown on freedoms put democracy supporters in a very difficult position .
As the Washington Post reports today , they can either wait around to be arrested and sent to jail or they can flee the country .
Facing charges related to his activism , Ted Hui , a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Denmark last week ostensibly to discuss climate and sustainability issues — topics innocuous enough for a court to release his passport and allow his departure .
The climate talks were a ruse .
Last Thursday , three days after landing in Copenhagen , Hui announced he would not return and would instead go into exile… “ It is a grave situation , with what seems to be only two ways out : Either leave Hong Kong or stay here and wait to be arrested , ” said Sam Yip , vice convener of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group that has organized massive pro-democracy marches .
Its convener , Figo Chan , was among eight people arrested Tuesday who police said organized an unlawful assembly and incited others to protest on July 1 this year .
The Chinese and Hong Kong governments “ are on turbo drive , trying to root out all the activists and politicians ” associated with anti-government protests , said Ho-fung Hung , an expert on Hong Kong politics at Johns Hopkins University .
“ They are trying to instill as much fear and desperation in activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , authorities in Hong Kong police his bank account saying he was under a national security investigation .
Hui called it an act of “ political revenge.
” With the security law now in place , defenders of free speech and democracy are in retreat .
The sentences handed out to Agnes Chow , Ivan Lam and Joshua Wong are pretty light compared to what could happen .
So-called separatism , meaning any advocacy for Hong Kong ’ s independence from China , could potentially result in a life sentence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ winds up in jail or leaves the country is a win .
Either way , they have been taken off the board and the message has been sent that anyone who stands up to the communists has to fear for their freedom .
Watching China silence its young critics is like witnessing a prelude to Orwell ’ s 1984 in real time .
Here ’ s a Reuters clip on Agnes Chow who some in Japan have dubbed the “ goddess of democracy .
”

Last week three leading democracy activists in Hong Kong were sentenced for their role in a protest that took place in 2019. Joshua Wong was given 13 1/2 months, Agnes Chow was sentenced to 10 months and Ivan Lam was given 7 months.
It was the first time Chow has been jailed, and she sobbed as the sentence was read out. Both Lam and Wong have been to prison before, and dragged before court even more often. A day later, another iconic opposition figure, Jimmy Lai — the septuagenarian founder of pro-democracy tabloid Apple Daily — was denied bail after an initial hearing into a fraud case. He will remain behind bars until the next trial date in April. In denying bail, the judge deemed the multimillionaire to be a flight risk, though Lai previously vowed to stay in the city and fight, despite facing growing pressure related to his activism.
Tuesday of this week police arrested 8 more activists including former pro-democracy lawmakers:
Former pro-democracy lawmakers Wu Chi-wai, Eddie Chu and Leung Kwok Hung were arrested at their homes on charges related to organizing and participating in the protest, according to Facebook posts on their respective pages. Hong Kong police said in a statement that eight men aged between 24 and 64 had been arrested for inciting, organizing and taking part in an unauthorized assembly.
China’s crackdown on freedoms put democracy supporters in a very difficult position. As the Washington Post reports today, they can either wait around to be arrested and sent to jail or they can flee the country.
Facing charges related to his activism, Ted Hui, a former Hong Kong pro-democracy lawmaker, flew to Denmark last week ostensibly to discuss climate and sustainability issues — topics innocuous enough for a court to release his passport and allow his departure. The climate talks were a ruse. Last Thursday, three days after landing in Copenhagen, Hui announced he would not return and would instead go into exile… “It is a grave situation, with what seems to be only two ways out: Either leave Hong Kong or stay here and wait to be arrested,” said Sam Yip, vice convener of the Civil Human Rights Front, a group that has organized massive pro-democracy marches. Its convener, Figo Chan, was among eight people arrested Tuesday who police said organized an unlawful assembly and incited others to protest on July 1 this year. The Chinese and Hong Kong governments “are on turbo drive, trying to root out all the activists and politicians” associated with anti-government protests, said Ho-fung Hung, an expert on Hong Kong politics at Johns Hopkins University. “They are trying to instill as much fear and desperation in activists as they can.”
After Hui fled the country, authorities in Hong Kong police his bank account saying he was under a national security investigation. Hui called it an act of “political revenge.”
With the security law now in place, defenders of free speech and democracy are in retreat. The sentences handed out to Agnes Chow, Ivan Lam and Joshua Wong are pretty light compared to what could happen. So-called separatism, meaning any advocacy for Hong Kong’s independence from China, could potentially result in a life sentence.
For China, every pro-democracy activist who winds up in jail or leaves the country is a win. Either way, they have been taken off the board and the message has been sent that anyone who stands up to the communists has to fear for their freedom. Watching China silence its young critics is like witnessing a prelude to Orwell’s 1984 in real time.
Here’s a Reuters clip on Agnes Chow who some in Japan have dubbed the “goddess of democracy.”


hotair--2020-12-09--So SCOTUS is going to be the scapegoat, huh? <span class='red'>Update: 17 states join Texas suit</sp

So SCOTUS is going to be the scapegoat, huh? Update: 17 states join Texas suit

I ’ ve always assumed it was Rudy ’ s and Jenna Ellis ’ s plan to offload blame for Trump ’ s legal failures onto SCOTUS .
Ellis in particular has crowed in a just-you-wait fashion that the president ’ s fortunes will change once their lawsuits are in front of the Supreme Court .
That ’ s clearly not true , but it has the welcome effect for her of redirecting MAGA fans ’ expectations away from her and Giuliani and towards Gorsuch , Kavanaugh , and Barrett .
I mean , if SCOTUS swats Trump down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor lawyering or weak evidence of fraud .
It ’ s due to “ disloyalty ” by the president ’ s Supreme Court appointees .
What I didn ’ t anticipate was that Trump himself would try to set up the Court to take the blame for his failure to get the election overturned .
I thought he ’ d mostly given up on his legal challenges in order to focus on pressuring state legislatures to pull off a soft coup for him by invalidating their election results .
Nope .
These tweets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ betting everything on that ridiculous Texas lawsuit that Ed wrote about yesterday .
“ This is the big one.
” Is it ?
He was surprisingly restrained last night after the Court rejected Mike Kelly ’ s request for an injunction to block Pennsylvania from certifying its results on grounds that the state ’ s mail-in ballots were invalid .
I thought that was the “ big one ” people were waiting for , or at least the closest thing to a “ big one ” in this ongoing legal shambles .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of his chips on the complaint filed with SCOTUS by Texas AG Ken Paxton , a suit so dubious that Texas ’ s solicitor general wouldn ’ t even put his name on it .
It was widely assumed yesterday that the only reason Paxton filed it was because he ’ s in serious legal trouble himself and is hoping to receive a “ get out of jail free ” card from Trump before January 20 .
That is , the complaint isn ’ t so much a serious legal grievance as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signaling Paxton ’ s “ loyalty ” in a public way in hopes of getting a tangible benefit in return .
Does this read like a complaint whose authors are taking it seriously ?
The suit also relies in part on the testimony of Mellissa Carone , who went viral online last week after her appearance at a hearing in Michigan .
It ’ s since come out that she ’ s been in trouble with the law within the past few years and a Michigan judge deemed her testimony not credible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to save Trump ’ s presidency ?
More from former prosecutor turned law prof Kim Wehle : Enter Paxton ’ s complaint .
It makes a slew of audacious factual allegations that are unestablished and untested .
Basically , he argues that the state defendants shouldn ’ t have allowed mail-in balloting the way they did , and cites “ mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers ; illegally backdating thousands of ballots , ” and videos of “ poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among an avalanche of other unsubstantiated and previously repudiated factual claims .
( My favorite is the “ expert analysis ” that allegedly calculated the “ probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States ” as “ less than one in a quadrillion , or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.
” ) … Paxton is asking five unelected justices with jobs for life to cancel the millions of votes legitimately cast in four states , and tell the legislatures in those states to give the electors to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wipe out all the votes from just one state . )
This is a wholesale assault on “ We the People ” —citizens of a country founded on principles of self-government .
And it ’ s an assault on the sovereignty of fellow states .
Truly breathtaking .
If SCOTUS were inclined to throw out millions of votes wholesale , it wouldn ’ t have given Kelly ’ s Pennsylvania lawsuit the back of its hand .
The last 35 days have been relentlessly distressing and frightening in demonstrating how many Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results went against their candidate , but the justices of the Court aren ’ t among them .
They know that doing so would mean the end of the American experiment and they ’ re not willing to pull that trigger even if 50 million or whatever Trump voters are .
Paxton ’ s lawsuit is DOA .
And every Republican in government knows it except possibly Trump , whose grasp on reality is always tenuous thanks to the quality of information he consumes and the peculiarities of how his mind works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican in Congress knows this is a dead end .
Yet even so : Note the bit about Trump awaiting the “ final list.
” This is another loyalty test in an endless series of them , and the thing about Trump ’ s loyalty tests is that you only need to fail one to lose favor forever .
That ’ s why so many members of Congress refused to say last week that Biden won the election when asked , never mind that Trump ’ s own administration has begun the formal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do is fail once .
So when he asks if you ’ re willing to join Ken Paxton ’ s garbage , possibly corrupt , go-nowhere lawsuit , the answer is yes .
If you value your job , at least .
For fark ’ s sake , even Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue are backing Paxton ’ s lawsuit even though , if it succeeded , it would mean that an AG from another state had prevailed in disenfranchising their own state ’ s voters .
Yet another reason , in case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them are unfit for office .
There ’ s one wrinkle in Paxton ’ s suit worth noting .
He ’ ll lose this case without question but he *might* succeed in getting the Court to hear it .
That ’ s because suits in which one state sues another are matters of original , not appellate , jurisdiction for the Supreme Court .
The Court can always refuse to hear an appeal , but some justices are of the belief that it must hear cases asserting original jurisdiction .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Court finally rules on Paxton ’ s complaint , but it ’ s likely to be a few : In other words , even if the Court dismisses the complaint , we might see Thomas and Alito ( and one or two others ) note their dissent — not because they thought Paxton was right about fraud but because they thought they were bound to take the case and give him a trial under procedural rules .
But maybe Trump is going to screw that up ?
However this matter proceeds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll have his complaint trashed or maybe the Court will feel it has no choice but to dutifully hear his case before flushing it , but the outcome isn ’ t in doubt .
And when SCOTUS rejects the “ big one , ” as Trump calls it , he and some of his fans are going to go all-out demagoging Gorsuch , Kavanaugh , and Barrett for not having swallowed Paxton ’ s nonsense in the name of giving Trump a second term .
SCOTUS is the scapegoat .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll leave you with a tweet and a quote .
The quote comes from the Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania state senate , discussing that letter to Congress that other Pennsylvania Republicans signed asking Congress to toss out its state ’ s electoral votes ( ! )
.
Would she have signed the letter if given the chance , the NYT asked her ?
To which she replied , “ If I would say to you , ‘ I don ’ t want to do it , ’ I ’ d get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me like she ’ s very much in tune with the “ fascism-curious ” nature of her base and is willing to indulge them as a matter of self-interest , just like Loeffler and Perdue and nearly every other politician in this morally bankrupt party .
As for the tweet below , it ’ s self-explanatory .
The most influential purveyor of anti-American propaganda on planet Earth isn ’ t the Chinese government anymore , and even the Chinese government knows it .
Great , great , great work .
Update : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re a “ team player ” by joining Texas ’ s lawsuit , never mind that the GOP is supposed to be the “ states ’ rights ” party .

I’ve always assumed it was Rudy’s and Jenna Ellis’s plan to offload blame for Trump’s legal failures onto SCOTUS. Ellis in particular has crowed in a just-you-wait fashion that the president’s fortunes will change once their lawsuits are in front of the Supreme Court. That’s clearly not true, but it has the welcome effect for her of redirecting MAGA fans’ expectations away from her and Giuliani and towards Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
I mean, if SCOTUS swats Trump down, surely that’s not due to poor lawyering or weak evidence of fraud. It’s due to “disloyalty” by the president’s Supreme Court appointees.
What I didn’t anticipate was that Trump himself would try to set up the Court to take the blame for his failure to get the election overturned. I thought he’d mostly given up on his legal challenges in order to focus on pressuring state legislatures to pull off a soft coup for him by invalidating their election results.
Nope. These tweets make it sound like he’s betting everything on that ridiculous Texas lawsuit that Ed wrote about yesterday.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336666810742149120
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336680713568071681
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336668083822473221
“This is the big one.” Is it? He was surprisingly restrained last night after the Court rejected Mike Kelly’s request for an injunction to block Pennsylvania from certifying its results on grounds that the state’s mail-in ballots were invalid. I thought that was the “big one” people were waiting for, or at least the closest thing to a “big one” in this ongoing legal shambles.
But now here’s the president putting all of his chips on the complaint filed with SCOTUS by Texas AG Ken Paxton, a suit so dubious that Texas’s solicitor general wouldn’t even put his name on it. It was widely assumed yesterday that the only reason Paxton filed it was because he’s in serious legal trouble himself and is hoping to receive a “get out of jail free” card from Trump before January 20. That is, the complaint isn’t so much a serious legal grievance as a type of bribe to Trump, signaling Paxton’s “loyalty” in a public way in hopes of getting a tangible benefit in return.
Does this read like a complaint whose authors are taking it seriously?
Did Texas proofread the massive documents it filed in SCt to block Biden victory: on key point, it says it is challenging 4 states' combined 72 electoral votes, but those 4 only have 62: Pa. 20, Ga and Mich 16 each, Wisc 10. — Lyle Denniston (@lylden) December 9, 2020
The suit also relies in part on the testimony of Mellissa Carone, who went viral online last week after her appearance at a hearing in Michigan. It’s since come out that she’s been in trouble with the law within the past few years and a Michigan judge deemed her testimony not credible. This is the lawsuit that’s going to save Trump’s presidency?
More from former prosecutor turned law prof Kim Wehle:
Enter Paxton’s complaint. It makes a slew of audacious factual allegations that are unestablished and untested. Basically, he argues that the state defendants shouldn’t have allowed mail-in balloting the way they did, and cites “mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots,” and videos of “poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers,” among an avalanche of other unsubstantiated and previously repudiated factual claims. (My favorite is the “expert analysis” that allegedly calculated the “probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States” as “less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.”)… Paxton is asking five unelected justices with jobs for life to cancel the millions of votes legitimately cast in four states, and tell the legislatures in those states to give the electors to Trump. (Even Ted Cruz only wants to wipe out all the votes from just one state.) This is a wholesale assault on “We the People”—citizens of a country founded on principles of self-government. And it’s an assault on the sovereignty of fellow states. Truly breathtaking.
If SCOTUS were inclined to throw out millions of votes wholesale, it wouldn’t have given Kelly’s Pennsylvania lawsuit the back of its hand. The last 35 days have been relentlessly distressing and frightening in demonstrating how many Americans would support canceling elections retroactively just because the results went against their candidate, but the justices of the Court aren’t among them. They know that doing so would mean the end of the American experiment and they’re not willing to pull that trigger even if 50 million or whatever Trump voters are. Paxton’s lawsuit is DOA. And every Republican in government knows it except possibly Trump, whose grasp on reality is always tenuous thanks to the quality of information he consumes and the peculiarities of how his mind works.
I promise, though, every Republican in Congress knows this is a dead end. Yet even so:
Email to every member of House GOP from @RepMikeJohnson, R-LA, soliciting signatures for an amicus brief in the longshot Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate electoral college votes from GA MI PA and WI. Trump is “anxiously awaiting the final list” to see who signs on. pic.twitter.com/QrksypyHv9 — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) December 9, 2020
Note the bit about Trump awaiting the “final list.” This is another loyalty test in an endless series of them, and the thing about Trump’s loyalty tests is that you only need to fail one to lose favor forever. That’s why so many members of Congress refused to say last week that Biden won the election when asked, never mind that Trump’s own administration has begun the formal transition process. All you need to do is fail once. So when he asks if you’re willing to join Ken Paxton’s garbage, possibly corrupt, go-nowhere lawsuit, the answer is yes. If you value your job, at least.
For fark’s sake, even Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue are backing Paxton’s lawsuit even though, if it succeeded, it would mean that an AG from another state had prevailed in disenfranchising their own state’s voters. Yet another reason, in case more were needed, that the two of them are unfit for office.
There’s one wrinkle in Paxton’s suit worth noting. He’ll lose this case without question but he *might* succeed in getting the Court to hear it. That’s because suits in which one state sues another are matters of original, not appellate, jurisdiction for the Supreme Court. The Court can always refuse to hear an appeal, but some justices are of the belief that it must hear cases asserting original jurisdiction. We’ll find out just how many when the Court finally rules on Paxton’s complaint, but it’s likely to be a few:
If the Court denies leave to file in the Texas case and Thomas + one or two others dissent from that denial, people are going to go crazy thinking the dissenters saw merit in this ridiculous suit. But it’s more complicated than that. https://t.co/fiMWFS2YYm — Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 9, 2020
In other words, even if the Court dismisses the complaint, we might see Thomas and Alito (and one or two others) note their dissent — not because they thought Paxton was right about fraud but because they thought they were bound to take the case and give him a trial under procedural rules.
But maybe Trump is going to screw that up?
The central purpose of #SCOTUS’s “original” jurisdiction is for disputes between states that can’t be resolved elsewhere. Successful intervention by another party would prove that the dispute *could* be resolved elsewhere — and that there’s nothing unique about Texas’s claims. pic.twitter.com/lZ1AB9kNWE — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 9, 2020
However this matter proceeds, Paxton will lose. Maybe he’ll have his complaint trashed or maybe the Court will feel it has no choice but to dutifully hear his case before flushing it, but the outcome isn’t in doubt. And when SCOTUS rejects the “big one,” as Trump calls it, he and some of his fans are going to go all-out demagoging Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett for not having swallowed Paxton’s nonsense in the name of giving Trump a second term. SCOTUS is the scapegoat. That’s the way this ends.
I’ll leave you with a tweet and a quote. The quote comes from the Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania state senate, discussing that letter to Congress that other Pennsylvania Republicans signed asking Congress to toss out its state’s electoral votes(!). Would she have signed the letter if given the chance, the NYT asked her? To which she replied, “If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’ I’d get my house bombed tonight.” Sounds to me like she’s very much in tune with the “fascism-curious” nature of her base and is willing to indulge them as a matter of self-interest, just like Loeffler and Perdue and nearly every other politician in this morally bankrupt party. As for the tweet below, it’s self-explanatory. The most influential purveyor of anti-American propaganda on planet Earth isn’t the Chinese government anymore, and even the Chinese government knows it. Great, great, great work.
Update: The important thing now is to show you’re a “team player” by joining Texas’s lawsuit, never mind that the GOP is supposed to be the “states’ rights” party.


hotair--2020-12-09--Biden's pick for HUD Secretary once wrote a letter of support for judge who severely beat his wife

Joe Biden touted his support of the Violence Against Women Act during his campaign for president .
It is essentially the only legislation he can point to in his long 50-year political career .
The irony is not lost now that Biden will likely nominate Rep. Marcia Fudge for a position in his cabinet .
Fudge went to bat for a judge in her home state of Ohio after he beat his wife so severely that she required reconstructive surgery .
In 2018 , Rep. Marcia Fudge tried to launch a challenge against Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for another term as Speaker .
Fudge at first cried racism but then an inconvenient truth came to the forefront .
In 2015 Fudge wrote a letter of support for Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge Lance Mason before he was sentenced for his actions .
He was accused of beating his wife so severely while he was driving that she required reconstructive surgery .
He also shoved her out of the car after the beating .
Mason ended up being sentenced to two years in jail but was let out after nine months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 , Mason was again facing time in prison – this time for the murder of his wife .
All of this came out during the Speaker ’ s race .
In the letter Fudge wrote on behalf of Mason , she claimed he was just a “ good man who made a very bad mistake.
” She said she had been assured by Mason that “ something like this will never happen again.
” He did , though , and ended up murdering his wife in front of the couple ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for this abuser/murderer in 2015 because he was a longtime public official in Ohio .
He was an Ohio state senator from January 2007 to September 2008 , a state representative , where he served as a ranking minority member of the House Criminal Justice Committee for five years , and an assistant county prosecutor for three years in the 1990s .
Marcia Fudge is a politician from Ohio who decided to put her loyalty for a fellow politician over the life of a woman .
Mason also served as an aide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who died in office and Fudge holds that seat now .
On August 20 , 2019 , he pleaded guilty to killing his wife and on September 12th , he was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 35 years .
Fast forward to 2020 and Joe Biden is choosing his cabinet .
Rep. Jim Clyburn is putting a lot of pressure on Biden to nominate Fudge for Secretary of Agriculture .
The Department of Agriculture is too white and focused on the Midwest , you see .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ securing his win in the South Carolina primary , a win he desperately needed to stay in the race .
Clyburn is calling in the debt by pushing for black nominees to fill Biden ’ s cabinet and other top positions in the Harris/Biden administration .
Instead of Agriculture , it looks as though Fudge will be put up for HUD secretary .
Surely someone must have questioned Clyburn on his insistence that Fudge advance in her political career and be a part of Biden ’ s cabinet .
Why would Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself a defender of women , elevate Fudge to such a position when she clearly puts political loyalty over human decency .
Is it because she is a black woman and identity politics is the only thing that matters in the upcoming presidential term of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris ?
It sure looks like the color of her skin trumps her ability to make good decisions .
Civil rights leaders from the NAACP and the National Urban League met with Biden Tuesday .
They are holding him accountable for his promise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus have been in touch with Mr. Biden ’ s transition team to encourage him to increase diversity at the highest levels of the government .
Some of those members are now discussing tactics to elevate their preferred contenders , including possibly aligning their endorsements .
They haven ’ t reached an agreement on their strategy , according to people familiar with the discussions , but one approach would be to choose one Black or Latino candidate to recommend for a handful of top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latino communities rallied behind this administration and their expectations are to be included at all levels , ” said Rep. Bennie Thompson ( D , Miss . )
, who has spoken with the Biden transition team .
The efforts underscore the pressures Mr. Biden faces as he builds out his administration .
In addition to demands that he increase the diversity across his cabinet nominees , Mr. Biden is navigating the party ’ s progressive base and his pledge to govern as a consensus builder .
Some of the candidates being pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have the backing of progressive groups , and vice versa .
Surely there were other black women who could have been selected instead of Marcia Fudge .
Biden has hesitated to pull members from the House for his cabinet because of the slim majority Democrats now hold , thanks to the success of Republicans flipping blue seats to red seats in the November election .
Fudge assured Team Biden that “ I ’ m in a safe district .
Whoever would come here [ to Congress ] would be part of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me some comfort.
” There ’ s that loyalty entitlement popping up again .
It ’ s all so cozy .
Let ’ s hope Fudge ’ s job description doesn ’ t include protecting women in dire situations .
She ’ s not so good at that .

Joe Biden touted his support of the Violence Against Women Act during his campaign for president. It is essentially the only legislation he can point to in his long 50-year political career. The irony is not lost now that Biden will likely nominate Rep. Marcia Fudge for a position in his cabinet. Fudge went to bat for a judge in her home state of Ohio after he beat his wife so severely that she required reconstructive surgery.
In 2018, Rep. Marcia Fudge tried to launch a challenge against Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her job. She failed and ended up endorsing Pelosi for another term as Speaker. Fudge at first cried racism but then an inconvenient truth came to the forefront. In 2015 Fudge wrote a letter of support for Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge Lance Mason before he was sentenced for his actions. He was accused of beating his wife so severely while he was driving that she required reconstructive surgery. He also shoved her out of the car after the beating. Mason ended up being sentenced to two years in jail but was let out after nine months. By the time Fudge ran against Pelosi in 2018, Mason was again facing time in prison – this time for the murder of his wife. All of this came out during the Speaker’s race.
In the letter Fudge wrote on behalf of Mason, she claimed he was just a “good man who made a very bad mistake.” She said she had been assured by Mason that “something like this will never happen again.” He did, though, and ended up murdering his wife in front of the couple’s young children. Fudge was sticking up for this abuser/murderer in 2015 because he was a longtime public official in Ohio. He was an Ohio state senator from January 2007 to September 2008, a state representative, where he served as a ranking minority member of the House Criminal Justice Committee for five years, and an assistant county prosecutor for three years in the 1990s. Marcia Fudge is a politician from Ohio who decided to put her loyalty for a fellow politician over the life of a woman. Mason also served as an aide to U.S. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who died in office and Fudge holds that seat now.
On August 20, 2019, he pleaded guilty to killing his wife and on September 12th, he was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 35 years.
Fast forward to 2020 and Joe Biden is choosing his cabinet. Rep. Jim Clyburn is putting a lot of pressure on Biden to nominate Fudge for Secretary of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture is too white and focused on the Midwest, you see. Biden owes Clyburn, big time, for securing his win in the South Carolina primary, a win he desperately needed to stay in the race. Clyburn is calling in the debt by pushing for black nominees to fill Biden’s cabinet and other top positions in the Harris/Biden administration. Instead of Agriculture, it looks as though Fudge will be put up for HUD secretary.
Surely someone must have questioned Clyburn on his insistence that Fudge advance in her political career and be a part of Biden’s cabinet. Why would Joe Biden, the politician who likes to call himself a defender of women, elevate Fudge to such a position when she clearly puts political loyalty over human decency. Is it because she is a black woman and identity politics is the only thing that matters in the upcoming presidential term of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? It sure looks like the color of her skin trumps her ability to make good decisions.
Civil rights leaders from the NAACP and the National Urban League met with Biden Tuesday. They are holding him accountable for his promise to create the most diverse cabinet ever.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus have been in touch with Mr. Biden’s transition team to encourage him to increase diversity at the highest levels of the government. Some of those members are now discussing tactics to elevate their preferred contenders, including possibly aligning their endorsements. They haven’t reached an agreement on their strategy, according to people familiar with the discussions, but one approach would be to choose one Black or Latino candidate to recommend for a handful of top remaining positions. “The African-American and Latino communities rallied behind this administration and their expectations are to be included at all levels,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D, Miss.), who has spoken with the Biden transition team. The efforts underscore the pressures Mr. Biden faces as he builds out his administration. In addition to demands that he increase the diversity across his cabinet nominees, Mr. Biden is navigating the party’s progressive base and his pledge to govern as a consensus builder. Some of the candidates being pushed by Black and Latino groups don’t have the backing of progressive groups, and vice versa.
Surely there were other black women who could have been selected instead of Marcia Fudge. Biden has hesitated to pull members from the House for his cabinet because of the slim majority Democrats now hold, thanks to the success of Republicans flipping blue seats to red seats in the November election. Fudge assured Team Biden that “I’m in a safe district. Whoever would come here [to Congress] would be part of this team as well, so that gives me some comfort.” There’s that loyalty entitlement popping up again. It’s all so cozy.
A Biden transition official said Ms. Fudge was chosen to lead HUD because of her work in Congress and in local government in Ohio as a leading voice for working families and on issues related to poverty, hunger, and homelessness.
Let’s hope Fudge’s job description doesn’t include protecting women in dire situations. She’s not so good at that.


hotair--2020-12-09--Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler: Police are authorized to end the 'Red House Autonomous Zone' (Update)

Yesterday a mob of Portland leftists harassed police and set up what is now being called the Red House Autonomous Zone or RHAZ for short .
Here ’ s some video of what that looks like .
As you can see , they ’ ve set up homemade spike strips in case police return .
Surprisingly , instead of rolling over for the mob , Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler , who is also the city ’ s police commissioner , authorized police to clear out the RHAZ .
He referred to it ( correctly ) as an “ illegal occupation.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ letting Mayor Wheeler know it ’ s too little , too late : This bit of understatement , given all that has happened in Portland , made me laugh .
He really has done a 180 , albeit very slowly .
I ’ m starting to think Mayor Wheeler may have learned something from the experience of being forced out of his house and mocked as “ Teargas Ted.
” Or maybe it was the nightly riots and having someone beaten unconscious in the streets of his city .
Maybe it was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused him to change his tune .
Whatever it was , it seems the mayor is no longer bending over backwards to appease left-wing extremists the way he used to .
So will anything actually happen ?
It hasn ’ t so far and Antifa are clearly prepared for a street battle with police now : I guess we ’ ll see if the new Mayor Wheeler is ready to send his cops in to be fire-bombed by this mob or if he ’ ll once again back down and let them have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every place where an autonomous zone has been set up before , in Seattle , in Minneapolis and in Atlanta , the result has been increased violence .
In Seattle , five people were shot .
In Atlanta , an 8-year-old girl was killed .
Now is the time to get ahead of this before Portland once again becomes home to anarchist violence .
Update : The AP just published a story saying nothing has changed so far .
Several city blocks remained closed by a series of blockades Wednesday fabricated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protesters dressed in black and wearing ski masks stood watch from atop a nearby wall .
The street behind the blockade in the residential neighborhood of homes , coffee shops and restaurants was laced with booby traps aimed at keeping officers out — including homemade spike strips , piles of rocks and thick bands of plastic wrap stretched at neck-height across the roadway .
What is the mayor waiting for ?

Yesterday a mob of Portland leftists harassed police and set up what is now being called the Red House Autonomous Zone or RHAZ for short. Here’s some video of what that looks like. As you can see, they’ve set up homemade spike strips in case police return.
Portland protesters have put up barricades on Mississippi Ave in an attempt to block an eviction of “The Red House” residence. Portland police have attempted to evict on multiple occasions during the over the past year. #Portland #protest #Portlandprotests #BLM #Antifa pic.twitter.com/0yYKH8r3ln — Independent Media PDX (@NDpendentPDX) December 9, 2020
Surprisingly, instead of rolling over for the mob, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, who is also the city’s police commissioner, authorized police to clear out the RHAZ. He referred to it (correctly) as an “illegal occupation.”
We all agree many of our nation’s systems and structures are fundamentally racist and require significant reform. There’s a housing crisis, a health care crisis, an education crisis, an employment crisis, a mental health crisis, and an addiction crisis. — Mayor Ted Wheeler (@tedwheeler) December 9, 2020
It’s also true that illegal trespassing, ignoring lawful orders from police, blocking sidewalks and streets, and intimidating neighbors inflame these crises and make them more difficult to solve. That is what’s happening on North Mississippi Avenue right now. — Mayor Ted Wheeler (@tedwheeler) December 9, 2020
Here comes law & order Ted:
It’s time for the encampment and occupation to end. There are many ways to protest and work toward needed reform. Illegally occupying private property, openly carrying weapons, threatening and intimidating people are not among them. — Mayor Ted Wheeler (@tedwheeler) December 9, 2020
Hundreds of people on Twitter are letting Mayor Wheeler know it’s too little, too late:
Should have tried this 6 months ago but you were worried about being re-elected. https://t.co/qlYSI63EfL — Beth Baumann (@eb454) December 9, 2020
This bit of understatement, given all that has happened in Portland, made me laugh.
Did something go wrong? https://t.co/GgRlJZ7bRD — Amy Bresnen (@amy_bresnen) December 9, 2020
He really has done a 180, albeit very slowly.
Who are you and what did you do with the real Ted Wheeler? https://t.co/15nJKlfzPm — Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) December 9, 2020
I’m starting to think Mayor Wheeler may have learned something from the experience of being forced out of his house and mocked as “Teargas Ted.” Or maybe it was the nightly riots and having someone beaten unconscious in the streets of his city. Maybe it was the “100% Antifa” murder that caused him to change his tune. Whatever it was, it seems the mayor is no longer bending over backwards to appease left-wing extremists the way he used to.
So will anything actually happen? It hasn’t so far and Antifa are clearly prepared for a street battle with police now:
ANTIFA has prepared for an all out war with @PortlandPolice Molotov’s everywhere, more are in The Red House. pic.twitter.com/fuZjNnHB77 — Tayler Hansen (@TaylerUSA) December 9, 2020
I guess we’ll see if the new Mayor Wheeler is ready to send his cops in to be fire-bombed by this mob or if he’ll once again back down and let them have their way. As a final reminder, every place where an autonomous zone has been set up before, in Seattle, in Minneapolis and in Atlanta, the result has been increased violence. In Seattle, five people were shot. In Atlanta, an 8-year-old girl was killed. Now is the time to get ahead of this before Portland once again becomes home to anarchist violence.
Update: The AP just published a story saying nothing has changed so far.
Several city blocks remained closed by a series of blockades Wednesday fabricated with wood, metal and wire fencing. Protesters dressed in black and wearing ski masks stood watch from atop a nearby wall. The street behind the blockade in the residential neighborhood of homes, coffee shops and restaurants was laced with booby traps aimed at keeping officers out — including homemade spike strips, piles of rocks and thick bands of plastic wrap stretched at neck-height across the roadway.
What is the mayor waiting for?


hotair--2020-12-09--Warnock's pitch: How's about electing a "pro-choice pastor"?

This might actually be one of the lesser oppo-research points on Raphael Warnock ’ s career as a minister , but at least he ’ s up front about it .
Are Georgia voters ready for Christian homilies on the advantages of abortion on demand ?
Warnock and Georgia Democrats must think they are ( via Twitchy ) : Before one even gets into the theological contradictions of a Christian minister being “ pro-choice , ” one has to wonder about the electoral contradictions of this as well .
Who exactly does Warnock want to reach with this message ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the special election , winning 40 % of that demo while getting 33 % of the overall vote .
Urban voters ?
Warnock already got nearly half of those ( 48 % ) in the all-in special election , while Kelly Loeffler only got 19 % of that vote .
The exit polls actually asked the question on abortion , and … it ’ s still tough to see where Warnock ’ s going with this : It ’ s true that voters tended toward more liberal views on abortion in the general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are voters Warnock already arguably has .
The runoff electorate is likely to look different than the one that handed Joe Biden a narrow win in Georgia too , since Donald Trump isn ’ t on the ballot any longer .
One could argue that Warnock wants to fire up his own base by reassuring them that he ’ s not some kind of crypto-conservative , but … no one ’ s thinking that .
At all .
The more likely outcome of a campaign based on championing abortion is to reinforce Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democrats already have to worry about , thanks to a distinct ground and advertising advantage that has emerged in the runoffs .
CNN covered the GOP ’ s ad-war edge last night : The twin races have drawn staggering sums already : Television and advertising spending had approached $ 400 million as of Tuesday , according to the latest data from Kantar ’ s Campaign Media Analysis group .
So far , Republicans lead Democrats in spending by about $ 242.4 million to $ 154.3 million .
The tally includes spending since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 runoffs .
… The Senate Leadership Fund , a super PAC affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , is overseeing the Peachtree PAC , a new political action committee that emerged in recent days to shape the US Senate runoffs in Georgia , officials tell CNN .
The group will spend $ 43 million in new television and radio ad spending .
That ’ s on top of the roughly $ 80 million that the McConnell-aligned political organization already has committed to spend through the Senate Leadership Fund and American Crossroads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the main focus of these efforts has been in targeting Warnock .
They ’ re also going after Jon Ossoff , but Republicans have made Warnock ’ s radical rhetoric and past peccadilloes ( especially his arrest for obstructing a child abuse investigation ) an issue for both Democrats .
That ’ s why proclaiming himself as a “ pro-choice pastor ” is a very questionable message for Warnock to embrace , politically and theologically .
Republicans are spending $ 240 million to paint Warnock as a radical weirdo … and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only helps emphasize that impression .
Addendum : As for theological weirdness , read Psalm 139 and ask Warnock to explain it : For you created my inmost being ; you knit me together in my mother ’ s womb .
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made ; your works are wonderful , I know that full well .
My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place , when I was woven together in the depths of the earth .
Your eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be .
Warnock could well have some sort of answer to this , but it ’ s going to sound pretty weird .
And again , that plays right into the hands of Loeffler and the GOP .

This might actually be one of the lesser oppo-research points on Raphael Warnock’s career as a minister, but at least he’s up front about it. Are Georgia voters ready for Christian homilies on the advantages of abortion on demand? Warnock and Georgia Democrats must think they are (via Twitchy):
I am a pro-choice pastor. — Reverend Raphael Warnock (@ReverendWarnock) December 9, 2020
Before one even gets into the theological contradictions of a Christian minister being “pro-choice,” one has to wonder about the electoral contradictions of this as well. Who exactly does Warnock want to reach with this message? Women? Warnock outperformed among women in the special election, winning 40% of that demo while getting 33% of the overall vote. Urban voters? Warnock already got nearly half of those (48%) in the all-in special election, while Kelly Loeffler only got 19% of that vote.
The exit polls actually asked the question on abortion, and … it’s still tough to see where Warnock’s going with this:
It’s true that voters tended toward more liberal views on abortion in the general election (50/43), but those are voters Warnock already arguably has. The runoff electorate is likely to look different than the one that handed Joe Biden a narrow win in Georgia too, since Donald Trump isn’t on the ballot any longer. One could argue that Warnock wants to fire up his own base by reassuring them that he’s not some kind of crypto-conservative, but … no one’s thinking that. At all.
The more likely outcome of a campaign based on championing abortion is to reinforce Republican turnout. And that’s something that Democrats already have to worry about, thanks to a distinct ground and advertising advantage that has emerged in the runoffs. CNN covered the GOP’s ad-war edge last night:
The twin races have drawn staggering sums already: Television and advertising spending had approached $400 million as of Tuesday, according to the latest data from Kantar’s Campaign Media Analysis group. So far, Republicans lead Democrats in spending by about $242.4 million to $154.3 million. The tally includes spending since November 10 and reservations through the January 5 runoffs. … The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is overseeing the Peachtree PAC, a new political action committee that emerged in recent days to shape the US Senate runoffs in Georgia, officials tell CNN. The group will spend $43 million in new television and radio ad spending. That’s on top of the roughly $80 million that the McConnell-aligned political organization already has committed to spend through the Senate Leadership Fund and American Crossroads, another super PAC.
Not surprisingly, the main focus of these efforts has been in targeting Warnock. They’re also going after Jon Ossoff, but Republicans have made Warnock’s radical rhetoric and past peccadilloes (especially his arrest for obstructing a child abuse investigation) an issue for both Democrats.
That’s why proclaiming himself as a “pro-choice pastor” is a very questionable message for Warnock to embrace, politically and theologically. Republicans are spending $240 million to paint Warnock as a radical weirdo … and the obvious contradiction in Warnock’s declaration only helps emphasize that impression.
Addendum: As for theological weirdness, read Psalm 139 and ask Warnock to explain it:
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Warnock could well have some sort of answer to this, but it’s going to sound pretty weird. And again, that plays right into the hands of Loeffler and the GOP.


hotair--2020-12-09--New York AG: I think Trump will resign so that Pence can pardon him

A leftover from yesterday that made me laugh , until I thought , “ Wait , why do I think this is far-fetched ?
” It ’ s insane to the point of hallucinatory lunacy , but , well , just look at the news lately .
If this were a movie , Trump would pardon all of his cronies and then resign so that Pence could pardon him — except that Pence , feeling a pang of conscience , would decide that he couldn ’ t do it and would end up double-crossing him .
The final scene would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the FBI while a disgruntled Bill Barr smiles at Pence and flashes him a thumbs up .
In reality , though , the idea of Pence experiencing a Trump-related pang of conscience is farcical .
Watch , then read on .
The pardon issue is actually a tough one for Never Trumpers .
On the one hand , the idea of the president gifting “ get out of jail free ” cards to his cronies en route to the exit is unutterably disgusting : Behind the scenes : Trump recently told one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every person who ever talked to me , ” suggesting an even larger pardon blitz to come .
As with most Trump conversations , the adviser wasn ’ t sure how seriously to take the president — although Trump gave no indication he was joking… Trump has also interrupted conversations to spontaneously suggest that he add the person he ’ s speaking with to his pardon list , these sources said… One source felt awkward because the president was clearly trying to be helpful but the adviser didn ’ t believe they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed being on the list could hurt their public persona .
Imagine being so corrupt that you ’ re willing to grant some buddy a pardon as a precaution , without having any reason to believe he ’ d done anything wrong .
It ’ s almost like prison “ insurance ” : Just in case the feds find out you ’ ve done something criminal in the past , here you go .
You ’ re off the hook .
What if it turns out later that person has done something unspeakable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ s worried about a Trump 2024 run should probably be rooting for him to get crazy with the pardon cheez whiz .
It ’ ll leave a bad taste in voters ’ mouths , which will hurt him if/when he runs again .
Republicans are split roughly 50/15 on every potential pardon except Kushner ’ s ( where they ’ re at 41/14 ) , which is weak support for a Trump initiative by the usual standards .
Maybe that ’ ll change once this moves from the realm of discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again require righties to support some grossly improper act that the president ’ s decided to take .
But it ’ s destined to alienate some “ soft ” Trump supporters among Republicans and independents .
And a man who just lost the popular vote for a second time because many Americans believe he ’ s unfit for office can ’ t much afford to continue building that case against himself .
The sticky prospect in all of this is the self-pardon .
I don ’ t think Trump would resign to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ clean ” pardon .
An audacious pardoning of himself is a much Trumpier scenario , although I wonder if yesterday ’ s Supreme Court ruling is making him rethink how much he can count on Gorsuch , Kavanaugh , and Barrett to show “ loyalty ” if and when the constitutionality of a self-pardon comes before them .
If you missed it , take a minute to read this op-ed by J. Michael Luttig making the case that a self-pardon would indeed be illegal .
I wrote about Luttig not long ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Fourth Circuit and a conservative judicial megastar , a shortlister for SCOTUS appointments .
It ’ s noteworthy that he ’ s out in front of this issue , lending an impeccable Federalist Society pedigree to the “ controversial ” view that Trump shouldn ’ t be allowed to place himself above the law .
So why is it clear that the president lacks the power to pardon himself ?
There are three reasons .
The language of the pardon power itself is ambiguous in the face of a constitutional expectation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invest the president with such extraordinary power — a power in the sovereign that was little known to the Framers , if known at all .
Second , the Framers clearly contemplated in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution that the president would not be able to violate the criminal laws with impunity .
There , without so much as a hint of a president ’ s power to avoid criminal liability through self-pardon , they provided that even “ in Cases of Impeachment , ” for which the president can only be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , “ the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment , Trial , Judgment and Punishment , according to Law.
” And last , but not least , a power in the president to pardon himself for any and all crimes against the United States he committed would grievously offend the animating constitutional principle that no man , not even the president , is above and beyond the law .
I ’ m not sure I ’ m with him on that second point .
Article II makes an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ in cases of impeachment.
” Does that mean , logically , that the president *can* pardon himself for offenses for which he wasn ’ t impeached ?
We don ’ t need to overthink it .
Two simple points .
One : People who revolted against a king and set up a constitutional republic obviously didn ’ t intend for the new head of state to enjoy kingly privilege to flout the law .
Two : A constitutional system based on limited powers obviously doesn ’ t contemplate anyone enjoying unlimited power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this issue is noise .
I don ’ t think he ’ ll end up granting himself a pardon .
He may pardon his kids but a self-pardon would be so nakedly and shabbily corrupt that it would do him more harm than good .
Especially if you think , as I do , that Biden ’ s DOJ will want to move on from Trump rather than prosecute him for something lest that prosecution consume the entirety of American politics during Biden ’ s presidency .
If there ’ s to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be at the state level .
And the woman in the clip above is apt to be Trump ’ s most eager antagonist .

A leftover from yesterday that made me laugh, until I thought, “Wait, why do I think this is far-fetched?”
It’s insane to the point of hallucinatory lunacy, but, well, just look at the news lately.
If this were a movie, Trump would pardon all of his cronies and then resign so that Pence could pardon him — except that Pence, feeling a pang of conscience, would decide that he couldn’t do it and would end up double-crossing him. The final scene would be an irate Trump being dragged off by the FBI while a disgruntled Bill Barr smiles at Pence and flashes him a thumbs up.
In reality, though, the idea of Pence experiencing a Trump-related pang of conscience is farcical. Watch, then read on.
.@NewYorkStateAG @TishJames tells @TheView that “it’s important to understand” that if Pres. Trump is pardoned, “he is not pardoned from state crimes”: “President Trump cannot avoid justice in the great state of New York.” https://t.co/cVclFZyKV0 pic.twitter.com/4pknlbOcEa — The View (@TheView) December 9, 2020
The pardon issue is actually a tough one for Never Trumpers. On the one hand, the idea of the president gifting “get out of jail free” cards to his cronies en route to the exit is unutterably disgusting:
Behind the scenes: Trump recently told one adviser he was going to pardon “every person who ever talked to me,” suggesting an even larger pardon blitz to come. As with most Trump conversations, the adviser wasn’t sure how seriously to take the president — although Trump gave no indication he was joking… Trump has also interrupted conversations to spontaneously suggest that he add the person he’s speaking with to his pardon list, these sources said… One source felt awkward because the president was clearly trying to be helpful but the adviser didn’t believe they had committed any crimes. The adviser also believed being on the list could hurt their public persona.
Imagine being so corrupt that you’re willing to grant some buddy a pardon as a precaution, without having any reason to believe he’d done anything wrong. It’s almost like prison “insurance”: Just in case the feds find out you’ve done something criminal in the past, here you go. You’re off the hook. What if it turns out later that person has done something unspeakable?
On the other hand, anyone who’s worried about a Trump 2024 run should probably be rooting for him to get crazy with the pardon cheez whiz. It’ll leave a bad taste in voters’ mouths, which will hurt him if/when he runs again.
Republicans are split roughly 50/15 on every potential pardon except Kushner’s (where they’re at 41/14), which is weak support for a Trump initiative by the usual standards. Maybe that’ll change once this moves from the realm of discussion to reality, when loyalty will once again require righties to support some grossly improper act that the president’s decided to take. But it’s destined to alienate some “soft” Trump supporters among Republicans and independents. And a man who just lost the popular vote for a second time because many Americans believe he’s unfit for office can’t much afford to continue building that case against himself.
The sticky prospect in all of this is the self-pardon. I don’t think Trump would resign to give Pence the opportunity to grant him a “clean” pardon. An audacious pardoning of himself is a much Trumpier scenario, although I wonder if yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling is making him rethink how much he can count on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to show “loyalty” if and when the constitutionality of a self-pardon comes before them. If you missed it, take a minute to read this op-ed by J. Michael Luttig making the case that a self-pardon would indeed be illegal. I wrote about Luttig not long ago; for years he was a judge on the Fourth Circuit and a conservative judicial megastar, a shortlister for SCOTUS appointments. It’s noteworthy that he’s out in front of this issue, lending an impeccable Federalist Society pedigree to the “controversial” view that Trump shouldn’t be allowed to place himself above the law.
So why is it clear that the president lacks the power to pardon himself? There are three reasons. The language of the pardon power itself is ambiguous in the face of a constitutional expectation of clarity if the Framers intended to invest the president with such extraordinary power — a power in the sovereign that was little known to the Framers, if known at all. Second, the Framers clearly contemplated in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution that the president would not be able to violate the criminal laws with impunity. There, without so much as a hint of a president’s power to avoid criminal liability through self-pardon, they provided that even “in Cases of Impeachment,” for which the president can only be removed and disqualified from holding high federal office, “the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” And last, but not least, a power in the president to pardon himself for any and all crimes against the United States he committed would grievously offend the animating constitutional principle that no man, not even the president, is above and beyond the law.
I’m not sure I’m with him on that second point. Article II makes an express exception to the pardon power only “in cases of impeachment.” Does that mean, logically, that the president *can* pardon himself for offenses for which he wasn’t impeached?
We don’t need to overthink it. Two simple points. One: People who revolted against a king and set up a constitutional republic obviously didn’t intend for the new head of state to enjoy kingly privilege to flout the law. Two: A constitutional system based on limited powers obviously doesn’t contemplate anyone enjoying unlimited power to commit crimes. Everything else surrounding this issue is noise.
I don’t think he’ll end up granting himself a pardon. He may pardon his kids but a self-pardon would be so nakedly and shabbily corrupt that it would do him more harm than good. Especially if you think, as I do, that Biden’s DOJ will want to move on from Trump rather than prosecute him for something lest that prosecution consume the entirety of American politics during Biden’s presidency. If there’s to be any legal action, that action will be at the state level. And the woman in the clip above is apt to be Trump’s most eager antagonist.