hotair--2020-10-22--Murkowski: I haven't changed my mind on a confirmation before the election

It ’ s more of a curiosity than a problem , but Lisa Murkowski apparently didn ’ t get moved off her position on confirmation despite meeting personally with Amy Coney Barrett .
At the time that Donald Trump appointed her to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Murkowski threw the process in doubt by announcing her opposition to moving forward on the opening regardless of the nominee .
Since then , Murkowski has been careful to parse her statements on Barrett ’ s specific confirmation .
The Alaska lawmaker , who met with the conservative nominee earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senator Susan Collins of Maine , the only other Republican who plans to vote against the Trump nominee on Monday .
Barrett ’ s nomination was advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday by unanimous consent after Democrats boycotted the vote .
“ I ’ ve shared for a while that I didn ’ t think we should be taking this up until after the election , and I haven ’ t changed , ” Murkowski said , according to a congressional pool report .
Asked explicitly whether she would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third-term senator responded : “ That means I haven ’ t changed my mind on that.
” Point of order for Newsweek : “ Unanimous consent ” has a specific parliamentary meaning .
The Judiciary Committee moved Barrett ’ s nomination not on unanimous consent but on a roll-call vote this morning .
Unanimous consent is a passive way to move bills and procedural votes .
The video of this morning ’ s proceedings shows the clerk calling the roll and getting a 12-0 result , which means this was much more intentional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this are important to understand when it comes to Murkowski .
At this point , Mitch McConnell might be satisfied is she and Susan Collins just sat out the vote .
With Mitt Romney on board — early and often , as it turns out — McConnell has 51 votes .
All 47 Democrats ( or as many as show up ) can be expected to vote against , including Joe Manchin and Doug Jones .
A 51-47 party-line vote will look a wee bit better than a 51-49 result with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s another possibility for both Murkowski and Collins , one that might explain why Murkowski ’ s playing coy about specifics .
Both of them can register their objections to the process by voting against the procedural motion to go to the floor vote .
Thanks to the nuking of the filibuster , McConnell only needs 51 votes to do that , too .
Murkowski and Collins would then be free to claim they voted against the process , but that Barrett is so obviously qualified that their objections can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett herself .
Collins faces a tough challenge for her seat in Maine , so she may end up a nay on the final vote too , or a no-show .
Murkowski ’ s response today seems calculated to leave her enough room to separate the process from the nominee .
Since this is all but a done deal , Murkowski ’ s final vote is about all of the drama that ’ s left .

It’s more of a curiosity than a problem, but Lisa Murkowski apparently didn’t get moved off her position on confirmation despite meeting personally with Amy Coney Barrett. At the time that Donald Trump appointed her to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Murkowski threw the process in doubt by announcing her opposition to moving forward on the opening regardless of the nominee. Since then, Murkowski has been careful to parse her statements on Barrett’s specific confirmation.
Until today … perhaps:
The Alaska lawmaker, who met with the conservative nominee earlier this week, would join the likes of Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the only other Republican who plans to vote against the Trump nominee on Monday. Barrett’s nomination was advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday by unanimous consent after Democrats boycotted the vote. “I’ve shared for a while that I didn’t think we should be taking this up until after the election, and I haven’t changed,” Murkowski said, according to a congressional pool report. Asked explicitly whether she would be a “no” vote, the third-term senator responded: “That means I haven’t changed my mind on that.”
Point of order for Newsweek: “Unanimous consent” has a specific parliamentary meaning. The Judiciary Committee moved Barrett’s nomination not on unanimous consent but on a roll-call vote this morning. Unanimous consent is a passive way to move bills and procedural votes. The video of this morning’s proceedings shows the clerk calling the roll and getting a 12-0 result, which means this was much more intentional than “unanimous consent.”
Procedural distinctions like this are important to understand when it comes to Murkowski. At this point, Mitch McConnell might be satisfied is she and Susan Collins just sat out the vote. With Mitt Romney on board — early and often, as it turns out — McConnell has 51 votes. All 47 Democrats (or as many as show up) can be expected to vote against, including Joe Manchin and Doug Jones. A 51-47 party-line vote will look a wee bit better than a 51-49 result with “bipartisan” opposition.
However, there’s another possibility for both Murkowski and Collins, one that might explain why Murkowski’s playing coy about specifics. Both of them can register their objections to the process by voting against the procedural motion to go to the floor vote. Thanks to the nuking of the filibuster, McConnell only needs 51 votes to do that, too. Murkowski and Collins would then be free to claim they voted against the process, but that Barrett is so obviously qualified that their objections can’t be extended to the final vote on Barrett herself.
Collins faces a tough challenge for her seat in Maine, so she may end up a nay on the final vote too, or a no-show. Murkowski’s response today seems calculated to leave her enough room to separate the process from the nominee. Since this is all but a done deal, Murkowski’s final vote is about all of the drama that’s left.


hotair--2020-10-22--Facebook: Hey, Babylon Bee, sorry our 'automated systems' deleted your satire piece about Sen. Hiron

Facebook: Hey, Babylon Bee, sorry our 'automated systems' deleted your satire piece about Sen. Hirono

Facebook ’ s decision to pull down a satire piece by the Babylon Bee yesterday worried me .
As I pointed out here , I wasn ’ t concerned that we would be deprived of the content .
The Bee ’ s story was just an old skit from Monty Python ’ s Holy Grail turned into a gag about Sen. Hirono wanting to apply the witch test to Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
As you can see from the image , it couldn ’ t have been more obvious this was all a joke .
So what worried me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content but the fact that Facebook was so obviously telling us that they didn ’ t care about applying their own rules fairly .
The message they were sending by pulling down this obvious joke seemed to be : We ’ ll do whatever we want to whoever we want .
And as we ’ ve seen with regard to the NY Post story about Hunter Biden this week , that ’ s a worrisome approach for giant social media companies to take .
It effectively means there are no rules , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But late last night Facebook had a change of heart ( 2nd email below ) : As you can see , Facebook is now claiming this was a mistake caused by “ automated systems.
” That completely contradicts what the Bee had been told earlier in the day , i.e .
that a manual review by a person had been done and that the decision would stand because the story “ incites violence.
” I emailed Seth Dillon about the manual review yesterday .
He said the response they got was pretty vague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them that the line “ We must burn her !
” was part of the problem .
So as I speculated yesterday , Facebook was apparently claiming that this satire piece was a threat to Judge Barrett .
At least that ’ s how it looks to me .
At this point one of two things are true .
Either Facebook is telling the truth about this being a failure of an automated system , in which case it misled the Bee yesterday when it told them a person had reviewed the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being the result of an automated system to cover up poor decision making by some staffer or contractor .
Either way , this doesn ’ t look very good for Facebook .
Maybe an automated system initially flagged this but I think the correct answer is the second one .
That ’ s bad because it once again demonstrates that Facebook is making up the rules as they go .
You really have to wonder if this hadn ’ t gotten some media attention yesterday if they would have corrected their mistake .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So I guess the lesson here is that it pays to push back on Facebook ’ s impulse to pull down whatever it wants because , at least some of the time , that leads to second thoughts .
If only Monty Python were still around to make a skit about Facebook taking down one of their own skits on the grounds that it represented an incitement to violence .
I ’ m sure it would be hilarious .

Facebook’s decision to pull down a satire piece by the Babylon Bee yesterday worried me. As I pointed out here, I wasn’t concerned that we would be deprived of the content. The Bee’s story was just an old skit from Monty Python’s Holy Grail turned into a gag about Sen. Hirono wanting to apply the witch test to Judge Amy Coney Barrett. As you can see from the image, it couldn’t have been more obvious this was all a joke. So what worried me wasn’t the loss of the content but the fact that Facebook was so obviously telling us that they didn’t care about applying their own rules fairly.
The message they were sending by pulling down this obvious joke seemed to be: We’ll do whatever we want to whoever we want. And as we’ve seen with regard to the NY Post story about Hunter Biden this week, that’s a worrisome approach for giant social media companies to take. It effectively means there are no rules, just rulers acting on their own impulses.
But late last night Facebook had a change of heart (2nd email below):
Update: Now that this story has attracted some media attention, Facebook has reversed their decision and lifted the restrictions on our page. They now say it was just a mistake and blame it on their automated systems (even though a person manually reviewed it after our appeal). — Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) October 22, 2020
As you can see, Facebook is now claiming this was a mistake caused by “automated systems.” That completely contradicts what the Bee had been told earlier in the day, i.e. that a manual review by a person had been done and that the decision would stand because the story “incites violence.”
I emailed Seth Dillon about the manual review yesterday. He said the response they got was pretty vague but that it had been suggested to them that the line “We must burn her!” was part of the problem. So as I speculated yesterday, Facebook was apparently claiming that this satire piece was a threat to Judge Barrett. At least that’s how it looks to me.
At this point one of two things are true. Either Facebook is telling the truth about this being a failure of an automated system, in which case it misled the Bee yesterday when it told them a person had reviewed the situation. Or Facebook is lying about this being the result of an automated system to cover up poor decision making by some staffer or contractor. Either way, this doesn’t look very good for Facebook.
Maybe an automated system initially flagged this but I think the correct answer is the second one. That’s bad because it once again demonstrates that Facebook is making up the rules as they go. You really have to wonder if this hadn’t gotten some media attention yesterday if they would have corrected their mistake. My guess is they would not have. So I guess the lesson here is that it pays to push back on Facebook’s impulse to pull down whatever it wants because, at least some of the time, that leads to second thoughts.
If only Monty Python were still around to make a skit about Facebook taking down one of their own skits on the grounds that it represented an incitement to violence. I’m sure it would be hilarious.


hotair--2020-10-22--NPR managing editor: We'd report on Hunter's e-mails, but we don't want to bother you, or something

Old and busted : Reporting without fear or favor .
New hotness : Ignoring stories involving corruption at the highest levels of government as a “ waste of time.
” This rationalization from NPR is taking a well-deserved beating today on social media , attempting to explain away why they haven ’ t even covered the Hunter Biden e-mail story — even though the Bidens still haven ’ t actually denied their authenticity .
Hey , I ’ m just here for the ratio : There are many , many red flags in that New York Post investigation .
NPR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them here .
Intelligence officials warn that Russia has been working overtime to keep the story of Hunter Biden in the spotlight .
Even if Russia can ’ t be positively connected to this information , the story of how Trump associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not been verified and seems suspect .
And if that story could be verified , the NY Post did no forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest reason you haven ’ t heard much on NPR about the Post story is that the assertions don ’ t amount to much .
“ We don ’ t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories , and we don ’ t want to waste the listeners ’ and readers ’ time on stories that are just pure distractions , ” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel told me .
“ And quite frankly , that ’ s where we ended up , this was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to treat it that way.
” The handful of stories that NPR has produced about the NY Post investigation have been limited to how Facebook and Twitter are restricting distribution of the story or how families of those seeking treatment for addiction are impacted by the portrayal of Hunter Biden ’ s struggle .
Were there red flags in the story ?
Yes indeed , and those are ( or were ) part of the story , but those don ’ t make it “ not really a story.
” If this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s a story of import in this election .
If that was the case , however , the Bidens could have issued an immediate and specific denial — and that would have been a story .
They still haven ’ t — and that ’ s a story , too .
Furthermore , the nation ’ s top intel officer announced last week that the Russians don ’ t have anything to do with it , although John Ratcliffe is not exactly non-partisan .
Still , that too was a story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least one Hunter Biden associate on the e-mail chain in question has come forward to claim that the Post ’ s original reporting on the “ smoking gun ” e-mail was accurate and not faked .
Not only is that a story , it makes the first report even more of a story .
That got published several hours before NPR sent out its “ we don ’ t wish to disturb you ” take on Twitter , which means that they ’ re still not taking any journalistic interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grab ’ em ?
In a new letter to Secret Service Director James Murray , Johnson and Grassley outline how records they previously obtained from the Secret Service line up with , and seem to provide verification of , newly-public emails about Hunter Biden ’ s controversial dealings with and payments from foreign businesspeople .
• An April 13 , 2014 email allegedly from Hunter Biden to his then-business associate Devon Archer refers to traveling to Houston “ tmrw.
” • Secret Service records show a travel record for Hunter Biden from April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 , to Houston , TX .
• An email from Ukrainian business official Vadim Pozharskyi of the energy firm Burisma to Hunter Biden and Archer on May 12 , 2014 reads : “ Following our talks during the visit to the Como Lake and our further discussions , I would like to bring the following situation to your attention.
” • Secret Service records show a travel record for Hunter Biden to Lake Cuomo , Italy on April 3 , 2014-April 6 , 2014 .
The senators are also asking why it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year after the time when the Secret Service told the senators such protection had ended .
Naah , NPR won ’ t bother to inform its audience of these developments .
You might be interested in finding out more about the potential for corruption , but NPR clearly isn ’ t interested in dealing with Joe Biden ’ s nexus to foreign cash while serving as VP .
They were much more interested in Donald Trump ’ s connection to Russian money via the 2013 Miss Universe contest , when Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 47 different articles discussing that in its accessible archives .
This appears to be yet another example of the Iowahawk Definition of Media Coverage : Addendum : David Harsanyi sums this up well : Just for sniffs & giggles , NPR has 28 stories that come up in a search for “ Trump soldiers Atlantic losers .
”

Old and busted: Reporting without fear or favor. New hotness: Ignoring stories involving corruption at the highest levels of government as a “waste of time.” This rationalization from NPR is taking a well-deserved beating today on social media, attempting to explain away why they haven’t even covered the Hunter Biden e-mail story — even though the Bidens still haven’t actually denied their authenticity.
Hey, I’m just here for the ratio:
Why haven't you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post's Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week's newsletter➡ https://t.co/CJesPgmGvo pic.twitter.com/jAi7PnpbZf — NPR Public Editor (@NPRpubliceditor) October 22, 2020
There are many, many red flags in that New York Post investigation. NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik detailed most of them here. Intelligence officials warn that Russia has been working overtime to keep the story of Hunter Biden in the spotlight. Even if Russia can’t be positively connected to this information, the story of how Trump associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not been verified and seems suspect. And if that story could be verified, the NY Post did no forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their report have not been altered. But the biggest reason you haven’t heard much on NPR about the Post story is that the assertions don’t amount to much. “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions,” NPR Managing Editor for News Terence Samuel told me. “And quite frankly, that’s where we ended up, this was … a politically driven event and we decided to treat it that way.” The handful of stories that NPR has produced about the NY Post investigation have been limited to how Facebook and Twitter are restricting distribution of the story or how families of those seeking treatment for addiction are impacted by the portrayal of Hunter Biden’s struggle.
Were there red flags in the story? Yes indeed, and those are (or were) part of the story, but those don’t make it “not really a story.” If this was actually Russian disinformation, well, that’s a story of import in this election. If that was the case, however, the Bidens could have issued an immediate and specific denial — and that would have been a story. They still haven’t — and that’s a story, too. Furthermore, the nation’s top intel officer announced last week that the Russians don’t have anything to do with it, although John Ratcliffe is not exactly non-partisan. Still, that too was a story.
And over the last 24 hours, at least one Hunter Biden associate on the e-mail chain in question has come forward to claim that the Post’s original reporting on the “smoking gun” e-mail was accurate and not faked. Not only is that a story, it makes the first report even more of a story. That got published several hours before NPR sent out its “we don’t wish to disturb you” take on Twitter, which means that they’re still not taking any journalistic interest in this.
I wonder if this will grab ’em?
May 20, 2017 text exchange obtained by #FoxNews – Tony Bobulinski is warned by business partner James Gilliar "Don't mention Joe being involved, it's only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid", which I'm told is a reference to Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/TB0UlEfOg0 — Mike Emanuel 🇺🇸 (@MikeEmanuelFox) October 22, 2020
Or this?
In a new letter to Secret Service Director James Murray, Johnson and Grassley outline how records they previously obtained from the Secret Service line up with, and seem to provide verification of, newly-public emails about Hunter Biden’s controversial dealings with and payments from foreign businesspeople. An April 13, 2014 email allegedly from Hunter Biden to his then-business associate Devon Archer refers to traveling to Houston “tmrw.”
Secret Service records show a travel record for Hunter Biden from April 13, 2014 – April 14, 2014, to Houston, TX. An email from Ukrainian business official Vadim Pozharskyi of the energy firm Burisma to Hunter Biden and Archer on May 12, 2014 reads: “Following our talks during the visit to the Como Lake and our further discussions, I would like to bring the following situation to your attention.”
Secret Service records show a travel record for Hunter Biden to Lake Cuomo, Italy on April 3, 2014-April 6, 2014. The senators are also asking why it appears Hunter Biden had Secret Service protection a year after the time when the Secret Service told the senators such protection had ended.
Naah, NPR won’t bother to inform its audience of these developments. You might be interested in finding out more about the potential for corruption, but NPR clearly isn’t interested in dealing with Joe Biden’s nexus to foreign cash while serving as VP. They were much more interested in Donald Trump’s connection to Russian money via the 2013 Miss Universe contest, when Trump was not in government at all; NPR has 47 different articles discussing that in its accessible archives.
This appears to be yet another example of the Iowahawk Definition of Media Coverage:
Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving. — David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 9, 2013
Updated today, actually:
Autoerotic Information Asphyxiation https://t.co/dQgGiPROav — David Burge (@iowahawkblog) October 22, 2020
Addendum: David Harsanyi sums this up well:
The NY Post story now has one more on-the-record source than the Atlantic did when everyone went their Trump hates soldiers piece. (The one that's still constantly repeated as fact.) https://t.co/OcwGYwcnjs — David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) October 22, 2020
Just for sniffs & giggles, NPR has 28 stories that come up in a search for “Trump soldiers Atlantic losers.”


hotair--2020-10-22--Trump: Here's the full video of my interview with the very biased and hateful Lesley Stahl

Twelve days left .
This is what he ’ d like us to spend one of them talking about , it seems .
Watch below and you ’ ll find that the interview is contentious , but mostly it ’ s familiar .
It ’ s all the same old topics — why is the U.S. doing so poorly with COVID , why is he standoffish about masks and hostile to Fauci , where ’ s his alternative to ObamaCare , why hasn ’ t the wall been built , why does he want to lock up Joe Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with all the same old talking points .
He even mentions the idea that we have so many cases only because we ’ re testing so much , something he said a lot over the summer but has stayed away from recently because of the heat he ’ s taken for it .
What set him off , I think , is Stahl scoffing at some of his proudest achievements as president and as a politician .
We created the best economy in U.S. history , he boasts .
Oh , come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good economy from Obama .
We ’ re doing record-setting rallies nowadays , he insists .
Your rallies were bigger in 2016 , she counters .
Where she really gets under his skin is when he starts talking about Biden being in the middle of the scandal at around 21:00 and she counters that there ’ s no evidence of that .
Watch at least five minutes or so starting at that point ; he goes on to say that the Obama administration spied on his campaign and she answers that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either .
We can ’ t put it on the air without something verifiable , she insists , presumably alluding to the unfinished Durham probe and the finished-but-fizzled Bash investigation into unmasking .
No , he says , you won ’ t put it on the air because you ’ re biased .
And this part does show bias , to be sure : The FBI could verify that the laptop is what it ’ s claimed to be , but the Bureau doesn ’ t discuss active investigations .
Usually .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it by deploying CBS ’ s considerable investigative resources .
She seems … unmotivated .
Another thing you ’ ll notice in the full interview is how often Trump denies saying something that he actually did say recently .
Stahl asks him about calling Fauci an idiot .
When did I say that , asks Trump ?
On Monday of this week , in a phone call with his campaign : “ People are tired of hearing Fauci and these idiots , all these idiots who got it wrong.
” Later Stahl asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the Bidens and Whitmer .
I never said that , Trump replies .
But he did — explicitly about the Bidens , and then at a rally in Michigan when the crowd started chanting “ lock her up ” about Whitmer , he answered , “ Lock ’ em all up.
” Either he doesn ’ t remember the things he says in the moment to egg on his fans or he does and he ’ s reflexively lying to get out of a jam .
In the end , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole 37 minutes that might end up in an ad : Meanwhile , CBS put out a statement this morning complaining about Trump ’ s decision to post the full interview : At a minimum , him releasing the uncut clip will force them to be extra fair in how they edit his answers for broadcast .
It may also force them to include more of Stahl ’ s comments pushing back on him , to explain why he felt so antagonized afterward .
The obvious thing to do ( which they may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to post their own uncut recordings of their interviews with Trump , Pence , Biden , and Harris to the “ 60 Minutes ” website as a gesture towards full transparency .
A question to consider while you watch : Why post this today instead of holding it for tomorrow , just in case Trump has a bad debate tonight and needs something to change the subject in a pinch ?
In particular , why post this today as a sneak preview for Team Biden as to how Trump is apt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if he has a good debate and doesn ’ t want to step on the coverage tomorrow by releasing this then , he could have released it on Saturday and stolen away some of CBS ’ s viewers for Sunday night ’ s interview that way .
Anyway , 12 days to go .

Twelve days left. This is what he’d like us to spend one of them talking about, it seems.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1319298695683334144
Watch below and you’ll find that the interview is contentious, but mostly it’s familiar. It’s all the same old topics — why is the U.S. doing so poorly with COVID, why is he standoffish about masks and hostile to Fauci, where’s his alternative to ObamaCare, why hasn’t the wall been built, why does he want to lock up Joe Biden and Gretchen Whitmer. And Trump does fine, with all the same old talking points. He even mentions the idea that we have so many cases only because we’re testing so much, something he said a lot over the summer but has stayed away from recently because of the heat he’s taken for it.
What set him off, I think, is Stahl scoffing at some of his proudest achievements as president and as a politician. We created the best economy in U.S. history, he boasts. Oh, come on, she says, you inherited a good economy from Obama. We’re doing record-setting rallies nowadays, he insists. Your rallies were bigger in 2016, she counters. Where she really gets under his skin is when he starts talking about Biden being in the middle of the scandal at around 21:00 and she counters that there’s no evidence of that. Watch at least five minutes or so starting at that point; he goes on to say that the Obama administration spied on his campaign and she answers that there’s no real evidence of that either. We can’t put it on the air without something verifiable, she insists, presumably alluding to the unfinished Durham probe and the finished-but-fizzled Bash investigation into unmasking. No, he says, you won’t put it on the air because you’re biased.
And this part does show bias, to be sure:
This exchange between Trump and Lesley Stahl is insane. She repeatedly insists the Biden laptops “can’t be verified” so reporters shouldn’t talk about it. Trump asks her why it can’t be verified. Her answer: “Because it can’t be verified.” pic.twitter.com/cf9hcSGnrm — Anders Hagstrom (@Hagstrom_Anders) October 22, 2020
The FBI could verify that the laptop is what it’s claimed to be, but the Bureau doesn’t discuss active investigations. Usually. Or, Stahl herself could try to verify it by deploying CBS’s considerable investigative resources. She seems … unmotivated.
Another thing you’ll notice in the full interview is how often Trump denies saying something that he actually did say recently. Stahl asks him about calling Fauci an idiot. When did I say that, asks Trump? On Monday of this week, in a phone call with his campaign: “People are tired of hearing Fauci and these idiots, all these idiots who got it wrong.” Later Stahl asks him about saying he’d lock up the Bidens and Whitmer. I never said that, Trump replies. But he did — explicitly about the Bidens, and then at a rally in Michigan when the crowd started chanting “lock her up” about Whitmer, he answered, “Lock ’em all up.” Either he doesn’t remember the things he says in the moment to egg on his fans or he does and he’s reflexively lying to get out of a jam.
In the end, there’s probably only one line in the whole 37 minutes that might end up in an ad:
"I hope that they end it. It'll be so good if they end it." — here's Trump saying he hopes SCOTUS strikes down the ACA during a pandemic pic.twitter.com/1bTonnA2YJ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 22, 2020
Meanwhile, CBS put out a statement this morning complaining about Trump’s decision to post the full interview:
CBS News statement: "The White House’s unprecedented decision to disregard their agreement with CBS News and release their footage will not deter 60 MINUTES from providing its full, fair and contextual reporting which presidents have participated in for decades." pic.twitter.com/ssc5Y4wTsF — Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) October 22, 2020
At a minimum, him releasing the uncut clip will force them to be extra fair in how they edit his answers for broadcast. It may also force them to include more of Stahl’s comments pushing back on him, to explain why he felt so antagonized afterward. The obvious thing to do (which they may have been planning to do anyway) is to post their own uncut recordings of their interviews with Trump, Pence, Biden, and Harris to the “60 Minutes” website as a gesture towards full transparency.
A question to consider while you watch: Why post this today instead of holding it for tomorrow, just in case Trump has a bad debate tonight and needs something to change the subject in a pinch? In particular, why post this today as a sneak preview for Team Biden as to how Trump is apt to respond to similar questions this evening? Even if he has a good debate and doesn’t want to step on the coverage tomorrow by releasing this then, he could have released it on Saturday and stolen away some of CBS’s viewers for Sunday night’s interview that way. Anyway, 12 days to go.


hotair--2020-10-22--Nicholas Kristof's rehash of US coronavirus mistakes is pretty misleading

Nicholas Kristof has an opinion piece at the NY Times today about the “ colossal failure ” of the US response to the coronavirus .
At this point it ’ s pretty hard to argue the response has been a success but the real problem with Kristof ’ s piece is that it ’ s a retread of a bunch of misleading claims all of which seem designed to blame the failure on one man .
One guess who that is .
The piece works its way through the pandemic chronologically and the early part places the blame where it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kristof gets it wrong in his first sentence of this section : The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission did not announce these cases on Dec. 31 .
That ’ s something the WHO claimed had happened for several months as part of an official timeline of the pandemic , but the WHO eventually admitted it wasn ’ t true and corrected the timeline .
The current WHO timeline notes that what actually happened was that WHO picked up on media reports in China about cases of pneumonia .
WHO then made two requests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response from China three days later .
In China , President Xi Jinping issued orders on Jan. 7 for handling the coronavirus , but they were inadequate .
If , at that time or soon after , Xi had ordered a more modest version of the Wuhan lockdown that was to come , it is possible that the virus could have been stifled before it spread around the globe… That first half of January represents a huge missed opportunity for the world .
If the United States , the World Health Organization and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pressed China , then perhaps the Chinese central government would have intervened in Wuhan earlier .
And if Wuhan had been locked down just two weeks earlier , it ’ s conceivable that this entire global catastrophe could have been averted .
Here ’ s what Kristof doesn ’ t say .
One of the reasons the world remained in the dark is that the WHO went along with every fabricated claim coming out of China .
China knew almost immediately that the virus was spreading person to person but lied about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And when Trump closed the border to China at the end of January , the WHO ’ s Dr. Tedros said it would do more harm than good .
Kristof then moves on to the bungling of testing in the U.S .
The C.D.C .
devised a faulty test , and turf wars in the federal government prevented the use of other tests… It ’ s unfair to blame the testing catastrophe entirely on Trump , for the failures unfolded several paygrades below him .
Partly that ’ s because Trump appointees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the C.D.C.
, simply aren ’ t the A team .
In any case , presidents set priorities for lower officials .
If Trump had pushed aides as hard to get accurate tests as he pushed to repel refugees and migrants , then America almost certainly would have had an effective test by the beginning of February and tens of thousands of lives would have been saved .
Again , Kristof breezes over the details and has the timeline wrong .
Since at least April partisan Democrats have been trying their best to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is at least aware enough of the facts to admit it ’ s not entirely Trump ’ s fault but then turns around and suggests it ’ s entirely Trump ’ s fault .
That ’ s nonsense .
Here ’ s what actually happened .
The CDC test was created in late January and sent out to labs for verification .
The labs quickly ran into a problem .
A segment of the test was giving false positives .
It turned out one of the chemicals used in production of the test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the test wasn ’ t necessary and wasn ’ t included in tests created by other countries but because of a bunch of red tape , labs mandated to use the test as designed and that meant using the faulty segment .
It wasn ’ t until Feb. 12 that the CDC admitted there was a problem and seemed to be planning to start over and manufacture new tests .
The FDA finally stepped in on Feb. 24 and told the CDC to stop trying to rescue their failed test by manufacturing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he issued an order allowing labs to use only the portion of the test that worked on Feb. 26 .
There ’ s no doubt this was a huge waste of precious time caused by bureaucratic arrogance and probably a bit of human pride .
It was a genuine disaster which cost us weeks .
But there was very little President Trump could have done to fix it .
Had he tried to step in and tell the scientists at the CDC how to run their test , he would have been accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In any case , it ’ s doubtful anything could have fixed the problem by the beginning of February because it ’ s not clear the CDC even knew what the problem was that early .
Public health is a state issue in the United States .
The failures at the state level get brushed aside as a result of a failure in testing .
But the truth is that even if we had more testing states would not have shut down much earlier than they did because the U.S. death toll was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t until the death toll began climbing that people were willing to shut down everything and by that point it was really too late to prevent the first wave .
Kristof also says all of it would have been okay if we ’ d just used face masks : What Kristof doesn ’ t tell you is that the WHO , the Surgeon General and even Dr. Fauci were all against masks early on .
Fauci told 60 Minutes in early March , “ right now in the United States people should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Jerome Adams told Face the Nation “ masks do not work for the general public ” around the same time in March .
So foreshortening this whole issue to the brief line Trump “ discouraged mask wearing ” leaves out a lot of important detail .
It was the scientists and experts who initially discouraged mask wearing .
Why would Kristof leave all of this out ?
Obviously because it complicates the narrative he ’ s trying to sell readers .
There ’ s more but hopefully you get the point .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ missed opportunities .
The U.S. could have and should have done a lot better responding to this early on , but the failures Kristof points to often happened among the scientists and experts at the CDC , the WHO , etc .
And even when looking at the political leadership , a lot of the poor decision making happened at the state level .
Asking Trump , to second guess all of the scientists and elected Democratic governors is a silly partisan game Democrats have been playing for months .
The most absurd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uttered by Joe Biden .
Kristof doesn ’ t go quite that far but he ’ s playing the same game for the same reason .

Nicholas Kristof has an opinion piece at the NY Times today about the “colossal failure” of the US response to the coronavirus. At this point it’s pretty hard to argue the response has been a success but the real problem with Kristof’s piece is that it’s a retread of a bunch of misleading claims all of which seem designed to blame the failure on one man. One guess who that is.
There’s plenty of blame to go around, involving Democrats as well as Republicans, but Trump in particular “recklessly squandered lives,” in the words of an unusual editorial this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. Death certificates may record the coronavirus as the cause of death, but in a larger sense vast numbers of Americans died because their government was incompetent.
The piece works its way through the pandemic chronologically and the early part places the blame where it belongs: on China. Even so, Kristof gets it wrong in his first sentence of this section:
When the health commission of Wuhan, China, announced on Dec. 31 that it had identified 27 cases of a puzzling pneumonia, Taiwan acted with lightning speed.
The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission did not announce these cases on Dec. 31. That’s something the WHO claimed had happened for several months as part of an official timeline of the pandemic, but the WHO eventually admitted it wasn’t true and corrected the timeline. The current WHO timeline notes that what actually happened was that WHO picked up on media reports in China about cases of pneumonia. WHO then made two requests for more information and finally got a response from China three days later.
In China, President Xi Jinping issued orders on Jan. 7 for handling the coronavirus, but they were inadequate. If, at that time or soon after, Xi had ordered a more modest version of the Wuhan lockdown that was to come, it is possible that the virus could have been stifled before it spread around the globe… That first half of January represents a huge missed opportunity for the world. If the United States, the World Health Organization and the world media had raised enough questions and pressed China, then perhaps the Chinese central government would have intervened in Wuhan earlier. And if Wuhan had been locked down just two weeks earlier, it’s conceivable that this entire global catastrophe could have been averted.
Here’s what Kristof doesn’t say. One of the reasons the world remained in the dark is that the WHO went along with every fabricated claim coming out of China. China knew almost immediately that the virus was spreading person to person but lied about it and the WHO repeated those lies. And when Trump closed the border to China at the end of January, the WHO’s Dr. Tedros said it would do more harm than good.
Kristof then moves on to the bungling of testing in the U.S.
The C.D.C. devised a faulty test, and turf wars in the federal government prevented the use of other tests… It’s unfair to blame the testing catastrophe entirely on Trump, for the failures unfolded several paygrades below him. Partly that’s because Trump appointees, like Robert Redfield, director of the C.D.C., simply aren’t the A team. In any case, presidents set priorities for lower officials. If Trump had pushed aides as hard to get accurate tests as he pushed to repel refugees and migrants, then America almost certainly would have had an effective test by the beginning of February and tens of thousands of lives would have been saved.
Again, Kristof breezes over the details and has the timeline wrong. Since at least April partisan Democrats have been trying their best to blame this failure on Trump. Kristof is at least aware enough of the facts to admit it’s not entirely Trump’s fault but then turns around and suggests it’s entirely Trump’s fault. That’s nonsense.
Here’s what actually happened. The CDC test was created in late January and sent out to labs for verification. The labs quickly ran into a problem. A segment of the test was giving false positives. It turned out one of the chemicals used in production of the test had been contaminated. That segment of the test wasn’t necessary and wasn’t included in tests created by other countries but because of a bunch of red tape, labs mandated to use the test as designed and that meant using the faulty segment. It wasn’t until Feb. 12 that the CDC admitted there was a problem and seemed to be planning to start over and manufacture new tests. The FDA finally stepped in on Feb. 24 and told the CDC to stop trying to rescue their failed test by manufacturing a fixed version in house. Instead, he issued an order allowing labs to use only the portion of the test that worked on Feb. 26.
There’s no doubt this was a huge waste of precious time caused by bureaucratic arrogance and probably a bit of human pride. It was a genuine disaster which cost us weeks. But there was very little President Trump could have done to fix it. Had he tried to step in and tell the scientists at the CDC how to run their test, he would have been accused of stepping all over the experts. In any case, it’s doubtful anything could have fixed the problem by the beginning of February because it’s not clear the CDC even knew what the problem was that early.
Trump supporters note, correctly, that within the United States, the states with the highest mortality rates have been Democrat-led: New Jersey has had the most deaths per capita, followed by New York. It’s true that local politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, made disastrous decisions, as when Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City urged people in March to “get out on the town despite coronavirus.” But local officials erred in part because of the failure of testing: Without tests, they didn’t know what they faced.
Public health is a state issue in the United States. The failures at the state level get brushed aside as a result of a failure in testing. But the truth is that even if we had more testing states would not have shut down much earlier than they did because the U.S. death toll was close to zero. It wasn’t until the death toll began climbing that people were willing to shut down everything and by that point it was really too late to prevent the first wave.
Kristof also says all of it would have been okay if we’d just used face masks:
Japan is a densely populated country that did not test much and yet has only 2 percent as many deaths per capita as the United States. One reason is that Japanese have long embraced face masks, which Dr. Redfield has noted can be at least as effective as a vaccine in fighting the pandemic. A country doesn’t have to do everything, if it does some things right. Yet in retrospect, Trump did almost everything wrong. He discouraged mask wearing.
What Kristof doesn’t tell you is that the WHO, the Surgeon General and even Dr. Fauci were all against masks early on. Fauci told 60 Minutes in early March, “right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks.” Surgeon General Jerome Adams told Face the Nation “masks do not work for the general public” around the same time in March.
So foreshortening this whole issue to the brief line Trump “discouraged mask wearing” leaves out a lot of important detail. It was the scientists and experts who initially discouraged mask wearing. Why would Kristof leave all of this out? Obviously because it complicates the narrative he’s trying to sell readers.
There’s more but hopefully you get the point. There were a lot of mistakes and missed opportunities. The U.S. could have and should have done a lot better responding to this early on, but the failures Kristof points to often happened among the scientists and experts at the CDC, the WHO, etc. And even when looking at the political leadership, a lot of the poor decision making happened at the state level.
Asking Trump, to second guess all of the scientists and elected Democratic governors is a silly partisan game Democrats have been playing for months. The most absurd version of this argument is the one uttered by Joe Biden. Kristof doesn’t go quite that far but he’s playing the same game for the same reason.


hotair--2020-10-22--U.S. Attorney files federal charges against Houston cop killer, HPD Chief "We aren't the immigration

U.S. Attorney files federal charges against Houston cop killer, HPD Chief "We aren't the immigration police"

The U.S. Attorney Ryan Patrick filed federal charges against Elmer Rolando Manzano-Martinez , the illegal immigrant who killed Sgt .
Harold Preston Tuesday morning .
Patrick was concerned that local charges against the felon cop killer would not be enough to hold him after his release from the hospital .
Wednesday evening , the U.S. Attorney posted a thread on Twitter to update his actions in this case .
Patrick explains that the local authorities had not filed any charges against Elmer Manzano as of Wednesday morning .
He concluded that rather than wait and hope that local officials do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action himself .
He notes that “ many times ” last summer charges were filed on “ capital murder defendants who were realized with few conditions and were still a threat to safety or those with new law violations who were left on bond.
” Ah , yes .
The threats to public safety that have arisen due to the Democrats ’ “ reform ” of bail and the result that dangerous criminals end up right back out on the streets after an arrest under the guise that the bail reforms only affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added as the investigation continues .
So far , Patrick has filed felony firearm charges .
He didn ’ t want Manzano to just walk out of the hospital .
That is an amazing statement from the U.S. Attorney – he is concerned that a cop killer will just be discharged from the hospital and walk out , without any charges holding him .
He has offered his office ’ s help on such federal offenses in past months .
Kudos to the U.S. Attorney for stepping up .
The police chief , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And he is sounding pretty defensive about the presence of illegal immigrants in Houston .
He said that HPD is “ not the immigration police ” .
They only ask about immigration status if the situation becomes obvious that the question must be asked .
For example , he spoke about a police stop of a van that then turns into a situation where many people are coming out of the vehicle and running away .
That is likely a human trafficking scene .
It is unclear if Manzano was asked about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a call about domestic violence last weekend but not held , charges were not made against him .
The officer , by the way , turned out to be the one wounded in Tuesday ’ s violent attack on police .
Manzano went on to escalate his anger Tuesday which resulted in one dead cop and one wounded .
His 14-year-old son was also shot when he opened the door of the apartment .
Why his juvenile son was allowed to open the door with police on the scene has not been explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation , according to the police chief .
Manzano is in Texas illegally from El Salvador .
He has been in Texas since 1989 .
He has a long criminal record .
The reporting says that he threatened his wife will reporting her as an illegal immigrant if she left him with their son .
This whole story is bad , all the way around .
Manzano was officially charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder on Wednesday .
The other charges by the U.S. Attorney ’ s office should act as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out into the public again .

The U.S. Attorney Ryan Patrick filed federal charges against Elmer Rolando Manzano-Martinez, the illegal immigrant who killed Sgt. Harold Preston Tuesday morning. Patrick was concerned that local charges against the felon cop killer would not be enough to hold him after his release from the hospital. Wednesday evening, the U.S. Attorney posted a thread on Twitter to update his actions in this case.
Patrick explains that the local authorities had not filed any charges against Elmer Manzano as of Wednesday morning. He concluded that rather than wait and hope that local officials do their job he went ahead and took action himself. He notes that “many times” last summer charges were filed on “capital murder defendants who were realized with few conditions and were still a threat to safety or those with new law violations who were left on bond.” Ah, yes. The threats to public safety that have arisen due to the Democrats’ “reform” of bail and the result that dangerous criminals end up right back out on the streets after an arrest under the guise that the bail reforms only affect misdemeanor charges.
More charges could be added as the investigation continues. So far, Patrick has filed felony firearm charges.
My office has charged Elmer Manzano with being an alien in possession of a firearm and as a felon in possession of a firearm. — US Attorney Ryan Patrick (@USAttyPatrick) October 21, 2020
I have little faith that local charges could be sufficient to hold him. Multiple times this summer filed on capital murder defendants who were realized with few conditions and were still a threat to safety or those with new law violations who were left on bond. — US Attorney Ryan Patrick (@USAttyPatrick) October 21, 2020
This morning, when I saw local charges had not yet been filed there was added urgency to make sure Manzano didn’t walk out of the hospital. — US Attorney Ryan Patrick (@USAttyPatrick) October 21, 2020
He didn’t want Manzano to just walk out of the hospital. That is an amazing statement from the U.S. Attorney – he is concerned that a cop killer will just be discharged from the hospital and walk out, without any charges holding him. He has offered his office’s help on such federal offenses in past months.
For three years I have been communicating with my local chiefs, sheriffs and constables that if they have a gun, drug, or other case where we can help make a local impact, we will. — US Attorney Ryan Patrick (@USAttyPatrick) October 21, 2020
I know every sheriff and chief has a different mission in their community. Cases like felons in possession of ammunition is a federal offense and we will step in and file that. With over 200 federal prosecutors covering 43 counties from Walker to Webb were here to help. — US Attorney Ryan Patrick (@USAttyPatrick) October 21, 2020
Kudos to the U.S. Attorney for stepping up. The police chief, meanwhile, is busily slow-walking the process. And he is sounding pretty defensive about the presence of illegal immigrants in Houston. He said that HPD is “not the immigration police”. They only ask about immigration status if the situation becomes obvious that the question must be asked. For example, he spoke about a police stop of a van that then turns into a situation where many people are coming out of the vehicle and running away. That is likely a human trafficking scene. It is unclear if Manzano was asked about his immigration status when police responded to a call about domestic violence last weekend but not held, charges were not made against him. The officer, by the way, turned out to be the one wounded in Tuesday’s violent attack on police. Manzano went on to escalate his anger Tuesday which resulted in one dead cop and one wounded. His 14-year-old son was also shot when he opened the door of the apartment. Why his juvenile son was allowed to open the door with police on the scene has not been explained. That is a part of the investigation, according to the police chief.
Manzano is in Texas illegally from El Salvador. He has been in Texas since 1989. He has a long criminal record. The reporting says that he threatened his wife will reporting her as an illegal immigrant if she left him with their son. This whole story is bad, all the way around.
Manzano was officially charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder on Wednesday. The other charges by the U.S. Attorney’s office should act as insurance that he isn’t released out into the public again.


hotair--2020-10-22--Punt: Biden's answer on Court-packing is ... a presidential commission

Last week he promised voters an answer before Election Day about how he ’ d handle the left ’ s desire to expand SCOTUS .
This new clip from his upcoming “ 60 Minutes ” interview vaguely resembles an answer , I guess .
Ironically , the clip is circulating a day after Trump dinged him for once having supported the work of the tea-party-era Simpson-Bowles deficit commission .
That panel ’ s work led nowhere , as is customary for commissions ; they couldn ’ t even get Paul Ryan to vote for their proposal in order to force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , if you want to solve a problem , you call up the other side and you solve it .
If you want to punt while creating the appearance that you ’ re doing something to solve it , you form a commission .
Ed messaged me when he saw that clip : “ Biden ’ s been in Washington for 47 years … and he needs a commission to tell him what to think about court packing ?
FFS.
” Hey , sometimes it takes a man a half-century to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that or his mind was made up long ago and he ’ s grasping for a way to let progressives down easy .
Biden ’ s cagey in some of his language — this is a “ live ball , ” the commission might go “ well beyond ” court-packing — but I think he ’ s trying to hype the mushy prospect of “ reform ” without committing to anything specific .
What he says at the end about not wanting to turn SCOTUS into a political football is the tell about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core critique against expanding the Court : If Congress ends up in a partisan tit-for-tat by adding seats every time one party or the other takes power , the judiciary will lose whatever trust it still enjoys as a nonpartisan institution .
He ’ s trying to placate disappointed lefties by promising them some sort of change , or at least a gesture towards change , knowing full well that the votes to pack the Court won ’ t be there in Congress even if Democrats blow the roof off next month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely .
His plan delays any legislative action until after his honeymoon period ( assuming there is one ) is over .
It also means that any action would happen after the Supreme Court has , in all likelihood , let Obamacare stay in place — draining more air out of the Court-packing trial balloon .
And he is trying to broaden the conversation to proposals other than packing the Court .
Putting forward several competing ideas , rather than one clear and simple one , is a recipe for bogging down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court — as Biden has to know .
Finally , the comments are a clear signal that Biden is unenthusiastic about Court-packing , knows the public is , or both .
Most progressives will see right through this , but Biden was also cagey in running down the clock before springing it on them .
Some of them have already voted .
And the ones who haven ’ t are now so amped up to beat Trump with the election less than two weeks away that they ’ re destined to let him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that he ’ s promising a bipartisan commission involving conservative legal scholars is good for his political brand .
He could and probably will frame this proposal tonight as a needed salve to the political wound caused by every new Supreme Court vacancy nowadays .
“ Look , folks , we all understand we can ’ t carry on this way with partisan nuclear war every time a seat opens up .
Both sides have done things to make the confirmation process nasty and bitter .
We need reform that both parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right on script for his “ heal the country ” campaign message vis-a-vis Trump .
Ponnuru notes elsewhere that the reforms proposed by the commission are likely to involve some sort of independent bipartisan panel to recommend future SCOTUS nominees .
That would be illegal , he points out , if the panel were given any formal power — the only players in the constitutional process are the president and the Senate — but of course the Biden White House could establish an advisory committee with informal power to either propose nominees or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ ll get complicated with the left if the panel ends up endorsing centrists over ideologues , and of course it risks running into problems with Republicans .
Would a GOP successor to Biden feel any public pressure to keep the advisory panel intact upon assuming the presidency ?
Would any Senate Republicans like Romney or Murkowski agree to give the panel ’ s endorsement extra weight in deciding whether to confirm a Biden nominee ?
But those are questions for next summer , if in fact Biden becomes president .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to the finish line without rupturing his coalition .

Last week he promised voters an answer before Election Day about how he’d handle the left’s desire to expand SCOTUS. This new clip from his upcoming “60 Minutes” interview vaguely resembles an answer, I guess.
Sort of? If we’re squinting.
Ironically, the clip is circulating a day after Trump dinged him for once having supported the work of the tea-party-era Simpson-Bowles deficit commission. That panel’s work led nowhere, as is customary for commissions; they couldn’t even get Paul Ryan to vote for their proposal in order to force it before Congress for consideration. In government, if you want to solve a problem, you call up the other side and you solve it. If you want to punt while creating the appearance that you’re doing something to solve it, you form a commission.
Guess which option Biden prefers vis-a-vis court-packing.
Watch more of @NorahODonnell's interview with Joe Biden, Sunday. pic.twitter.com/wJmb8MatVg — 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) October 22, 2020
Ed messaged me when he saw that clip: “Biden’s been in Washington for 47 years … and he needs a commission to tell him what to think about court packing? FFS.” Hey, sometimes it takes a man a half-century to make up his mind on policy.
Either that or his mind was made up long ago and he’s grasping for a way to let progressives down easy.
Biden’s cagey in some of his language — this is a “live ball,” the commission might go “well beyond” court-packing — but I think he’s trying to hype the mushy prospect of “reform” without committing to anything specific. What he says at the end about not wanting to turn SCOTUS into a political football is the tell about his intentions. That’s a core critique against expanding the Court: If Congress ends up in a partisan tit-for-tat by adding seats every time one party or the other takes power, the judiciary will lose whatever trust it still enjoys as a nonpartisan institution. He’s trying to placate disappointed lefties by promising them some sort of change, or at least a gesture towards change, knowing full well that the votes to pack the Court won’t be there in Congress even if Democrats blow the roof off next month.
Ramesh Ponnuru recognizes the game he’s playing:
Biden’s comments make Court-packing less likely. His plan delays any legislative action until after his honeymoon period (assuming there is one) is over. It also means that any action would happen after the Supreme Court has, in all likelihood, let Obamacare stay in place — draining more air out of the Court-packing trial balloon. And he is trying to broaden the conversation to proposals other than packing the Court. Putting forward several competing ideas, rather than one clear and simple one, is a recipe for bogging down the campaign to make structural changes to the Court — as Biden has to know. Finally, the comments are a clear signal that Biden is unenthusiastic about Court-packing, knows the public is, or both.
Most progressives will see right through this, but Biden was also cagey in running down the clock before springing it on them. Some of them have already voted. And the ones who haven’t are now so amped up to beat Trump with the election less than two weeks away that they’re destined to let him slide on it. Meanwhile, the fact that he’s promising a bipartisan commission involving conservative legal scholars is good for his political brand. He could and probably will frame this proposal tonight as a needed salve to the political wound caused by every new Supreme Court vacancy nowadays. “Look, folks, we all understand we can’t carry on this way with partisan nuclear war every time a seat opens up. Both sides have done things to make the confirmation process nasty and bitter. We need reform that both parties can live with.” That would be right on script for his “heal the country” campaign message vis-a-vis Trump.
Ponnuru notes elsewhere that the reforms proposed by the commission are likely to involve some sort of independent bipartisan panel to recommend future SCOTUS nominees. That would be illegal, he points out, if the panel were given any formal power — the only players in the constitutional process are the president and the Senate — but of course the Biden White House could establish an advisory committee with informal power to either propose nominees or vet a nominee proposed by him. That’ll get complicated with the left if the panel ends up endorsing centrists over ideologues, and of course it risks running into problems with Republicans. Would a GOP successor to Biden feel any public pressure to keep the advisory panel intact upon assuming the presidency? Would any Senate Republicans like Romney or Murkowski agree to give the panel’s endorsement extra weight in deciding whether to confirm a Biden nominee?
But those are questions for next summer, if in fact Biden becomes president. For now, he’s trying to get to the finish line without rupturing his coalition.


hotair--2020-10-22--Twitter status report: NY Post still locked out. China's blue-checked propagandist still tweeting.

Thank goodness our social-media superiors keep us safe from disinformation !
The New York Post ’ s insistence on tweeting out their original reporting on Hunter Biden ’ s e-mails resulted in Twitter locking their account on October 14th , along with a number of other users .
Supposedly this was imposed because the NYP and others were retweeting misinformation , trying to work around a block imposed on the story ’ s URL .
A week later , the NY Post ’ s account is still locked — even though the Bidens have never directly disputed the authenticity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s still locked even though the Post now reports independent corroboration from one of the e-mail addressees .
This , we have been told , is to protect us from election-season misinformation .
But now for the good news — not everyone ’ s account has been locked !
Thanks to the Twitter demi-gods , we can still get our steady diet of the View From Beijing , thanks to Lijian Zhao , a propagandist known enough to Twitter to have a “ fact check ” imposed on him in May .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a moment , but here ’ s what Zhao is retweeting this morning : That ’ s big talk … from a country ranked 177th on the same listing .
China ranks below Cuba on Reporters Without Borders ’ report for 2020 , while the US ranks 45th .
Only North Korea , Turkmenistan , and Eritrea rank worse than China .
As an example of why China gets that rating , Twitter can ’ t even operate in China ; the regime locks it out to keep too much information from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime uses Twitter strictly for foreign dissemination of propaganda , and yet “ Twitter Safety ” seems perfectly at ease with this .
Zhao has also used Twitter to disseminate “ misinformation , ” including a bogus attempt to shift responsibility for COVID-19 to the US Army : That went too far even for the Beijing regime , which swatted Zhao publicly over this allegation .
Two months later , Twitter finally got around to doing a half-assed “ fact check ” on this tweet from Zhao , which is why it now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ link attached to it .
But Zhao ’ s still able to access his account , and the Beijing regime still uses Twitter for its propaganda campaign , right up to the moment .
Meanwhile , a American newspaper that has been in continuous publication since its founding by Alexander Hamilton remains unable to access its Twitter account .
This results from the crime of having reported a story critical of Joe Biden and his son , corroborated now , and their connections to … China .
Twitter appears to be protecting some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their users , and it ’ s not from misinformation and propaganda .

Thank goodness our social-media superiors keep us safe from disinformation! The New York Post’s insistence on tweeting out their original reporting on Hunter Biden’s e-mails resulted in Twitter locking their account on October 14th, along with a number of other users. Supposedly this was imposed because the NYP and others were retweeting misinformation, trying to work around a block imposed on the story’s URL.
A week later, the NY Post’s account is still locked — even though the Bidens have never directly disputed the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s e-mail. It’s still locked even though the Post now reports independent corroboration from one of the e-mail addressees. This, we have been told, is to protect us from election-season misinformation.
But now for the good news — not everyone’s account has been locked! Thanks to the Twitter demi-gods, we can still get our steady diet of the View From Beijing, thanks to Lijian Zhao, a propagandist known enough to Twitter to have a “fact check” imposed on him in May. We’ll get back to that in a moment, but here’s what Zhao is retweeting this morning:
The US' ranking on the World Press Freedom Index has been dropping for 3 consecutive years since 2017. The US Press Freedom Tracker shows in 2019 alone, there were 28 instances in the US where journalists were denied access to government public events. — Spokesperson发言人办公室 (@MFA_China) October 22, 2020
That’s big talk … from a country ranked 177th on the same listing. China ranks below Cuba on Reporters Without Borders’ report for 2020, while the US ranks 45th. Only North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Eritrea rank worse than China. As an example of why China gets that rating, Twitter can’t even operate in China; the regime locks it out to keep too much information from reaching its subjects. China’s regime uses Twitter strictly for foreign dissemination of propaganda, and yet “Twitter Safety” seems perfectly at ease with this.
Zhao has also used Twitter to disseminate “misinformation,” including a bogus attempt to shift responsibility for COVID-19 to the US Army:
This article is very much important to each and every one of us. Please read and retweet it. COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US. https://t.co/LPanIo40MR — Lijian Zhao 赵立坚 (@zlj517) March 13, 2020
That went too far even for the Beijing regime, which swatted Zhao publicly over this allegation. Two months later, Twitter finally got around to doing a half-assed “fact check” on this tweet from Zhao, which is why it now has a “get the facts” link attached to it. But Zhao’s still able to access his account, and the Beijing regime still uses Twitter for its propaganda campaign, right up to the moment.
Meanwhile, a American newspaper that has been in continuous publication since its founding by Alexander Hamilton remains unable to access its Twitter account. This results from the crime of having reported a story critical of Joe Biden and his son, corroborated now, and their connections to … China. Twitter appears to be protecting some people, but it’s not their users, and it’s not from misinformation and propaganda.


hotair--2020-10-22--Old and busted: Defund the police. New hotness: Defund the Pentagon

I believe that this is what psychologists and therapists refer to as “ mental upscaling.
” After months of seeing people marching in the streets and chanting about how we need to defund the police , Missouri Democratic congressional candidate Cori Bush is taking things to the next level .
Rather than going after small potatoes like the local cops ( though she still wants to do that also ) , she ’ s suggesting that we need to defund the entire Pentagon .
The money saved by doing this would supposedly be channeled into “ social services.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crackpot idea is an outlier , think again .
Her proposal has already been endorsed by at least one member of “ the squad.
” ( Daily Caller ) Democratic Missouri congressional candidate Cori Bush said she wanted to “ defund the Pentagon ” in a Tuesday tweet .
“ If you ’ re having a bad day , just think of all the social services we ’ re going to fund after we defund the Pentagon , ” Bush wrote .
If you ’ re having a bad day , just think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to fund after we defund the Pentagon .
The post , which garnered over 37,000 likes from users , was retweeted by Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar .
As noted above , this doesn ’ t mean that Bush is giving up on defunding the police .
She ’ s still beating that drum as well .
The frightening part of this is that the crackpot in question is virtually guaranteed a seat in Congress next year .
She somehow defeated William Lacy Clay in the primary and Missouri ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left that you could elect a ham sandwich to Congress if it had a “ D ” after its name .
So what would defunding the Pentagon look like ?
Bush doesn ’ t say .
As with so many of the radicals swarming the streets these days , it ’ s just another throwaway line designed to stir people up and provoke opposition to law and order or authority in general .
What we do know is that such a harebrained move would effectively collapse the American military .
At that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t need to worry about defunding anything because there wouldn ’ t be a country left to fund .
We ’ re fortunate that a nonsensical proposal like this won ’ t even get off the ground in Congress .
Even among the Democrats , we haven ’ t entirely reached the point of suicidal insanity .
At least not yet .
But we are accumulating a dangerous collection of these socialist wannabes at the moment .
In addition to Bush and “ the squad ” there are others who have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And more and more “ rising stars ” in the Democratic tent are coming from the mobs in the streets rather than individuals who spent time serving their communities at the local level .
Perhaps I ’ m too much of an optimist , but I can ’ t see this trend continuing on to the stage where these radicals could actually destabilize the country to the point of collapse .
We ’ ve seen shifts in both directions over the past several generations and the pendulum always eventually swings back the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good look at elected officials like Bush and then compares her words to the violence they see engulfing the streets , I have to believe that common sense – or at least a sense of self-preservation – will kick in .
It may take another election cycle or two for reality to set in , but we ’ re going to get through this one way or the other .

I believe that this is what psychologists and therapists refer to as “mental upscaling.” After months of seeing people marching in the streets and chanting about how we need to defund the police, Missouri Democratic congressional candidate Cori Bush is taking things to the next level. Rather than going after small potatoes like the local cops (though she still wants to do that also), she’s suggesting that we need to defund the entire Pentagon. The money saved by doing this would supposedly be channeled into “social services.” And if you think this sort of a crackpot idea is an outlier, think again. Her proposal has already been endorsed by at least one member of “the squad.” (Daily Caller)
Democratic Missouri congressional candidate Cori Bush said she wanted to “defund the Pentagon” in a Tuesday tweet. “If you’re having a bad day, just think of all the social services we’re going to fund after we defund the Pentagon,” Bush wrote. If you’re having a bad day, just think of all the social services we’re going to fund after we defund the Pentagon. The post, which garnered over 37,000 likes from users, was retweeted by Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.
If you're having a bad day, just think of all the social services we're going to fund after we defund the Pentagon. — Cori Bush (@CoriBush) October 20, 2020
As noted above, this doesn’t mean that Bush is giving up on defunding the police. She’s still beating that drum as well.
We're going to defund the police and refund our social services. Don’t like this idea? Well, we don’t like dead Black & Brown bodies & broken families at the hands of those sworn to protect us. The police have failed at fixing themselves—so we're going to do it. — Cori Bush (@CoriBush) October 19, 2020
The frightening part of this is that the crackpot in question is virtually guaranteed a seat in Congress next year. She somehow defeated William Lacy Clay in the primary and Missouri’s First District is so heavily tilted to the left that you could elect a ham sandwich to Congress if it had a “D” after its name.
So what would defunding the Pentagon look like? Bush doesn’t say. As with so many of the radicals swarming the streets these days, it’s just another throwaway line designed to stir people up and provoke opposition to law and order or authority in general. What we do know is that such a harebrained move would effectively collapse the American military. At that point, Bush and her cohorts wouldn’t need to worry about defunding anything because there wouldn’t be a country left to fund.
We’re fortunate that a nonsensical proposal like this won’t even get off the ground in Congress. Even among the Democrats, we haven’t entirely reached the point of suicidal insanity. At least not yet. But we are accumulating a dangerous collection of these socialist wannabes at the moment. In addition to Bush and “the squad” there are others who have been eyeing a seat on the furthest-left bandwagon. And more and more “rising stars” in the Democratic tent are coming from the mobs in the streets rather than individuals who spent time serving their communities at the local level.
Perhaps I’m too much of an optimist, but I can’t see this trend continuing on to the stage where these radicals could actually destabilize the country to the point of collapse. We’ve seen shifts in both directions over the past several generations and the pendulum always eventually swings back the other way. When the country gets a good look at elected officials like Bush and then compares her words to the violence they see engulfing the streets, I have to believe that common sense – or at least a sense of self-preservation – will kick in. It may take another election cycle or two for reality to set in, but we’re going to get through this one way or the other.


hotair--2020-10-22--<span class='red'>Breaking: Judiciary endorses Barrett, 12-0; Lee: "Abuse of power is their agenda"<

Lindsey Graham , master troll : “ The nomination will be reported favorably to the floor with a unanimous vote.
” The Senate Judiciary Committee did indeed approve Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court 12-0 , but that was thanks to a futile boycott by Senate Democrats on the panel : The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to advance President Trump ’ s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , with majority Republicans skirting the panel ’ s rules to recommend her confirmation as Democrats boycotted the session in protest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote by the full Senate to confirm Judge Barrett on Monday , a month to the day after President Trump nominated her to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
If all goes according to plan , Mr. Trump and his party would win a coveted achievement just eight days before the election .
“ This is why we all run , ” Senator Lindsey Graham , Republican of South Carolina and the chairman of the committee , said .
“ It ’ s moments like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Democrats , livid over the extraordinarily speedy process , spurned the committee vote altogether and forced Republicans to break their own rules to muscle through the nomination .
Without the votes to block the judge in either the committee or the full Senate , though , their action was purely symbolic .
The idea of the boycott was to prevent Graham from having a quorum for the vote , delaying the process indefinitely .
Graham took a page from the 2013 playbook of Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid and decided to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules on committee hearings rather than Judiciary Committee rules .
The former do not require anything other than a simple majority to conduct official business .
That squelched the “ symbolic ” protest today , but it also left Republicans alone at the microphones .
That gave several of them a chance to vent their spleen at Democrats for having authored this bare-knuckle approach in 2002 as well as in 2013 : The borking of Robert Bork was a little more complicated by his role in Watergate .
Otherwise , Lee ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it didn ’ t develop into an overarching strategy until George W. Bush won the presidency and Republicans took control of the Senate .
The example of Miguel Estrada was especially egregious , as it became clear that Reid and Schumer ( and Ted Kennedy ) blocked him solely to prevent Bush from putting a Hispanic on the appellate bench .
At any rate , this now goes to the Senate floor , and Mitch McConnell will move the confirmation tomorrow .
Unless Senate Democrats continue to take advice from Otter on tactics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antics will keep Barrett in the news rather than Trump for the next few days , and allow even more people to wonder why they ’ re trying so hard to block confirmation of an obviously qualified jurist who talked rings around the no-shows last week .
Update : Also , on the rules , Ed Whelan points out the catch-22 : Why didn ’ t Democrats send someone to object to a lack of quorum ?
Because that one person would have provided the quorum .
In a Senate where people cared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation wouldn ’ t have arisen .
But Democrats sacrificed process and collegiality in 2002-5 and outright slaughtered it in 2013 .
This is nothing more than just desserts , although Republicans have to know that they eventually will get the same treatment .

Lindsey Graham, master troll: “The nomination will be reported favorably to the floor with a unanimous vote.” The Senate Judiciary Committee did indeed approve Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court 12-0, but that was thanks to a futile boycott by Senate Democrats on the panel:
JUST IN: Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously votes on nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 12-0, as committee Democrats boycotted the roll call. https://t.co/N7iWPeQZnX pic.twitter.com/jSssZuTl5Y — ABC News (@ABC) October 22, 2020
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to advance President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, with majority Republicans skirting the panel’s rules to recommend her confirmation as Democrats boycotted the session in protest. The lopsided 12-to-0 outcome set up a vote by the full Senate to confirm Judge Barrett on Monday, a month to the day after President Trump nominated her to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If all goes according to plan, Mr. Trump and his party would win a coveted achievement just eight days before the election. “This is why we all run,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the chairman of the committee, said. “It’s moments like this that make everything you go through matter.” Democrats, livid over the extraordinarily speedy process, spurned the committee vote altogether and forced Republicans to break their own rules to muscle through the nomination. Without the votes to block the judge in either the committee or the full Senate, though, their action was purely symbolic.
The idea of the boycott was to prevent Graham from having a quorum for the vote, delaying the process indefinitely. Graham took a page from the 2013 playbook of Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid and decided to change the precedent, reverting to general Senate rules on committee hearings rather than Judiciary Committee rules. The former do not require anything other than a simple majority to conduct official business.
That squelched the “symbolic” protest today, but it also left Republicans alone at the microphones. That gave several of them a chance to vent their spleen at Democrats for having authored this bare-knuckle approach in 2002 as well as in 2013:
Lee says "there is no tit for tat, there is just tat" Says Democrats are solely to blame for the judicial wars. "When it comes to the judiciary, abuse of power is their agenda," Lee says. — Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) October 22, 2020
The borking of Robert Bork was a little more complicated by his role in Watergate. Otherwise, Lee’s on point regarding Clarence Thomas, but it didn’t develop into an overarching strategy until George W. Bush won the presidency and Republicans took control of the Senate. The example of Miguel Estrada was especially egregious, as it became clear that Reid and Schumer (and Ted Kennedy) blocked him solely to prevent Bush from putting a Hispanic on the appellate bench.
At any rate, this now goes to the Senate floor, and Mitch McConnell will move the confirmation tomorrow. Unless Senate Democrats continue to take advice from Otter on tactics and strategy, their next round of antics will keep Barrett in the news rather than Trump for the next few days, and allow even more people to wonder why they’re trying so hard to block confirmation of an obviously qualified jurist who talked rings around the no-shows last week.
Update: Also, on the rules, Ed Whelan points out the catch-22:
Plus, no one objected to absence of quorum, so any objection was waived. (Senate routinely operates on that basis.) https://t.co/OkXrFFX2eG — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) October 22, 2020
Why didn’t Democrats send someone to object to a lack of quorum? Because that one person would have provided the quorum. In a Senate where people cared more about process and collegiality, this situation wouldn’t have arisen. But Democrats sacrificed process and collegiality in 2002-5 and outright slaughtered it in 2013. This is nothing more than just desserts, although Republicans have to know that they eventually will get the same treatment.
Update: Here’s the clip of Lee’s righteous indignation:


hotair--2020-10-22--Is the "revolution" in Thailand over already?

Last week we learned that some protests were brewing in the streets of Thailand ’ s capital , driven largely by students demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister and democratic reforms that would lessen the power of the monarchy .
The Thai government responded in a rather rapid and brutal fashion , declaring a state of national emergency and arresting some of the protest leaders who were shipped off to parts unknown .
The protests , though far less violent than the ones we ’ ve been seeing in the United States lately , continued on each night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an end to the official state of emergency in what appears to be an olive branch being offered to the demonstrators .
So does this mean that the nascent revolution is over or have the students convinced the government to enact a few reforms ?
( Associated Press ) Thailand ’ s government on Thursday canceled a state of emergency it had declared last week for Bangkok in a gesture offered by the embattled prime minister to cool massive student-led protests seeking democracy reforms .
The decree had banned public gatherings of more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media , among other provisions .
It was challenged in court by an opposition party and a group of university students .
The revocation of the emergency decree , effective at noon Thursday , declared that the situation had been mitigated and could now be dealt with by existing laws .
In a statement to the press , Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha described the revocation as a “ first move ” toward de-escalating the conflict .
He had already agreed to recall the Parliament for an emergency session to deal with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , it ’ s difficult to read between the lines and determine what ’ s going on here .
Ending the state of emergency could be looked at as a concession to the protesters .
But at the same time , there was already a court case in progress where the legality of the emergency orders was being challenged .
It ’ s possible that Chan-ocha was simply pulling to plug on the plan to avoid an embarrassing loss in court .
Further , recalling the Parliament doesn ’ t necessarily mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms .
When the PM says he wants them to “ deal with ” the unrest , that could just as easily mean that he wants new laws passed to criminalize the protesters ’ activities and provide a fig leaf for locking even more of them up .
We already know that the royal family is none too pleased with the situation .
They still have their own supporters who have been taking to the streets in what is being described as royalist counterprotests .
Skirmishes have broken out between the two groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister , constitutional changes providing a more democratic system and reforms to the monarchy ’ s control of the government .
On top of that , they are demanding the release of the protest leaders who have been arrested .
In a statement issued in response to the Prime Minister ’ s announcement last night , they announced that they would go home , but they would return in three days if their demands are not met .
None of this sounds very likely to occur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resigning and King Vajiralongkorn doesn ’ t sound at all ready to sit down for some equivalent of a Magna Carta signing ceremony .
Given the authoritarian power vested in Thailand ’ s government , it appears equally likely that they may simply start cracking down on the demonstrators until the protests dissipate .
The other possibility is that this situation could break out into some limited form of civil war .
At this point , it ’ s simply too early to tell , and the state controls the messaging in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so we ’ re largely relying on social media to get the details of what ’ s happening in the streets .

Last week we learned that some protests were brewing in the streets of Thailand’s capital, driven largely by students demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister and democratic reforms that would lessen the power of the monarchy. The Thai government responded in a rather rapid and brutal fashion, declaring a state of national emergency and arresting some of the protest leaders who were shipped off to parts unknown. The protests, though far less violent than the ones we’ve been seeing in the United States lately, continued on each night. But now the Prime Minister has declared an end to the official state of emergency in what appears to be an olive branch being offered to the demonstrators. So does this mean that the nascent revolution is over or have the students convinced the government to enact a few reforms? (Associated Press)
Thailand’s government on Thursday canceled a state of emergency it had declared last week for Bangkok in a gesture offered by the embattled prime minister to cool massive student-led protests seeking democracy reforms. The decree had banned public gatherings of more than four people and allowed censorship of the media, among other provisions. It was challenged in court by an opposition party and a group of university students. The revocation of the emergency decree, effective at noon Thursday, declared that the situation had been mitigated and could now be dealt with by existing laws.
In a statement to the press, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha described the revocation as a “first move” toward de-escalating the conflict. He had already agreed to recall the Parliament for an emergency session to deal with the unrest. At least thus far, however, it’s difficult to read between the lines and determine what’s going on here. Ending the state of emergency could be looked at as a concession to the protesters. But at the same time, there was already a court case in progress where the legality of the emergency orders was being challenged. It’s possible that Chan-ocha was simply pulling to plug on the plan to avoid an embarrassing loss in court.
Further, recalling the Parliament doesn’t necessarily mean that they are coming back to discuss reforms. When the PM says he wants them to “deal with” the unrest, that could just as easily mean that he wants new laws passed to criminalize the protesters’ activities and provide a fig leaf for locking even more of them up. We already know that the royal family is none too pleased with the situation. They still have their own supporters who have been taking to the streets in what is being described as royalist counterprotests. Skirmishes have broken out between the two groups.
Presently, the student groups are still demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister, constitutional changes providing a more democratic system and reforms to the monarchy’s control of the government. On top of that, they are demanding the release of the protest leaders who have been arrested. In a statement issued in response to the Prime Minister’s announcement last night, they announced that they would go home, but they would return in three days if their demands are not met.
None of this sounds very likely to occur. The PM shows no inclination toward resigning and King Vajiralongkorn doesn’t sound at all ready to sit down for some equivalent of a Magna Carta signing ceremony. Given the authoritarian power vested in Thailand’s government, it appears equally likely that they may simply start cracking down on the demonstrators until the protests dissipate. The other possibility is that this situation could break out into some limited form of civil war. At this point, it’s simply too early to tell, and the state controls the messaging in the media in Thailand to a large degree, so we’re largely relying on social media to get the details of what’s happening in the streets.


hotair--2020-10-23--"Struggling bar owner" starring in Biden ad shown to be wealthy Biden donor

One of the many digital advertisements that the Biden campaign has produced suddenly disappeared earlier this week .
At first glance , the now “ private ” video didn ’ t seem all that unusual .
A “ struggling bar owner ” in Michigan , the proprietor of the Blind Pig bar , was shown talking about how his business was empty and was likely to go under .
He blamed President Trump ’ s handling of the pandemic for his woes .
Fairly standard stuff for Democrats , right ?
The touching story started to fall apart , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some digging and discovered that the Blind Pig ’ s co-owner , Joe Malcoun , wasn ’ t really as “ struggling ” as the ad might lead you to believe .
He was actually a major investor in the tech sector , the beneficiary of a significant inheritance , and a maxed-out Biden donor .
I ’ m guessing that ’ s why the video was suddenly set to “ private ” status and no longer available for public viewing .
Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign took down an ad that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family money as a struggling bar owner just hours after a Washington Free Beacon report .
The campaign set the ad to private in the aftermath of the Free Beacon ’ s Monday evening report , which showed that Joe Malcoun , the struggling Michigan bar owner at the center of the ad , was actually a well-known “ angel investor ” in the state who invested in tech companies after receiving an inheritance from his wife ’ s late grandfather… In the now-removed ad , Malcoun blames his bar ’ s inactivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to say that his “ only hope ” for both his family and his business is if Joe Biden is elected .
Otherwise , disaster will be looming for him on multiple fronts .
But as it turns out , he was doing well enough to make a $ 5,000 campaign contribution to Biden this summer .
And it appears that many of his other investments are doing quite well also .
The advertisement was actually more deceptive than the simple fact that Malcoun was better off financially than was suggested .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong with being financially successful , nor is there any sin in legally inheriting money from your in-laws .
( Malcoun described the inheritance as “ almost like winning the lottery.
” ) He only purchased the Blind Pig in 2017 , so it ’ s not as if the establishment has been the lifeblood of his family for generations or anything .
At the time , he described it as a “ passion project.
” From the sound of things , Malcoun probably wasn ’ t going to be all that affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s also being more than a little duplicitous in terms of where he ’ s fixing the blame .
As the owner is shown mournfully looking around his empty establishment and bemoaning the fact that they couldn ’ t have people in there for live musical performances , other facts were left out .
Malcoun had previously gone on social media , showering praise on Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her competence in handling the pandemic in Michigan .
Of course , the Governor was the one who shut down Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ an empty room , ” not Donald Trump .
In the end , there ’ s nothing all that unusual about this story .
Political campaigns engage in spin to make their own candidate look good and their opponent look bad .
But the way this heartwarming , yet fake tale of woe fell apart so quickly under closer scrutiny and the Biden campaign ’ s rapid move to take it down were at least good for a few laughs as we ride out the end of the election .

One of the many digital advertisements that the Biden campaign has produced suddenly disappeared earlier this week. At first glance, the now “private” video didn’t seem all that unusual. A “struggling bar owner” in Michigan, the proprietor of the Blind Pig bar, was shown talking about how his business was empty and was likely to go under. He blamed President Trump’s handling of the pandemic for his woes. Fairly standard stuff for Democrats, right?
The touching story started to fall apart, however, after the Washington Free Beacon did some digging and discovered that the Blind Pig’s co-owner, Joe Malcoun, wasn’t really as “struggling” as the ad might lead you to believe. He was actually a major investor in the tech sector, the beneficiary of a significant inheritance, and a maxed-out Biden donor. I’m guessing that’s why the video was suddenly set to “private” status and no longer available for public viewing.
Joe Biden’s presidential campaign took down an ad that portrayed a wealthy tech investor backed by family money as a struggling bar owner just hours after a Washington Free Beacon report. The campaign set the ad to private in the aftermath of the Free Beacon’s Monday evening report, which showed that Joe Malcoun, the struggling Michigan bar owner at the center of the ad, was actually a well-known “angel investor” in the state who invested in tech companies after receiving an inheritance from his wife’s late grandfather… In the now-removed ad, Malcoun blames his bar’s inactivity on President Donald Trump.
Malcoun goes on to say that his “only hope” for both his family and his business is if Joe Biden is elected. Otherwise, disaster will be looming for him on multiple fronts. But as it turns out, he was doing well enough to make a $5,000 campaign contribution to Biden this summer. And it appears that many of his other investments are doing quite well also.
The advertisement was actually more deceptive than the simple fact that Malcoun was better off financially than was suggested. After all, there’s nothing wrong with being financially successful, nor is there any sin in legally inheriting money from your in-laws. (Malcoun described the inheritance as “almost like winning the lottery.”)
He only purchased the Blind Pig in 2017, so it’s not as if the establishment has been the lifeblood of his family for generations or anything. At the time, he described it as a “passion project.” From the sound of things, Malcoun probably wasn’t going to be all that affected whether the bar thrived or went under.
He’s also being more than a little duplicitous in terms of where he’s fixing the blame. As the owner is shown mournfully looking around his empty establishment and bemoaning the fact that they couldn’t have people in there for live musical performances, other facts were left out. Malcoun had previously gone on social media, showering praise on Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her competence in handling the pandemic in Michigan. Of course, the Governor was the one who shut down Mr. Malcoun’s business and left it as “an empty room,” not Donald Trump.
In the end, there’s nothing all that unusual about this story. Political campaigns engage in spin to make their own candidate look good and their opponent look bad. But the way this heartwarming, yet fake tale of woe fell apart so quickly under closer scrutiny and the Biden campaign’s rapid move to take it down were at least good for a few laughs as we ride out the end of the election.