hotair--2020-12-08--Elizabeth Warren opposes waiver for Biden's defense secretary nominee -- but will Republicans end up

Elizabeth Warren opposes waiver for Biden's defense secretary nominee -- but will Republicans end up saving him?

A sequel to this morning ’ s post .
Remember that because Lloyd Austin is a former general who ’ s been retired for less than seven years , he needs a waiver under federal law in order to serve as secretary of defense .
That means both houses , not just the Senate , have to act in order for him to be confirmed .
And it means ( I think ) that 60 votes in the Senate , not 50 , will be needed to clear him .
Legislation is still subject to the filibuster , after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute is legislation .
Many a Dem made the point in 2017 when James Mattis needed a waiver that the seven-year rule existed for a reason .
Civilian control of the military is a crucial civic principle , and putting a recently retired officer in charge of the Pentagon weakens that principle a bit .
In the end , though , Mattis was confirmed overwhelmingly , partly because of the respect he enjoys in Washington and partly because Dems saw him as a figure whose stature might keep Trump from going off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his service but Biden doesn ’ t need a chaperone .
He could just as easily choose an alternative like Michele Flournoy or Jeh Johnson .
As such , asking Congress to grant a waiver to Austin is all but asking them to repeal the seven-year rule altogether .
If we ’ re going to let recently retired officers serve as SecDef any time the president asks , why have the rule to begin with ?
Some Senate Dems have gone on record today to say no , they won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among them is Biden enemy turned friend Elizabeth Warren , but she ’ s not alone .
Austin could be in trouble .
Emphasis on “ could be.
” Sen. Elizabeth Warren , a Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee , praised Austin ’ s credentials and said that she looks forward to meeting him .
“ But I opposed a waiver for Gen. Mattis , and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin , ” Warren said .
“ I don ’ t think we ought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand the importance of civilian control , ” said Sen. Mazie Hirono , a Hawaii Democrat who sits on the Armed Services Committee .
“ So I have some concerns about being asked to doing a waiver.
” Sen. Jon Tester , a Montana Democrat , who opposed the waiver for Mattis , said he would do so again for Austin .
I noted in this morning ’ s post that Richard Blumenthal is also against a waiver .
Looks like Austin ’ s going down .
Or is he ?
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s choice .
Another very powerful voice who sounds open to the possibility of confirming Austin today is Jack Reed , the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee .
Reed said in 2017 that he couldn ’ t see himself voting for another waiver for a SecDef nominee in the future after voting for one for Mattis .
Today , according to CNN , he sounds … different : “ I feel , in all fairness , you have to give the opportunity to the nominee to explain himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were able to reach the position on the waiver is General Mattis had the opportunity to testify and , you know , made some compelling arguments.
” So Reed ’ s gone from a hard no to a “ let ’ s hear him out.
” So has Dick Durbin : How about Kirsten Gillibrand ?
She was also strongly anti-waiver in 2017 .
Hmmmm : Team Joe appears ready to go to the mat for their guy and is surely lobbying Senate Democrats on his behalf behind the scenes .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Joe Biden ’ s own name making the case for Austin at length : He was the first African American general officer to lead an Army corps in combat and the first African American to command an entire theater of war ; if confirmed , he will be the first African American to helm the Defense Department—another milestone in a barrier-breaking career dedicated to keeping the American people secure… The next secretary of defense will need to immediately quarterback an enormous logistics operation to help distribute COVID-19 vaccines widely and equitably .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Army in six decades—the Iraq drawdown… Above all , I chose Lloyd Austin as my nominee for secretary of defense because I know how he reacts under pressure , and I know that he will do whatever it takes to defend the American people .
When the Islamic State emerged as a terrorist threat in Iraq and Syria , endangering the security of America ’ s people and allies , President Obama and I turned to Austin , who then led U.S. Central Command .
He designed and executed the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to build a coalition of partners and allies from more than 70 countries who worked together to overcome a common enemy .
Biden ’ s piece mentions more than once Austin ’ s role in supervising America ’ s withdrawal from Iraq , a feather in his cap for lefty opponents of the war .
Team Joe is also pushing Austin on social media this afternoon , featuring audio from the nominee himself : *If* Biden were facing unified Republican opposition to Austin , he ’ d be sunk .
Even with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be short of the 10 Republican votes he ’ d need in order to grant Austin a waiver from the seven-year rule .
But Biden ’ s not facing unified Republican opposition .
On the contrary , one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate on military issues is in Austin ’ s corner : The most far-left member of the U.S. Senate isn ’ t opposed to a waiver either : A Twitter pal raises a sly possibility .
Most Senate Dems might vote no on a waiver for Austin but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans might vote yes on a waiver but no on confirmation .
Depending upon how many defectors there are in each group , it ’ s possible that he gets the waiver thanks mostly to the GOP and then gets his appointment thanks mostly to Democrats .
This morning I was skeptical that he ’ d be confirmed , but if Biden ’ s willing to spend political capital on him the way he ’ s done today then I need to revisit that .
This isn ’ t a trial balloon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy .
And considering that he ’ d be the first black defense secretary in American history , neither side is eager to vote him down .
Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz , a Democrat , said he disliked the “ trend ” of waivers that started with Mattis and might now continue with Austin — but that that actually *supports* the case for Austin .
“ It is difficult to imagine voting for a Mattis waiver and not an Austin waiver , ” he told Politico .
“ I think for everybody it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify doing it for one distinguished retired general officer and not another.
” The white retired general gets a waiver to lead the Pentagon but the black retired general doesn ’ t ?
Not a good look .
I ’ ll leave you with this counterpoint , though , with which I agree .
Someone should remind President-elect “ Norms ” that this is how norms erode — a member of one party gets away with skirting a rule and members of the other party treat it as license to do the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have to be willing not to take advantage of a bad precedent , even when you have a defensible reason to do so .

A sequel to this morning’s post. Remember that because Lloyd Austin is a former general who’s been retired for less than seven years, he needs a waiver under federal law in order to serve as secretary of defense. That means both houses, not just the Senate, have to act in order for him to be confirmed. And it means (I think) that 60 votes in the Senate, not 50, will be needed to clear him. Legislation is still subject to the filibuster, after all, and a waiver pursuant to a statute is legislation.
Many a Dem made the point in 2017 when James Mattis needed a waiver that the seven-year rule existed for a reason. Civilian control of the military is a crucial civic principle, and putting a recently retired officer in charge of the Pentagon weakens that principle a bit. In the end, though, Mattis was confirmed overwhelmingly, partly because of the respect he enjoys in Washington and partly because Dems saw him as a figure whose stature might keep Trump from going off the rails. Austin is also well respected for his service but Biden doesn’t need a chaperone. He could just as easily choose an alternative like Michele Flournoy or Jeh Johnson. As such, asking Congress to grant a waiver to Austin is all but asking them to repeal the seven-year rule altogether. If we’re going to let recently retired officers serve as SecDef any time the president asks, why have the rule to begin with?
Some Senate Dems have gone on record today to say no, they won’t grant Austin a waiver. Most notable among them is Biden enemy turned friend Elizabeth Warren, but she’s not alone. Austin could be in trouble. Emphasis on “could be.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised Austin’s credentials and said that she looks forward to meeting him. “But I opposed a waiver for Gen. Mattis, and I will oppose a waiver for Gen. Austin,” Warren said. “I don’t think we ought to be doing these waivers.” “I understand the importance of civilian control,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat who sits on the Armed Services Committee. “So I have some concerns about being asked to doing a waiver.” Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, who opposed the waiver for Mattis, said he would do so again for Austin.
I noted in this morning’s post that Richard Blumenthal is also against a waiver. Looks like Austin’s going down. Or is he?
Pelosi: President-elect Joe Biden has selected a highly qualified and widely respected leader in nominating General Lloyd Austin for Secretary of Defense…The Democratic House looks forward working with him to ensure the safety and security of the American people — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) December 8, 2020
That’s a powerful vote of confidence in Biden’s choice. Another very powerful voice who sounds open to the possibility of confirming Austin today is Jack Reed, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Reed said in 2017 that he couldn’t see himself voting for another waiver for a SecDef nominee in the future after voting for one for Mattis. Today, according to CNN, he sounds … different: “I feel, in all fairness, you have to give the opportunity to the nominee to explain himself or herself… One of the reasons that we were able to reach the position on the waiver is General Mattis had the opportunity to testify and, you know, made some compelling arguments.” So Reed’s gone from a hard no to a “let’s hear him out.” So has Dick Durbin:
Sen. Dick Durbin on supporting a waiver for Lloyd Austin: "I opposed the waiver on Mattis, but I have to tell you I was so impressed with his performance that I would consider a waiver for Austin, once I get to know him." — Sabrina Siddiqui (@SabrinaSiddiqui) December 8, 2020
How about Kirsten Gillibrand? She was also strongly anti-waiver in 2017. Hmmmm:
Given her passionate opposition to supporting a waiver in the Mattis nomination, doubtless @SenGillibrand will lead the opposition to Austin's nomination. (Curiously, she hasn't responded to a Q from WWNY about her position.) https://t.co/KPjMifzD9B — KC Johnson (@kcjohnson9) December 8, 2020
Team Joe appears ready to go to the mat for their guy and is surely lobbying Senate Democrats on his behalf behind the scenes. A piece in The Atlantic appeared this afternoon under Joe Biden’s own name making the case for Austin at length:
He was the first African American general officer to lead an Army corps in combat and the first African American to command an entire theater of war; if confirmed, he will be the first African American to helm the Defense Department—another milestone in a barrier-breaking career dedicated to keeping the American people secure… The next secretary of defense will need to immediately quarterback an enormous logistics operation to help distribute COVID-19 vaccines widely and equitably. Austin oversaw the largest logistical operation undertaken by the Army in six decades—the Iraq drawdown… Above all, I chose Lloyd Austin as my nominee for secretary of defense because I know how he reacts under pressure, and I know that he will do whatever it takes to defend the American people. When the Islamic State emerged as a terrorist threat in Iraq and Syria, endangering the security of America’s people and allies, President Obama and I turned to Austin, who then led U.S. Central Command. He designed and executed the campaign that ultimately beat back ISIS, helping to build a coalition of partners and allies from more than 70 countries who worked together to overcome a common enemy.
Biden’s piece mentions more than once Austin’s role in supervising America’s withdrawal from Iraq, a feather in his cap for lefty opponents of the war. Team Joe is also pushing Austin on social media this afternoon, featuring audio from the nominee himself:
I know General Austin. I trust him. Because I know how he reacts under pressure. When ISIS emerged as a terrorist threat, President Obama and I turned to General Austin in the Situation Room and he led us through. Now, I turn to him again as Secretary of Defense. pic.twitter.com/p65aVc4Nt5 — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 8, 2020
*If* Biden were facing unified Republican opposition to Austin, he’d be sunk. Even with a 50/50 Senate next year, Schumer would be short of the 10 Republican votes he’d need in order to grant Austin a waiver from the seven-year rule. But Biden’s not facing unified Republican opposition. On the contrary, one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate on military issues is in Austin’s corner:
From colleague Jason Donner. Armed Svcs Cmte Chair Inhofe says he would vote for a waiver for Lloyd Austin to serve as DefSec "in a heartbeat" — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) December 8, 2020
The most far-left member of the U.S. Senate isn’t opposed to a waiver either:
BREAKING: Asked by @KatyTurNBC about a waiver for Lloyd Austin, @SenSanders says "my inclination is that I would support that". He joins @RoKhanna, Sanders' House partner in efforts to end the U.S. role in Yemen, who expressed support for Austin earlier today. pic.twitter.com/klsU9RJyYk — Just Foreign Policy (@justfp) December 8, 2020
A Twitter pal raises a sly possibility. Most Senate Dems might vote no on a waiver for Austin but yes on confirming him whereas most Senate Republicans might vote yes on a waiver but no on confirmation. Depending upon how many defectors there are in each group, it’s possible that he gets the waiver thanks mostly to the GOP and then gets his appointment thanks mostly to Democrats. This morning I was skeptical that he’d be confirmed, but if Biden’s willing to spend political capital on him the way he’s done today then I need to revisit that. This isn’t a trial balloon, it seems, this really is his guy. And considering that he’d be the first black defense secretary in American history, neither side is eager to vote him down. Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat, said he disliked the “trend” of waivers that started with Mattis and might now continue with Austin — but that that actually *supports* the case for Austin. “It is difficult to imagine voting for a Mattis waiver and not an Austin waiver,” he told Politico. “I think for everybody it’s going to be hard to justify doing it for one distinguished retired general officer and not another.”
The white retired general gets a waiver to lead the Pentagon but the black retired general doesn’t? Not a good look.
I’ll leave you with this counterpoint, though, with which I agree. Someone should remind President-elect “Norms” that this is how norms erode — a member of one party gets away with skirting a rule and members of the other party treat it as license to do the same. If you want to rebuild norms, you have to be willing not to take advantage of a bad precedent, even when you have a defensible reason to do so.


hotair--2020-12-08--Portland 'activists' set up autonomous zone after police eviction

The fun never stops in Portland .
Early this morning the Portland Police and the Multnomah County Sheriff ’ s Office showed up to evict a group of people who have had a foreclosure order against them since February .
The people living in the house were actually evicted back in September but since then the house has been broken into and the area has become a constant source of problems for neighbors , with a total of 81 calls to the police placed over just three months time .
Here ’ s the background : The Multnomah County Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an eviction at the address in February 2020 , commanding the Sheriff ’ s Office to serve the judge ’ s order…The judgment was issued prior to state and federal emergency moratoriums .
The eviction moratoriums do not apply to evictions based on post-nonjudicial foreclosures , such as this case… On September 9th , MCSO deputies served the court order to individuals living at the address .
As with any civil enforcement service , MCSO provided the occupants time to gather their possessions and offered housing and shelter options and other additional resources… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ converged on the property by trespassing on the home ’ s front and backyards , and camping on adjacent privately owned and city-owned properties .
Law enforcement also learned the home was broken into and that people were entering and exiting despite the judge ’ s order .
Data captured by PPB shows over the three-month period , from September 1 to November 30 , 2020 , at least 81 calls for service were placed for issues related to this property and the immediate area .
Calls for service included , but were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shots fired , burglary , thefts , vandalism , noise violations , trespassing , threats , including by armed individuals , and for illegally blocking traffic , sidewalks and access to homes .
With all of that in mind , police showed up this morning to once again evict people living on the property .
Seven people were arrested for trespassing and police blocked streets while the property owners set up new fences and secured their property .
While police were waiting a crowd gathered and began tearing down the fences set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved in to get them to stop : And the fence came down : Police kept backing away from the angry mob : But then the crowd started getting violent and attacking the police cars with hands and feet and also throwing things at officers : This continued for some time and six additional people were arrested .
Meanwhile the house that was cleared out has now become a new autonomous zone : The family claims they lost a job and couldn ’ t pay their 2nd mortgage .
But if the lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million , they should have had a lot of equity in the home .
They could have sold it and had a lot of money to find another place to live .
Why didn ’ t they do that ?
This reporter says it ’ s a calm scene but I wonder what the pile of stones are for ( 2nd tweet below ) ?
Reporter Andy Ngo points out that Antifa has called for reinforcements in case police return : Finally , here ’ s some video of today ’ s showdown @ @ @

The fun never stops in Portland. Early this morning the Portland Police and the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office showed up to evict a group of people who have had a foreclosure order against them since February. The people living in the house were actually evicted back in September but since then the house has been broken into and the area has become a constant source of problems for neighbors, with a total of 81 calls to the police placed over just three months time. Here’s the background:
The Multnomah County Circuit Court issued a writ of execution for an eviction at the address in February 2020, commanding the Sheriff’s Office to serve the judge’s order…The judgment was issued prior to state and federal emergency moratoriums. The eviction moratoriums do not apply to evictions based on post-nonjudicial foreclosures, such as this case… On September 9th, MCSO deputies served the court order to individuals living at the address. As with any civil enforcement service, MCSO provided the occupants time to gather their possessions and offered housing and shelter options and other additional resources… Since the September 9th, individuals have converged on the property by trespassing on the home’s front and backyards, and camping on adjacent privately owned and city-owned properties. Law enforcement also learned the home was broken into and that people were entering and exiting despite the judge’s order. Data captured by PPB shows over the three-month period, from September 1 to November 30, 2020, at least 81 calls for service were placed for issues related to this property and the immediate area. Calls for service included, but were not limited to, fights, disturbances, shots fired, burglary, thefts, vandalism, noise violations, trespassing, threats, including by armed individuals, and for illegally blocking traffic, sidewalks and access to homes.
With all of that in mind, police showed up this morning to once again evict people living on the property. Seven people were arrested for trespassing and police blocked streets while the property owners set up new fences and secured their property. While police were waiting a crowd gathered and began tearing down the fences set up to secure the area:
The fence around the Red House on Mississippi is coming down. pic.twitter.com/VprjmOoxS3 — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
Police moved in to get them to stop:
Police advance as protesters pull on the fence. pic.twitter.com/sLMJ6SQv7j — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
The crowd began demanding the police “Move back!”
Protesters push back a line of police. pic.twitter.com/MB8YHvn5c1 — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
And the fence came down:
The fence is repositioned to block Mississippi Street. pic.twitter.com/HaKrUEGFSX — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
Police kept backing away from the angry mob:
Lots of energy here as police fall back once more. pic.twitter.com/gEENjE5tMQ — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
More officers showed up:
Portland police officers that fled return once again. pic.twitter.com/HjpD6TpyNN — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
But then the crowd started getting violent and attacking the police cars with hands and feet and also throwing things at officers:
Police continue to get pushed back, a protester with a fire extinguisher covers a vehicle as people fight back. pic.twitter.com/drvWXhXNMq — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
Police continue to fall back north on Mississippi as protesters keep them moving. pic.twitter.com/uoN5jztak8 — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
This continued for some time and six additional people were arrested.
The battle for the Red House rages on Mississippi Street as activists aggressively push back police who showed up to evict the Kinney family. pic.twitter.com/e7pyyvfSrN — Alex Milan Tracy (@AlexMilanTracy) December 8, 2020
Meanwhile the house that was cleared out has now become a new autonomous zone:
Protesters in Portland are occupying space around Mississippi Avenue following police returning to the “Red House,” where a local family is being evicted pic.twitter.com/C4b4JRhN7T — Zane Sparling (@PDXzane) December 8, 2020
Portland has a new autonomous zone here on Mississippi Avenue. The Kinney family says their home was foreclosed on because they owed less than $100K, while the vacant land next door is with $10 million pic.twitter.com/nEngxmATbX — Zane Sparling (@PDXzane) December 8, 2020
The family claims they lost a job and couldn’t pay their 2nd mortgage. But if the lot next to theirs is worth $10 million, they should have had a lot of equity in the home. They could have sold it and had a lot of money to find another place to live. Why didn’t they do that?
This reporter says it’s a calm scene but I wonder what the pile of stones are for (2nd tweet below)?
It’s a very calm scene at the moment, with more than 100 demonstrators holding the area around the Red House on Mississippi Ave in Portland pic.twitter.com/20iKi68orD — Zane Sparling (@PDXzane) December 8, 2020
Reporter Andy Ngo points out that Antifa has called for reinforcements in case police return:
Antifa are using Twitter to call for reinforcements at their new autonomous zone in north Portland: pic.twitter.com/cCfSlUhCra — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) December 8, 2020
Finally, here’s some video of today’s showdown with police:


hotair--2020-12-08--Futility: Krebs files defamation suit against diGenova, Team Trump, & Newsmax over "drawn & quartere

Futility: Krebs files defamation suit against diGenova, Team Trump, & Newsmax over "drawn & quartered" remark

Color me at least as skeptical about this effort as my earlier level of disbelief in the chances of Texas ’ lawsuit prevailing at the Supreme Court .
Christopher Krebs has earned plenty of sympathy for his rough rhetorical and professional treatment by Donald Trump and his allies , and for good reason .
However , his attempt to recover damages for it from Joseph diGenova , the Trump campaign , and Newsmax has about as much chance as Sidney Powell ’ s Kraken suits , even if this complaint is much more polished ( via Memeorandum ) : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ securing November ’ s presidential election sued the Trump campaign and one of its lawyers for defamation Tuesday , asserting that they conspired to falsely claim the election was stolen , attack dissenting Republicans and fraudulently reap political donations .
Christopher Krebs , who was fired Nov. 17 by President Trump after he refuted the president ’ s claims of widespread election fraud , singled out comments made almost two weeks later by attorney Joseph diGenova , who said Krebs should face the same punishment inflicted on those convicted of treason because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most secure in history .
“ He should be drawn and quartered , ” diGenova said on the outlet Newsmax , a third defendant .
“ Taken out at dawn and shot.
” Was that a stupid and despicable thing to say ?
No doubt .
Should Newsmax be a bit embarrassed by it ?
It ’ s tough to say why at least in terms of responsibility , as Newsmax doesn ’ t employ diGenova nor does it provide him a script for his extemporaneous analysis .
In fact , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s appearance was as Team Trump ’ s lawyer , not for Newsmax .
And could these remarks have been a threat ?
Morally , maybe — but not legally in the Brandenburg sense .
That matters , because one of the allegations in this suit is “ diGenova ’ s dangerous incitement to violence ” : It ’ s clear here that diGenova isn ’ t threatening Krebs or inciting anyone ( in the legal sense ) to action .
He ’ s using hyperbole — irresponsibly , granted — to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments .
It ’ s akin to saying some politicians should be “ tarred and feathered , ” or “ run out of town on a rail , ” which also describe real mob actions of the past .
It might be heartbreaking to hear that Krebs ’ 10-year-old child worried that “ Daddy ’ s going to get executed ?
” , but that ’ s not actionable even if true ; to claim otherwise is to endorse just another version of the heckler ’ s veto .
Critics of public officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unhappiness of their children , however , or by what other idiots might say in response .
Therefore , one can not take this seriously as a purposeful threat or a defamatory statement , but even if an argument existed for the latter , it runs into another problem .
Both by dint of his position as a high-ranking former government official and his actions to engage in national media , Krebs is a public person under the Sullivan standard .
Krebs spoke out publicly both before and after his termination to counter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign about supposed election fraud .
He engaged in a public debate on national platforms to rebut Trump and his allies , which is why diGenova responded to him on Newsmax .
Under Sullivan , it makes it difficult for any “ public person ” to press a defamation claim .
They have to establish “ actual malice ” as well as demonstrate the falsity of whatever was said or published about them .
There ’ s not even a redressable claim here , as diGenova never actually accuses Krebs in an explicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ moron , ” which is clearly opinion based on Krebs ’ public statements contrary to diGenova ’ s own public opinion , and adds in the rest for hyperbolic emphasis .
Stupidly hyperbolic emphasis , sure , but it ’ s still just hyperbolic opinion and not at all a serious claim of some malicious and actionable specific falsehood about Krebs .
As for Newsmax ’ s role in this , it ’ s a mystery why Krebs included them at all , except to perhaps broaden the possibilities of deeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time , but that doesn ’ t make them specifically liable for their speech .
Nor should it , because to apply that kind of liability would be to kill public debate and analysis .
For instance , plenty of other media outlets have aired commentary calling Trump and his team lots of unpleasant names for their efforts to overturn the election , but none of that is actionable either .
As for Krebs ’ claim to deserve recompense for “ intentional infliction of emotional distress , ” that won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be .
The Supreme Court settled this in Hustler Magazine v Falwell over thirty years ago .
When it comes to criticism of public persons , “ emotional distress ” is not in and of itself actionable regardless of how outrageous the speech might be : The State ’ s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Outrageousness ” in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors ’ tastes or views , or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression , and can not , consistently with the First Amendment , form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here .
Finally , much of this lawsuit falls into the “ generalized grievance ” category rather than particularized injury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump ’ s actions , even though Trump himself isn ’ t one of the respondents in the lawsuit .
It spends pages detailing the social-media reaction to diGenova , even though diGenova has no way of controlling what other people do .
( Nor , it should be pointed out , does Krebs acknowledge that his insistence on defending the election had already created a monster reaction on social media even prior to diGenova ’ s comment . )
This lawsuit is all over the place in attempting to build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to talk itself out of its own complaint — or to bury its problems under mounds of sympathy for Krebs over his ill treatment .
As it happens , I do feel sympathy for Krebs , and think he ’ s gotten a raw deal .
The way to address that , though , is to continue to make his case and criticize diGenova , not to push through a nonsense defamatory lawsuit .
It ’ s no Kraken , but this won ’ t emerge from the depths either .

Color me at least as skeptical about this effort as my earlier level of disbelief in the chances of Texas’ lawsuit prevailing at the Supreme Court. Christopher Krebs has earned plenty of sympathy for his rough rhetorical and professional treatment by Donald Trump and his allies, and for good reason. However, his attempt to recover damages for it from Joseph diGenova, the Trump campaign, and Newsmax has about as much chance as Sidney Powell’s Kraken suits, even if this complaint is much more polished (via Memeorandum):
The former top U.S. cybersecurity official responsible for securing November’s presidential election sued the Trump campaign and one of its lawyers for defamation Tuesday, asserting that they conspired to falsely claim the election was stolen, attack dissenting Republicans and fraudulently reap political donations. Christopher Krebs, who was fired Nov. 17 by President Trump after he refuted the president’s claims of widespread election fraud, singled out comments made almost two weeks later by attorney Joseph diGenova, who said Krebs should face the same punishment inflicted on those convicted of treason because he had asserted that the 2020 election was the most secure in history. “He should be drawn and quartered,” diGenova said on the outlet Newsmax, a third defendant. “Taken out at dawn and shot.”
Was that a stupid and despicable thing to say? No doubt. Should Newsmax be a bit embarrassed by it? It’s tough to say why at least in terms of responsibility, as Newsmax doesn’t employ diGenova nor does it provide him a script for his extemporaneous analysis. In fact, the complaint notes in paragraph 14 that diGenova’s appearance was as Team Trump’s lawyer, not for Newsmax.
And could these remarks have been a threat? Morally, maybe — but not legally in the Brandenburg sense. That matters, because one of the allegations in this suit is “diGenova’s dangerous incitement to violence”:
It’s clear here that diGenova isn’t threatening Krebs or inciting anyone (in the legal sense) to action. He’s using hyperbole — irresponsibly, granted — to express his opinion of Krebs and his arguments. It’s akin to saying some politicians should be “tarred and feathered,” or “run out of town on a rail,” which also describe real mob actions of the past. It might be heartbreaking to hear that Krebs’ 10-year-old child worried that “Daddy’s going to get executed?”, but that’s not actionable even if true; to claim otherwise is to endorse just another version of the heckler’s veto. Critics of public officials can’t be constrained by potential unhappiness of their children, however, or by what other idiots might say in response.
Therefore, one cannot take this seriously as a purposeful threat or a defamatory statement, but even if an argument existed for the latter, it runs into another problem. Both by dint of his position as a high-ranking former government official and his actions to engage in national media, Krebs is a public person under the Sullivan standard. Krebs spoke out publicly both before and after his termination to counter the allegations made by Trump and his campaign about supposed election fraud. He engaged in a public debate on national platforms to rebut Trump and his allies, which is why diGenova responded to him on Newsmax.
Under Sullivan, it makes it difficult for any “public person” to press a defamation claim. They have to establish “actual malice” as well as demonstrate the falsity of whatever was said or published about them. There’s not even a redressable claim here, as diGenova never actually accuses Krebs in an explicit way of crime. He calls Krebs a “moron,” which is clearly opinion based on Krebs’ public statements contrary to diGenova’s own public opinion, and adds in the rest for hyperbolic emphasis. Stupidly hyperbolic emphasis, sure, but it’s still just hyperbolic opinion and not at all a serious claim of some malicious and actionable specific falsehood about Krebs.
As for Newsmax’s role in this, it’s a mystery why Krebs included them at all, except to perhaps broaden the possibilities of deeper pockets. News outlets feature guests all the time, but that doesn’t make them specifically liable for their speech. Nor should it, because to apply that kind of liability would be to kill public debate and analysis. For instance, plenty of other media outlets have aired commentary calling Trump and his team lots of unpleasant names for their efforts to overturn the election, but none of that is actionable either.
As for Krebs’ claim to deserve recompense for “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” that won’t cut it either, sympathetic as it might be. The Supreme Court settled this in Hustler Magazine v Falwell over thirty years ago. When it comes to criticism of public persons, “emotional distress” is not in and of itself actionable regardless of how outrageous the speech might be:
The State’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. … “Outrageousness” in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here.
Finally, much of this lawsuit falls into the “generalized grievance” category rather than particularized injury. It goes on at length about Donald Trump’s actions, even though Trump himself isn’t one of the respondents in the lawsuit. It spends pages detailing the social-media reaction to diGenova, even though diGenova has no way of controlling what other people do. (Nor, it should be pointed out, does Krebs acknowledge that his insistence on defending the election had already created a monster reaction on social media even prior to diGenova’s comment.) This lawsuit is all over the place in attempting to build a case, so much so that it appears to talk itself out of its own complaint — or to bury its problems under mounds of sympathy for Krebs over his ill treatment.
As it happens, I do feel sympathy for Krebs, and think he’s gotten a raw deal. The way to address that, though, is to continue to make his case and criticize diGenova, not to push through a nonsense defamatory lawsuit. It’s no Kraken, but this won’t emerge from the depths either.


hotair--2020-12-08--Lose section 230? Be careful what you wish for

We ’ ve known for a while now that President Trump has been threatening to veto the NDAA unless it includes a provision to repeal section 230 of the 1969 Communications Decency Act .
Personally , this has seemed like a rather ill-conceived notion from the start , particularly since it ’ s likely to backfire in a big way .
There ’ s enough support for the “ must-pass ” nature of the NDAA and for section 230 that the veto could very well be overridden , handing a win to the bipartisanship crowd in open defiance of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be clear , I do not at all agree with Taylor ’ s premise that section 230 actually “ prevents Big Tech from exercising excessive censorship.
” That ’ s not the purpose of section 230 in the least .
Meanwhile , the social media giants are busily censoring whoever they feel like on a daily basis .
We can argue over how much censorship should be considered “ excessive ” another day , though my default answer is “ any.
” The two problems I have with this whole push to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do anything to address the current situation and would likely only cause more “ problems ” than such a move would “ cure.
” And it could potentially go much harder against conservatives than liberals were it to happen .
That ’ s something that was brought up last week in an article written by Robert H Bork Jr. at Real Clear Politics .
Bork notes that the last time this issue was brought up during hearings , it was Ben Sasse who stepped into the fray and pointed out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Twitter and Facebook ’ s blackout policies , eliminating section 230 not only won ’ t fix the issue but could make things worse .
Sasse started by voicing skepticism about the way the two companies moderate content “ because I don ’ t think the standards are very transparent and I don ’ t think the execution is very consistent.
” At first , it seemed as if Sasse was going to follow his partisan colleagues across the goal line .
Then this … “ I am more skeptical than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the aisle about whether or not there is a regulatory fix that will make it better instead of worse , ” Sasse said .
“ I think it is very odd that so many in my party are zealous to do this right now when you have an incoming administration of the other party that would be writing the new rules and regulations.
” Sasse then noted that his Democratic colleague , Sen. Blumenthal , was “ giddy ” about creating “ a new government agency to police online speech.
” Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should take pause.
” Support for this point came from an odd corner , Twitter ’ s Jack Dorsey , who drolly said that “ a centralized global control moderation system does not scale.
” As Sasse noted , the social media companies have made “ content moderation ” decisions that seem to fall harder on conservatives than on liberals .
Here ’ s the shorter version of why the wheels shouldn ’ t stay on this wagon .
Section 230 was put in place to protect information service providers from liability over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties , specifically the user community in these cases .
In other words , contra Taylor ’ s argument , the existence of section 230 actually gives the tech giants free rein to ignore the posts of their users entirely , even if they are outrageously offensive .
( Though they would still need to cooperate with law enforcement if users are employing the platform to break the law . )
As such , removing section 230 would only make the social media giants even more nervous , likely developing a tendency to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing lawsuits over it .
That would be pretty much the opposite of the goals of most of their critics , at least as I understand them .
There ’ s also a fundamental question of responsibility here .
I will once again draw on one of my favorite analogies here .
Twitter and Facebook and all the rest of the social media platforms are like giant , global versions of an old-fashioned corkboard .
( Ask your parents if you ’ ve never seen one . )
The big tech companies put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initially empty .
People come along and post their own information , just like students in a dorm pinning messages on slips of paper to the board .
If someone pins up a really hateful message or some threat of violence , who should the police come looking for ?
The student who posted the message or the manufacturer of the corkboard ?
It ’ s really as simple as that .
We ’ re not dealing with a problem of Twitter and Facebook potentially being sued here .
We ’ re dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been censoring posts – almost entirely from conservative users – in an indiscriminate fashion when they can ’ t really be held accountable for the content of those posts to begin with .
So what ’ s the answer ?
I ’ m unsure .
Asking the government to come in and start dictating how those private companies determine when they block user content and on what basis is not only problematic from a small-government conservative philosophical standpoint , but it obviously opens up a whole new can of worms .
If we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of voices Twitter and Facebook can or can ’ t silence , at least half of you aren ’ t going to be very happy with the result .
Perhaps the best cure is once again to be found in the free market .
If a sufficient number of people bail out on Twitter in favor of Gab or Parler or some other platform , they may begin to get the message .
Or , failing that , perhaps they lose so much market share to less restrictive platforms that they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem .
But if enough people keep using their services , that means that a sufficient number of people are willing to put up with the censorship .
I realize that ’ s a rather bleak way to look at it , but I ’ m just talking about reality here , no matter how harsh it may seem .

We’ve known for a while now that President Trump has been threatening to veto the NDAA unless it includes a provision to repeal section 230 of the 1969 Communications Decency Act. Personally, this has seemed like a rather ill-conceived notion from the start, particularly since it’s likely to backfire in a big way. There’s enough support for the “must-pass” nature of the NDAA and for section 230 that the veto could very well be overridden, handing a win to the bipartisanship crowd in open defiance of the President’s goals.
Now, to be clear, I do not at all agree with Taylor’s premise that section 230 actually “prevents Big Tech from exercising excessive censorship.” That’s not the purpose of section 230 in the least. Meanwhile, the social media giants are busily censoring whoever they feel like on a daily basis. We can argue over how much censorship should be considered “excessive” another day, though my default answer is “any.”
The two problems I have with this whole push to terminate section 230 are that it wouldn’t do anything to address the current situation and would likely only cause more “problems” than such a move would “cure.” And it could potentially go much harder against conservatives than liberals were it to happen. That’s something that was brought up last week in an article written by Robert H Bork Jr. at Real Clear Politics. Bork notes that the last time this issue was brought up during hearings, it was Ben Sasse who stepped into the fray and pointed out that no matter how much you may fume over Twitter and Facebook’s blackout policies, eliminating section 230 not only won’t fix the issue but could make things worse.
Sasse started by voicing skepticism about the way the two companies moderate content “because I don’t think the standards are very transparent and I don’t think the execution is very consistent.” At first, it seemed as if Sasse was going to follow his partisan colleagues across the goal line. Then this … “I am more skeptical than a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about whether or not there is a regulatory fix that will make it better instead of worse,” Sasse said. “I think it is very odd that so many in my party are zealous to do this right now when you have an incoming administration of the other party that would be writing the new rules and regulations.” Sasse then noted that his Democratic colleague, Sen. Blumenthal, was “giddy” about creating “a new government agency to police online speech.” Republicans and conservatives, Sasse said, “should take pause.” Support for this point came from an odd corner, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, who drolly said that “a centralized global control moderation system does not scale.” As Sasse noted, the social media companies have made “content moderation” decisions that seem to fall harder on conservatives than on liberals.
Here’s the shorter version of why the wheels shouldn’t stay on this wagon. Section 230 was put in place to protect information service providers from liability over content that’s generated by other parties, specifically the user community in these cases. In other words, contra Taylor’s argument, the existence of section 230 actually gives the tech giants free rein to ignore the posts of their users entirely, even if they are outrageously offensive. (Though they would still need to cooperate with law enforcement if users are employing the platform to break the law.)
As such, removing section 230 would only make the social media giants even more nervous, likely developing a tendency to blackout even more user content to avoid facing lawsuits over it. That would be pretty much the opposite of the goals of most of their critics, at least as I understand them.
There’s also a fundamental question of responsibility here. I will once again draw on one of my favorite analogies here. Twitter and Facebook and all the rest of the social media platforms are like giant, global versions of an old-fashioned corkboard. (Ask your parents if you’ve never seen one.) The big tech companies put up the corkboard and it’s initially empty. People come along and post their own information, just like students in a dorm pinning messages on slips of paper to the board. If someone pins up a really hateful message or some threat of violence, who should the police come looking for? The student who posted the message or the manufacturer of the corkboard? It’s really as simple as that.
We’re not dealing with a problem of Twitter and Facebook potentially being sued here. We’re dealing with the established fact that they have been censoring posts – almost entirely from conservative users – in an indiscriminate fashion when they can’t really be held accountable for the content of those posts to begin with. So what’s the answer? I’m unsure. Asking the government to come in and start dictating how those private companies determine when they block user content and on what basis is not only problematic from a small-government conservative philosophical standpoint, but it obviously opens up a whole new can of worms. If we allow the government to determine which sort of voices Twitter and Facebook can or can’t silence, at least half of you aren’t going to be very happy with the result.
Perhaps the best cure is once again to be found in the free market. If a sufficient number of people bail out on Twitter in favor of Gab or Parler or some other platform, they may begin to get the message. Or, failing that, perhaps they lose so much market share to less restrictive platforms that they’ll go away and cease to be a problem. But if enough people keep using their services, that means that a sufficient number of people are willing to put up with the censorship. I realize that’s a rather bleak way to look at it, but I’m just talking about reality here, no matter how harsh it may seem.


hotair--2020-12-08--<span class='red'>Endgame: SCOTUS denies Pennsylvania Republicans' request to block certification of

Endgame: SCOTUS denies Pennsylvania Republicans' request to block certification of election

No dissents noted .
This is the Court ’ s order in its entirety .
Not so much as a line of legal reasoning , eh ?
Maybe that ’ s a nod to the fact that today is , after all , the “ safe harbor ” deadline and as I pointed out in this post the Court has been sensitive to that before .
It mattered to the majority in Bush v. Gore , which rushed out its ruling before that deadline passed .
Today ’ s Court may have done the same thing : With little time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline expired , they chose to simply get their ruling on the books instead .
Which means Pennsylvania should meet the “ safe harbor ” deadline .
There ’ s no more litigation pending in this case .
By the end of the day , Congress will be bound by statute to accept Pennsylvania ’ s 20 electoral votes for Joe Biden .
All thanks to the alacrity of a conservative-dominated Supreme Court .
Congrats to Gorsuch , Kavanaugh , Barrett , and Clarence Thomas on having become The Ultimate RINOs .
Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump-related election lawsuits and Kelly ’ s suit in particular , I wonder if the brevity here wasn ’ t also partly motivated by the Court not wanting to have to spell out just how extraordinary and contemptible it is that the petitioners would ask them to disenfranchise millions of voters .
The Court guards perceptions of its legitimacy jealously .
A rhetorical beating delivered to Kelly and Trump at length wouldn ’ t have served that cause well among Republicans .
Better to just deliver a thumbs down .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As law prof Jonathan Adler notes , the core problem with Kelly ’ s suit was that it raised questions about state law .
The state supreme court is the final arbiter of those , not the U.S. Supreme Court , so ultimately what is there to say ?
The petitioners tried to transform those state issues into constitutional ones in order to get it before SCOTUS , which smacked of “ repackaging , ” in the words of Third Circuit Judge ( and Trump appointee ) Stephanos Bibas .
More from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest problem with this suit is the lack of a real federal question .
Whatever one thinks of the state law questions , the attempts to make a federal case out of these state law claims is quite strained , and the existence of independent and sufficient state law grounds should insulate the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ’ s decision from review .
It is also worth noting that the underlying theory of Rep. Kelly ’ s suit is in tension with the theory underlying Texas Attorney General Paxton ’ s latest suit and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have claimed that state legislatures have near-plenary authority to determine the manner of selecting presidential electors — and therefore election law changes made by non-legislative actors are suspect — Rep. Kelly claims the state legislature is constrained by the state constitution , but not as interpreted by state courts .
So whereas other suits complain about state election administrators or state courts altering state election law without legislative approval , this suit claims that the constitutional problem is that Pennsylvania state courts failed to overturn changes to state election law made by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the theories are not based on principled consideration of the underlying constitutional questions , but are instead constructed to ensure the desired outcome .
I ’ m glad he brought up the Texas suit that Ed wrote about this morning .
If Kelly ’ s suit was a 9-0 dismissal , how do you suppose the one from Texas seeking to disenfranchise voters across multiple swing states will fare ?
The point to bear in mind here is that , as dubious as it was , Kelly ’ s lawsuit was one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s behalf during the post-election period .
There was a legitimate question underlying it as to how to reconcile the state statute permitting mail-in votes with the state constitution specifying in-person voting .
There was also a question of whether petitioners were caught in a Catch-22 , as Ted Cruz has insisted , since they lacked standing to challenge that statute before the election and were barred by laches from pursuing it after the vote .
But ultimately those were questions for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court , not SCOTUS .
The former tossed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Case closed .
He was “ clearly ” president-elect before .
Nothing that happened in this case was going to knock him down below 270 electoral votes , even if SCOTUS had tossed Pennsylvania ’ s electoral votes .
But the fact that today ’ s order was so terse and apparently unanimous for , as I say , a suit that had a little more merit than the average Sidney Powell fantasia is all the proof we need that the Supreme Court isn ’ t coming to the rescue here .
God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He doesn ’ t care a thing for law , statutes , or what have you .
He understands “ loyalty ” and his three appointees didn ’ t show it today .
Presumably they ’ re the next to be demagogued : There are only two steps left in this pitiful saga .
The electoral college meets on Monday so maybe there ’ ll be some half-assed legal effort to enjoin them from voting or , failing that , to try to persuade Biden ’ s electors to switch to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to record the electoral college ’ s vote , which should be a big day for angry “ last stand ” speeches from the likes of Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar or whoever else before the House and Senate inevitably cinch Biden ’ s victory .
Plenty of rage and anxiety and hallucinatory theories about snatching victories from the jaws of defeat still to come , for no g-ddamned reason whatsoever except to make people more bitter and contemptuous of their national community .
I ’ ll leave you with this , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

No dissents noted. This is the Court’s order in its entirety.
Not so much as a line of legal reasoning, eh? Maybe that’s a nod to the fact that today is, after all, the “safe harbor” deadline and as I pointed out in this post the Court has been sensitive to that before. It mattered to the majority in Bush v. Gore, which rushed out its ruling before that deadline passed. Today’s Court may have done the same thing: With little time left to draft an opinion before the deadline expired, they chose to simply get their ruling on the books instead.
Which means Pennsylvania should meet the “safe harbor” deadline. There’s no more litigation pending in this case. By the end of the day, Congress will be bound by statute to accept Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes for Joe Biden. All thanks to the alacrity of a conservative-dominated Supreme Court.
Congrats to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Clarence Thomas on having become The Ultimate RINOs.
Given the open disdain other courts have showed for Trump-related election lawsuits and Kelly’s suit in particular, I wonder if the brevity here wasn’t also partly motivated by the Court not wanting to have to spell out just how extraordinary and contemptible it is that the petitioners would ask them to disenfranchise millions of voters. The Court guards perceptions of its legitimacy jealously. A rhetorical beating delivered to Kelly and Trump at length wouldn’t have served that cause well among Republicans. Better to just deliver a thumbs down.
There’s another possible explanation for the brevity. As law prof Jonathan Adler notes, the core problem with Kelly’s suit was that it raised questions about state law. The state supreme court is the final arbiter of those, not the U.S. Supreme Court, so ultimately what is there to say? The petitioners tried to transform those state issues into constitutional ones in order to get it before SCOTUS, which smacked of “repackaging,” in the words of Third Circuit Judge (and Trump appointee) Stephanos Bibas. More from Adler:
To my mind, the biggest problem with this suit is the lack of a real federal question. Whatever one thinks of the state law questions, the attempts to make a federal case out of these state law claims is quite strained, and the existence of independent and sufficient state law grounds should insulate the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision from review. It is also worth noting that the underlying theory of Rep. Kelly’s suit is in tension with the theory underlying Texas Attorney General Paxton’s latest suit and other recent election suits. Whereas others have claimed that state legislatures have near-plenary authority to determine the manner of selecting presidential electors — and therefore election law changes made by non-legislative actors are suspect — Rep. Kelly claims the state legislature is constrained by the state constitution, but not as interpreted by state courts. So whereas other suits complain about state election administrators or state courts altering state election law without legislative approval, this suit claims that the constitutional problem is that Pennsylvania state courts failed to overturn changes to state election law made by the legislature. It is almost as if the theories are not based on principled consideration of the underlying constitutional questions, but are instead constructed to ensure the desired outcome.
I’m glad he brought up the Texas suit that Ed wrote about this morning. If Kelly’s suit was a 9-0 dismissal, how do you suppose the one from Texas seeking to disenfranchise voters across multiple swing states will fare?
The point to bear in mind here is that, as dubious as it was, Kelly’s lawsuit was one of the stronger suits filed on Trump’s behalf during the post-election period. There was a legitimate question underlying it as to how to reconcile the state statute permitting mail-in votes with the state constitution specifying in-person voting. There was also a question of whether petitioners were caught in a Catch-22, as Ted Cruz has insisted, since they lacked standing to challenge that statute before the election and were barred by laches from pursuing it after the vote. But ultimately those were questions for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not SCOTUS. The former tossed them and the latter seemingly deferred. Case closed.
Hard to argue with Neil Cavuto:
“Joe Biden now clearly the President-elect of the United States” pic.twitter.com/35yEtPPoTG — Acyn (@Acyn) December 8, 2020
He was “clearly” president-elect before. Nothing that happened in this case was going to knock him down below 270 electoral votes, even if SCOTUS had tossed Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. But the fact that today’s order was so terse and apparently unanimous for, as I say, a suit that had a little more merit than the average Sidney Powell fantasia is all the proof we need that the Supreme Court isn’t coming to the rescue here.
God only knows how Trump will take that. He doesn’t care a thing for law, statutes, or what have you. He understands “loyalty” and his three appointees didn’t show it today. Presumably they’re the next to be demagogued:
Meanwhile, over on planet-Parler, the Supreme Court's decision is being met (as many things there are) with calls for martial law and armed insurrection. pic.twitter.com/NNmM685zHO — Brad Heath (@bradheath) December 8, 2020
There are only two steps left in this pitiful saga. The electoral college meets on Monday so maybe there’ll be some half-assed legal effort to enjoin them from voting or, failing that, to try to persuade Biden’s electors to switch to Trump. Then Congress meets on January 6 to record the electoral college’s vote, which should be a big day for angry “last stand” speeches from the likes of Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar or whoever else before the House and Senate inevitably cinch Biden’s victory. Plenty of rage and anxiety and hallucinatory theories about snatching victories from the jaws of defeat still to come, for no g-ddamned reason whatsoever except to make people more bitter and contemptuous of their national community.
I’ll leave you with this, which is as true as it is funny.


hotair--2020-12-08--FBI is now investigating police shooting of Casey Goodson

There was a police shooting in Columbus , Ohio last Friday which is now receiving attention from Black Lives Matter and the FBI .
At the moment there are two different stories about what happened .
Police say Jason Meade , a 17-year-veteran who was part of a U.S .
Marshals Service fugitive task force , shot 23-year-old Casey Goodson after wrapping up an investigation looking for violent fugitives in the area .
Peter Tobin , the U.S .
Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio , said Friday during a press conference that a fugitive task force that included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office SWAT members had just finished an unsuccessful search for a suspect when a 23-year-old man drove by , waving a handgun at a sheriff ’ s SWAT deputy .
The SWAT deputy confronted the man , who had by this point gotten out of his vehicle .
The deputy told the gunman to drop his handgun , a command heard by at least one witness , Tobin said .
When the man with the gun did not drop his weapon , Tobin said , the deputy shot him .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Goodson ’ s sister published a Facebook post claiming police were lying and that her brother was merely walking into his house with a Subway sandwich when he was shot in the back : They are lying !
My brother literally walked across the yard , walked into the back fence to get to the side door , had his subway and mask in one hand keys in the other , UNLOCKED AND OPENED THE DOOR and stepped in the house before shooting him .
IF HE WAS SUCH A THREAT WHY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
!
WHY DID TOU KILL A MAN WALKING INTO HIS OWN HOME ?
!
Police did find a gun at the scene but Goodson apparently had a concealed carry permit : So the fact that Goodson possessed a gun and had it with him doesn ’ t mean much in this case .
The question is what transpired with the gun prior to the shooting .
Did Goodson brandish it at Meade and refuse to drop it ?
Did he have his back to Meade when he was shot as the sister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ll have to wait on autopsy results and witness statements because it seems there won ’ t be any video in this case .
Attorney Ben Crump who has represented the families of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor posted a tweet claiming Meade mistook Goodson for a fugitive .
The legal firm that is representing Goodson ’ s family also issued a statement which said in part : Casey is not alleged to have committed any crimes , has no criminal background , and was not the target of any investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed weapon and Ohio does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms .
It is troubling that authorities have already stated that they believe the shooting to be justified , prior to any investigation taking place and before any information has been released to the family .
At this point , witness testimony and physical evidence raise serious concerns about why Casey was even confronted , let alone why he was shot dead while entering his own home .
The letter goes on to demand a thorough investigation and it appears they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DOJ Civil Rights Division is now involved in the case .
So that ’ s where things stand at the moment .
As of yesterday Jason Meade still hadn ’ t been interviewed yet so there ’ s probably still a long way to go in this case .

There was a police shooting in Columbus, Ohio last Friday which is now receiving attention from Black Lives Matter and the FBI. At the moment there are two different stories about what happened. Police say Jason Meade, a 17-year-veteran who was part of a U.S. Marshals Service fugitive task force, shot 23-year-old Casey Goodson after wrapping up an investigation looking for violent fugitives in the area.
Peter Tobin, the U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Ohio, said Friday during a press conference that a fugitive task force that included marshals and Franklin County Sheriff’s office SWAT members had just finished an unsuccessful search for a suspect when a 23-year-old man drove by, waving a handgun at a sheriff’s SWAT deputy. The SWAT deputy confronted the man, who had by this point gotten out of his vehicle. The deputy told the gunman to drop his handgun, a command heard by at least one witness, Tobin said. When the man with the gun did not drop his weapon, Tobin said, the deputy shot him.
That’s the police version of events. Meanwhile, Goodson’s sister published a Facebook post claiming police were lying and that her brother was merely walking into his house with a Subway sandwich when he was shot in the back:
They are lying! My brother literally walked across the yard, walked into the back fence to get to the side door, had his subway and mask in one hand keys in the other, UNLOCKED AND OPENED THE DOOR and stepped in the house before shooting him. IF HE WAS SUCH A THREAT WHY DID YOU WAIT SO LONG TO SHOOT?! WHY DID TOU KILL A MAN WALKING INTO HIS OWN HOME?!
Police did find a gun at the scene but Goodson apparently had a concealed carry permit:
According to documentation provided by his family’s lawyers, Walton + Brown, Goodson’s concealed carry license was up-to-date. The Ohio Bar Association says any legal weapon owner can openly carry weapons in most places in Ohio, even without a concealed weapon license.
So the fact that Goodson possessed a gun and had it with him doesn’t mean much in this case. The question is what transpired with the gun prior to the shooting. Did Goodson brandish it at Meade and refuse to drop it? Did he have his back to Meade when he was shot as the sister’s version of events suggests? We’ll have to wait on autopsy results and witness statements because it seems there won’t be any video in this case.
Attorney Ben Crump who has represented the families of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor posted a tweet claiming Meade mistook Goodson for a fugitive.
This is Casey Goodson, a 23yo Black man from Ohio. On 12/4, an @OHFCSO deputy mistook Casey for a fugitive & fatally shot him 3x in the BACK. He was walking into his own home with a sandwich, NOT a gun. This shoot 1st, ask Qs later mentality MUST END! We demand #JusticeForCasey!! pic.twitter.com/aReHMF3nKL — Ben Crump (@AttorneyCrump) December 6, 2020
The legal firm that is representing Goodson’s family also issued a statement which said in part:
Casey is not alleged to have committed any crimes, has no criminal background, and was not the target of any investigation. Casey was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and Ohio does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms. It is troubling that authorities have already stated that they believe the shooting to be justified, prior to any investigation taking place and before any information has been released to the family. At this point, witness testimony and physical evidence raise serious concerns about why Casey was even confronted, let alone why he was shot dead while entering his own home.
The letter goes on to demand a thorough investigation and it appears they will get it because both the FBI and the DOJ Civil Rights Division is now involved in the case.
United States Attorney David M. DeVillers announced today the U.S. Attorney’s Office – in coordination with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the Cincinnati Division of the FBI and the Columbus Division of Police – will review the facts and circumstances surrounding the Dec. 4, 2020 shooting of Casey Goodson and take appropriate action if the evidence indicates any federal civil rights laws were violated.
So that’s where things stand at the moment. As of yesterday Jason Meade still hadn’t been interviewed yet so there’s probably still a long way to go in this case.


hotair--2020-12-08--Giuliani and Ellis: Today's electoral college "safe harbor" deadline means nothing

They ’ re right , sort of .
The “ safe harbor ” law says that Congress has to accept a state ’ s electoral votes if legal disputes over those votes have been resolved by the “ safe harbor ” date , which is today .
But there ’ s no way to force Congress to follow that rule .
And since no state won by Biden has attempted to award its electors to Trump — although Pennsylvania ’ s Republicans are trying — there ’ s no reason why Congress wouldn ’ t end up counting those electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court challenges continue .
Which they will .
The “ safe harbor ” law certainly doesn ’ t bar you from suing to challenge a state ’ s election results after December 8 .
Which makes me wonder : What if , against all odds , a lawsuit like the one on appeal to Justice Alito from Pennsylvania succeeded in invalidating all of a state ’ s mail-in ballots ?
Would Congress be bound to award PA ’ s electoral votes to Biden if that lawsuit had been filed after the “ safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite court invalidating the votes cast for him ” feels like a bad headline .
Anyway , the real significance of today ’ s deadline is psychological .
It makes Biden ’ s victory seem that much more final , and can and will probably be used by courts going forward as part of their arguments for dismissing election challenges by Trump and his allies .
The “ elite strike force ” legal team can keep cranking out these defiant base-pleasing press releases but they ’ re just going through the motions at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead not because they have any hope of undoing the results in any state but just so that they can say to lost-causers that they fought to the bitter end .
Never a good sign when lawyers are citing a dissent , which is what Ginsburg ’ s opinion in Bush v. Gore was .
The majority opinion in that case *did* treat the “ safe harbor ” deadline as significant .
During the 2000 dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore , as the court ’ s majority essentially awarded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the looming deadline as a reason Florida could not initiate a new , manual recount .
“ The majority treated the safe harbor very seriously , ” Ohio State University law professor Ned Foley said .
“ That ’ s why there was no remand to give Florida another chance at recounting.
” Indeed , the very timing of the high court ’ s hasty resolution of the Bush v. Gore case seemed driven by the safe-harbor date .
The justices heard arguments the day before it and decided on the very day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statute intended to prevent uncertainty about the winner of the presidential election .
“ As long as there is only one submission of electoral votes from a state , Congress must accept it unless it ’ s rejected by both chambers — which isn ’ t going to happen , ” Bloomberg explains , citing election law prof Edward Foley .
I take it that means either Trump needs a court to invalidate a state ’ s election results , which no court would ever do , or , sometime in the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legislatures in swing states won by Biden to appoint their own pro-Trump electors .
Doesn ’ t look like that ’ s happening : “ It ’ s completely unacceptable and it ’ s not going to work and the president should give up trying to get legislatures to overturn the results of the elections in their respective states , ” said Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey today of Trump ’ s attempt to get his state ’ s legislature to void their election results .
That being so , the unrealistic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that Alito takes the Pennsylvania case , SCOTUS rules that mail-in ballots are invalid — essentially voiding Pennsylvania ’ s election — and Biden wins the electoral college with 286 electoral votes instead of 306 .
So what ’ s the point of keeping this going , unless it ’ s simply to prove you ’ re a “ fighter ” ?
At some point , the fact that Trump and cronies like Sidney Powell are getting ruthlessly pounded in court after court after court after court works against them by proving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all-in on “ rigged election !
” hysteria that there ’ s just no there there .
The courts can ’ t be in on The Big Steal too .
( Well , to Powell and Lin Wood I suppose they can . )
Ironically , MAGA fans are the group that ’ s most eager for SCOTUS to hear a Trump election challenge , believing that Barrett , Kavanaugh , and Gorsuch are partisan hacks who ’ ll surely rule Trump ’ s way due to “ loyalty.
” But in reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be most eager for the Supreme Court to grant a Trump appeal .
Nothing would provide a more conclusory statement that this legal effort is futile than having the president ’ s own handpicked justices swat him down .
Let ’ s get on with it , Alito .
The GOP should reeeeeally stop worrying about an election it already lost and focus on one that it still stands a chance to win : Here ’ s the president turning his “ vaccine summit ” today into a rant about how he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pfizer and Moderna didn ’ t want to attend this thing .

They’re right, sort of. The “safe harbor” law says that Congress has to accept a state’s electoral votes if legal disputes over those votes have been resolved by the “safe harbor” date, which is today. But there’s no way to force Congress to follow that rule. And since no state won by Biden has attempted to award its electors to Trump — although Pennsylvania’s Republicans are trying — there’s no reason why Congress wouldn’t end up counting those electoral votes for Sleepy Joe even if the court challenges continue.
Which they will. The “safe harbor” law certainly doesn’t bar you from suing to challenge a state’s election results after December 8. Which makes me wonder: What if, against all odds, a lawsuit like the one on appeal to Justice Alito from Pennsylvania succeeded in invalidating all of a state’s mail-in ballots? Would Congress be bound to award PA’s electoral votes to Biden if that lawsuit had been filed after the “safe harbor” deadline?
“Candidate wins despite court invalidating the votes cast for him” feels like a bad headline.
Anyway, the real significance of today’s deadline is psychological. It makes Biden’s victory seem that much more final, and can and will probably be used by courts going forward as part of their arguments for dismissing election challenges by Trump and his allies. The “elite strike force” legal team can keep cranking out these defiant base-pleasing press releases but they’re just going through the motions at this point. They’re pressing ahead not because they have any hope of undoing the results in any state but just so that they can say to lost-causers that they fought to the bitter end.
Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis — each said to be recovering from the coronavirus right now — just issued a statement downplaying the significance of today's "safe harbor" milestone and pledging that their legal fight (and presumably legal fees) will continue. pic.twitter.com/yRZsUvtKxL — Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) December 8, 2020
Never a good sign when lawyers are citing a dissent, which is what Ginsburg’s opinion in Bush v. Gore was. The majority opinion in that case *did* treat the “safe harbor” deadline as significant.
During the 2000 dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore, as the court’s majority essentially awarded the presidency to Bush, the justices cited the looming deadline as a reason Florida could not initiate a new, manual recount. “The majority treated the safe harbor very seriously,” Ohio State University law professor Ned Foley said. “That’s why there was no remand to give Florida another chance at recounting.” Indeed, the very timing of the high court’s hasty resolution of the Bush v. Gore case seemed driven by the safe-harbor date. The justices heard arguments the day before it and decided on the very day, which was established in an 1887 statute intended to prevent uncertainty about the winner of the presidential election.
“As long as there is only one submission of electoral votes from a state, Congress must accept it unless it’s rejected by both chambers — which isn’t going to happen,” Bloomberg explains, citing election law prof Edward Foley. I take it that means either Trump needs a court to invalidate a state’s election results, which no court would ever do, or, sometime in the next eight hours or so, he needs the legislatures in swing states won by Biden to appoint their own pro-Trump electors. Doesn’t look like that’s happening:
Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) says he will *not* call a special session to overturn the 2020 election vote, contrary to Trump's democracy-violating wishes. pic.twitter.com/pg14ludKPh — The Recount (@therecount) December 8, 2020
“It’s completely unacceptable and it’s not going to work and the president should give up trying to get legislatures to overturn the results of the elections in their respective states,” said Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey today of Trump’s attempt to get his state’s legislature to void their election results. That being so, the unrealistic, absolute best-case scenario for POTUS right now is that Alito takes the Pennsylvania case, SCOTUS rules that mail-in ballots are invalid — essentially voiding Pennsylvania’s election — and Biden wins the electoral college with 286 electoral votes instead of 306.
So what’s the point of keeping this going, unless it’s simply to prove you’re a “fighter”?
Trump’s legal team has more cases of covid than court wins — Ari Berman (@AriBerman) December 8, 2020
At some point, the fact that Trump and cronies like Sidney Powell are getting ruthlessly pounded in court after court after court after court works against them by proving to Americans who haven’t gone all-in on “rigged election!” hysteria that there’s just no there there. The courts can’t be in on The Big Steal too. (Well, to Powell and Lin Wood I suppose they can.) Ironically, MAGA fans are the group that’s most eager for SCOTUS to hear a Trump election challenge, believing that Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are partisan hacks who’ll surely rule Trump’s way due to “loyalty.” But in reality, it’s Trump opponents who should be most eager for the Supreme Court to grant a Trump appeal. Nothing would provide a more conclusory statement that this legal effort is futile than having the president’s own handpicked justices swat him down. Let’s get on with it, Alito.
The GOP should reeeeeally stop worrying about an election it already lost and focus on one that it still stands a chance to win:
“I wanted to bring to your attention that 70,000 Georgians who did not vote in the general election have already requested mail ballots to vote in the January 5 runoff.” #gapol #gasen pic.twitter.com/jsQsKqEKmI — Greg Bluestein (@bluestein) December 8, 2020
Here’s the president turning his “vaccine summit” today into a rant about how he really won the election. No wonder Pfizer and Moderna didn’t want to attend this thing.


hotair--2020-12-08--After 8 years of "gun buyback program," California shocked to see gun violence still rising

Over the weekend , Los Angeles held its annual gun “ buyback ” program for the eighth consecutive year .
Mayor Garcetti always loves to talk up this event , claiming that it ’ s an important piece of the puzzle in terms of reducing gun violence .
This year was no different and he was quick to sing the praises of the program to the local media .
Of course , the underlying reality is considerably different than the sunny outlook being touted by the Mayor .
And when you look at the specific issues that the LAPD is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of details provided by City Hall , the entire idea seems to fall apart a bit .
( CBS Los Angeles ) Saturday marked the eighth year of the gun buy back program held by Mayor Garcetti ’ s office and run by the LAPD .
The program was hosted at three locations across Los Angeles from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. “ I really had no need for them so I just thought I ’ d get a little extra cash for the holidays , ” said Jeffrey Bailey , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Saturday .
How many guns were actually turned in aside from the ones given by the subject of that interview ?
We don ’ t know because they aren ’ t saying .
The police like to broadcast the number of guns taken off the streets in the past eight years as being more than 43,000 .
But you have to read the fine print to realize that the figure being offered covers not just the gun buyback program , but all of the illegal weapons recovered from criminals as well .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s share of recovered illegal firearms .
LAPD Chief Michel Moore is quoted as saying that “ every gun recovered in this ‘ Buy Back ’ program means one less weapon that can be used to inflict harm.
” While that may be theoretically true if the guns are later stolen , it ’ s not generally criminals and gangbangers showing up for these events .
And as we ’ ve seen in the past , the quality of the firearms being turned in is often dubious at best .
We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the program is a misnomer .
You can ’ t “ buy back ” something that you didn ’ t sell in the first place .
The government is simply dishing out money for a voluntary gun confiscation program , usually collecting only older weapons that people don ’ t want anymore .
They were paying people $ 100 for handguns , rifles , and shotguns , or $ 200 for an “ assault rifle.
” So what ’ s been the result of this highly touted program ?
Gun violence has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the same time last year .
More than 1,100 people have been shot , with 311 of them being killed .
If you ’ re looking for the actual culprit behind those numbers , it almost certainly has little to nothing to do with the number of guns being turned in or remaining on the streets .
Criminals always find a way to get their hands on a weapon if they really want one .
More likely , as even the Chief of Police pointed out , is the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the wake of all of the riots and protests .
And as of this weekend , Los Angeles was looking at cutting its budget further and eliminating an additional 1,900 jobs .
Half of those job cuts would come from the police force under the current proposal .
Crime is up .
Arrests are down .
In response , the size of the police force is shrinking .
I don ’ t think you need to have a degree in mathematics to see that this formula simply doesn ’ t add up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s coffers are strained just like everywhere else in the country due to the pandemic .
But you have to find a way to pay for law enforcement or the rest of your societal structure implodes , and things are already slipping in the wrong direction .
This isn ’ t long division , people .

Over the weekend, Los Angeles held its annual gun “buyback” program for the eighth consecutive year. Mayor Garcetti always loves to talk up this event, claiming that it’s an important piece of the puzzle in terms of reducing gun violence. This year was no different and he was quick to sing the praises of the program to the local media. Of course, the underlying reality is considerably different than the sunny outlook being touted by the Mayor. And when you look at the specific issues that the LAPD is currently dealing with, along with the lack of details provided by City Hall, the entire idea seems to fall apart a bit. (CBS Los Angeles)
Saturday marked the eighth year of the gun buy back program held by Mayor Garcetti’s office and run by the LAPD. The program was hosted at three locations across Los Angeles from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. “I really had no need for them so I just thought I’d get a little extra cash for the holidays,” said Jeffrey Bailey, a Gardena resident who participated in the program on Saturday.
How many guns were actually turned in aside from the ones given by the subject of that interview? We don’t know because they aren’t saying. The police like to broadcast the number of guns taken off the streets in the past eight years as being more than 43,000. But you have to read the fine print to realize that the figure being offered covers not just the gun buyback program, but all of the illegal weapons recovered from criminals as well. The latter obviously accounts for the lion’s share of recovered illegal firearms.
LAPD Chief Michel Moore is quoted as saying that “every gun recovered in this ‘Buy Back’ program means one less weapon that can be used to inflict harm.” While that may be theoretically true if the guns are later stolen, it’s not generally criminals and gangbangers showing up for these events. And as we’ve seen in the past, the quality of the firearms being turned in is often dubious at best.
We should also point out that even the name of the program is a misnomer. You can’t “buy back” something that you didn’t sell in the first place. The government is simply dishing out money for a voluntary gun confiscation program, usually collecting only older weapons that people don’t want anymore. They were paying people $100 for handguns, rifles, and shotguns, or $200 for an “assault rifle.”
So what’s been the result of this highly touted program? Gun violence has increased by nearly 30% as compared to the same time last year. More than 1,100 people have been shot, with 311 of them being killed. If you’re looking for the actual culprit behind those numbers, it almost certainly has little to nothing to do with the number of guns being turned in or remaining on the streets. Criminals always find a way to get their hands on a weapon if they really want one.
More likely, as even the Chief of Police pointed out, is the fact that the city slashed the budget of the LAPD in the wake of all of the riots and protests. And as of this weekend, Los Angeles was looking at cutting its budget further and eliminating an additional 1,900 jobs. Half of those job cuts would come from the police force under the current proposal.
Crime is up. Arrests are down. In response, the size of the police force is shrinking. I don’t think you need to have a degree in mathematics to see that this formula simply doesn’t add up. I understand that the city’s coffers are strained just like everywhere else in the country due to the pandemic. But you have to find a way to pay for law enforcement or the rest of your societal structure implodes, and things are already slipping in the wrong direction. This isn’t long division, people.


hotair--2020-12-08--Chinese spy acted as bundler for Rep. Eric Swalwell, helped install intern in his office

In an exclusive report , Axios describes a specific influence operation which China carried out from 2011 to 2015 .
The operation involved a Chinese woman named Christine Fang who enrolled at a Bay Area college and then became involved in the campus chapter of Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs ( APAPA ) , a group which encourages Asian involvement in U.S. politics .
Through the group , Fang was able to meet a number of politicians including Rep. Ro Khanna , Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , Rep. Judy Chu , Rep. Mike Honda and others including two midwestern mayors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fang ’ s closest alliance was with Rep. Eric Swalwell .
When Fang met Swalwell , he was just a city councilmember but he quickly rose to the U.S. House where he became a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence .
Fang “ was a bundler ” for Swalwell and other candidates , according to a Bay Area political operative with direct knowledge of her efforts .
A current U.S. intelligence official confirmed her activity for Swalwell ; a local elected official also said she brought in donors for other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks for campaigns ; they can bring in substantial sums of money as well as deepen the campaign ’ s engagement with target communities , making bundlers a valuable and thus potentially influential ally to a candidate… Fang facilitated the potential assignment of interns into Swalwell ’ s offices , the political operative said .
In at least one case , an intern recommended by Fang was placed into Swalwell ’ s D.C. office , this person said .
A current U.S. intelligence official confirmed the intern placement .
Fortunately , the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including her close relationship with the Chinese consulate in San Francisco .
In 2015 , they warned Swalwell what was happening in what is known as a “ defensive briefing.
” Swalwell cut ties with Fang and she suddenly left the country and returned to China in 2015 .
Axios points out this is similar to the recruitment of a chauffer in Sen. Dianne Feinstein ’ s office by Chinese spies .
In that case the chauffer was allegedly an unwitting dupe who didn ’ t realize what was happening and never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spy .
But the point is that China is trying this sort of thing all the time Axios put together this video outlining Fang ’ s involvement in U.S. politics : There ’ s another significant story this week about China ’ s efforts to influence U.S. politics .
Recently a Chinese academic named Di Dongsheng who works at a university in Beijing gave a speech in which he discussed China ’ s trade war with the U.S.
Here ’ s a translation of a portion of what he said : “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trade war with us , so why can ’ t we fix the Trump administration ?
Why did China and the US used to be able to settle all kinds of issues between 1992 and 2016 ?
” Di asked , going on to answer the question himself .
“ I ’ m going to throw out something maybe a little bit explosive here .
It ’ s just because we have people at the top .
We have our old friends who are at the top of America ’ s core @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the top Chinese political scientist continued… “ During the US-China trade war , [ Wall Street ] tried to help , and I know that my friends on the US side told me that they tried to help , but they couldn ’ t do much .
But now we ’ re seeing Biden was elected , the traditional elite , the political elite , the establishment , they ’ re very close to Wall Street , so you see that , right ?
” Di asked the audience , noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very different stance from that of President Trump .
Last night Tucker Carlson did an entire segment of his show on Di Dongsheng ’ s speech and that segment was then tweeted out by President Trump .
So at this point it has received a lot of attention .
Here ’ s Carlson ’ s coverage of the story :

In an exclusive report, Axios describes a specific influence operation which China carried out from 2011 to 2015. The operation involved a Chinese woman named Christine Fang who enrolled at a Bay Area college and then became involved in the campus chapter of Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs (APAPA), a group which encourages Asian involvement in U.S. politics. Through the group, Fang was able to meet a number of politicians including Rep. Ro Khanna, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Rep. Judy Chu, Rep. Mike Honda and others including two midwestern mayors with whom she had sexual relationships.
Fang’s closest alliance was with Rep. Eric Swalwell. When Fang met Swalwell, he was just a city councilmember but he quickly rose to the U.S. House where he became a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Fang “was a bundler” for Swalwell and other candidates, according to a Bay Area political operative with direct knowledge of her efforts. A current U.S. intelligence official confirmed her activity for Swalwell; a local elected official also said she brought in donors for other candidates. Bundlers persuade others to write checks for campaigns; they can bring in substantial sums of money as well as deepen the campaign’s engagement with target communities, making bundlers a valuable and thus potentially influential ally to a candidate… Fang facilitated the potential assignment of interns into Swalwell’s offices, the political operative said. In at least one case, an intern recommended by Fang was placed into Swalwell’s D.C. office, this person said. A current U.S. intelligence official confirmed the intern placement.
Fortunately, the FBI caught on to what Fang was doing, including her close relationship with the Chinese consulate in San Francisco. In 2015, they warned Swalwell what was happening in what is known as a “defensive briefing.” Swalwell cut ties with Fang and she suddenly left the country and returned to China in 2015.
Axios points out this is similar to the recruitment of a chauffer in Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office by Chinese spies. In that case the chauffer was allegedly an unwitting dupe who didn’t realize what was happening and never really passed anything of significance to the spy. But the point is that China is trying this sort of thing all the time
Axios put together this video outlining Fang’s involvement in U.S. politics:
There’s another significant story this week about China’s efforts to influence U.S. politics. Recently a Chinese academic named Di Dongsheng who works at a university in Beijing gave a speech in which he discussed China’s trade war with the U.S. Here’s a translation of a portion of what he said:
“We know that the Trump administration is in a trade war with us, so why can’t we fix the Trump administration? Why did China and the US used to be able to settle all kinds of issues between 1992 and 2016?” Di asked, going on to answer the question himself. “I’m going to throw out something maybe a little bit explosive here. It’s just because we have people at the top. We have our old friends who are at the top of America’s core inner circle of power and influence,” the top Chinese political scientist continued… “During the US-China trade war, [Wall Street] tried to help, and I know that my friends on the US side told me that they tried to help, but they couldn’t do much. But now we’re seeing Biden was elected, the traditional elite, the political elite, the establishment, they’re very close to Wall Street, so you see that, right?” Di asked the audience, noting that the next administration would likely take a very different stance from that of President Trump.
Last night Tucker Carlson did an entire segment of his show on Di Dongsheng’s speech and that segment was then tweeted out by President Trump. So at this point it has received a lot of attention. Here’s Carlson’s coverage of the story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A26Dq5Gv4M