hotair--2020-12-04--California sheriffs say they won't enforce Gov. Newsom's stay-at-home orders

Yesterday , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom announced a new stay-at-home order that will be triggered whenever a region in the state has only 15 % of ICU beds still available .
In addition to ordering people to stay home , the plan also shutters some businesses and limits others to 20 % capacity .
Restaurants are also limited to carry-out only .
But some sheriffs throughout the state say they won ’ t be involved in enforcing Newsom ’ s rules .
Sheriff Alex Villanueva of Los Angeles said that ’ s the health department ’ s job , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay away from businesses that are trying to comply the best they can , ” Villanueva said… “ They bent over backwards to modify their entire operation to conform to these current health orders , and then they have the rug yanked out from under them , that ’ s a disservice .
I don ’ t want to make their lives any more miserable , ” Villanueva told FOX 11 ’ s Bill Melugin .
Sheriff Villanueva said his department will focus on preventing “ super-spreader ” events .
Other sheriffs seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ventura County the sheriff ’ s office issued a statement which said in part , “ Enforcement has always been an option for our staff to use with considerable discretion .
However , our primary goal is to seek voluntary compliance whenever possible.
“ San Bernardino County told Fox 11 it had no intention of sending out deputies to enforce the Governor ’ s orders .
They also released a statement saying , “ our goal is to educate and gain voluntary compliance regarding Public Health orders.
” Sheriffs in Orange County and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they issued last month .
For instance , Orange County ’ s statement said , “ Due to the need to have deputies available for emergency calls , deputies will not be responding to request for face-coverings or social gatherings-only enforcement.
” In Fresno County the Sheriff said something similar : Sheriff Margaret Mims was quick to respond after the announcement , saying “ We will not be enforcing any stay-at-home orders.
” She said her department doesn ’ t have the resources to enforce the order .
“ If I showed anybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases our deputy sheriffs were working , they would be pretty hard-pressed to decide which one should stop what they ’ re doing to go enforce these COVID rules , ” said Sheriff Mims .
Stanislaus County Sheriff Jeff Dirkse said he had not yet read the new order but , “ there will be no change to our operations.
” He has repeatedly said he will not arrest people for violating the public health order and will enforce through education .
“ We do not have the capacity to chase gatherings or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to mention the constitutional questions around that , ” he said .
In general , many of these sheriffs are simply not going to drop their focus on crime to start enforcing these health orders .
But there could be a risk in doing so .
Gov .
Newsom warned that counties that refuse to enforce his orders could lose COVID relief funds .
“ If you ’ re unwilling to enforce the rules , if you ’ re unwilling to adopt the protocols to support the mitigation and the reduction of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re happy to redirect those dollars to counties that feel differently , ” he said .
There ’ s some posturing happening on both sides here .
But the reality is that even if every sheriff in the state was on board with enforcing Newsom ’ s order they couldn ’ t possibly stop non-compliance if that ’ s what people decide to do .
Ultimately it ’ s up to Newsom to persuade people that the path he ’ s charting is the best one possible .
And if he can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement is probably not going to help .

Yesterday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a new stay-at-home order that will be triggered whenever a region in the state has only 15% of ICU beds still available. In addition to ordering people to stay home, the plan also shutters some businesses and limits others to 20% capacity. Restaurants are also limited to carry-out only. But some sheriffs throughout the state say they won’t be involved in enforcing Newsom’s rules. Sheriff Alex Villanueva of Los Angeles said that’s the health department’s job, not his:
“I want to stay away from businesses that are trying to comply the best they can,” Villanueva said… “They bent over backwards to modify their entire operation to conform to these current health orders, and then they have the rug yanked out from under them, that’s a disservice. I don’t want to make their lives any more miserable,” Villanueva told FOX 11’s Bill Melugin.
Sheriff Villanueva said his department will focus on preventing “super-spreader” events.
Other sheriffs seem to be echoing those sentiments. In Ventura County the sheriff’s office issued a statement which said in part, “Enforcement has always been an option for our staff to use with considerable discretion. However, our primary goal is to seek voluntary compliance whenever possible.“
San Bernardino County told Fox 11 it had no intention of sending out deputies to enforce the Governor’s orders. They also released a statement saying, “our goal is to educate and gain voluntary compliance regarding Public Health orders.”
Sheriffs in Orange County and Riverside County referred back to previous statements they issued last month. For instance, Orange County’s statement said, “Due to the need to have deputies available for emergency calls, deputies will not be responding to request for face-coverings or social gatherings-only enforcement.”
In Fresno County the Sheriff said something similar:
Sheriff Margaret Mims was quick to respond after the announcement, saying “We will not be enforcing any stay-at-home orders.” She said her department doesn’t have the resources to enforce the order. “If I showed anybody a list of what assignments and what cases our deputy sheriffs were working, they would be pretty hard-pressed to decide which one should stop what they’re doing to go enforce these COVID rules,” said Sheriff Mims.
And in Stanislaus County:
Stanislaus County Sheriff Jeff Dirkse said he had not yet read the new order but, “there will be no change to our operations.” He has repeatedly said he will not arrest people for violating the public health order and will enforce through education. “We do not have the capacity to chase gatherings or (non)-mask wearers, not to mention the constitutional questions around that,” he said.
In general, many of these sheriffs are simply not going to drop their focus on crime to start enforcing these health orders. But there could be a risk in doing so. Gov. Newsom warned that counties that refuse to enforce his orders could lose COVID relief funds. “If you’re unwilling to enforce the rules, if you’re unwilling to adopt the protocols to support the mitigation and the reduction of the spread of this disease, we’re happy to redirect those dollars to counties that feel differently,” he said.
There’s some posturing happening on both sides here. But the reality is that even if every sheriff in the state was on board with enforcing Newsom’s order they couldn’t possibly stop non-compliance if that’s what people decide to do. Ultimately it’s up to Newsom to persuade people that the path he’s charting is the best one possible. And if he can’t do that then threatening people with law enforcement is probably not going to help.


hotair--2020-12-04--Pelosi: I'm happy to cut a COVID-19 relief deal now that Trump lost the election

As my pal and Townhall colleague Guy Benson commented , “ Pure politics.
” Why did Nancy Pelosi choose now to come down from her $ 2.5 trillion demand for COVID-19 relief ?
As I mentioned earlier and as a reporter reminded Pelosi this morning , the August proposal from the Problem Solvers Caucus offered more money than the centrist “ framework ” proposal does now , and would have avoided the economic damage over the last couple of months .
So why negotiate on a figure that ’ s only 36 % of what Pelosi demanded for the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Donald Trump lost the election , and now she ’ s willing to deal : “ Perhaps you missed what I said earlier : Joe Biden pledged to crush the virus , ” she snapped at a reporter , saying unlike Donald Trump , the president-elect wants to pass an even larger economic stimulus package after he takes office next month .
In her telling , embracing a $ 900m package introduced this week by a group of Democrats and Republicans is a reflection of new realities – and incoming Democratic chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t characterize what we did … as a mistake , ” Ms Pelosi said of her months-long holding out for the kind of $ 2trn measure her chamber passed earlier this year but was blocked by the White House and Senate Republicans .
“ It was a decision , and it ’ s taken us to a place we can do the right thing .
… I ’ m very proud of where we are.
” Total .
Garbage .
What makes this even more total garbage is that she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine , which is an absurdity beyond belief .
It ’ s a “ total game changer , ” Pelosi says , even though it was Donald Trump ’ s Operation Warp Speed program that created the game-changer .
It ’ s also been well-known that the vaccines would come before the end of the year , and almost arrived before the election itself .
Furthermore , Trump wasn ’ t an obstacle to spending more on relief — he was mainly Pelosi ’ s ally on that , even if he thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different .
At one time , Trump even suggested adding together the plans from Pelosi and Mitch McConnell to spend almost $ 4 trillion , although Senate Republicans immediately balked at the suggestion .
This is an admission from Pelosi that she held up any relief to undermine Trump in the election .
Under the circumstances , it ’ s disgusting , and this stench should stick to Pelosi just as the nuclear option and the Romney smear stenches stick to Harry Reid .
Republicans should remind voters of this every day between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be running as an ad in Georgia before the weekend is up .
Shameful .

As my pal and Townhall colleague Guy Benson commented, “Pure politics.” Why did Nancy Pelosi choose now to come down from her $2.5 trillion demand for COVID-19 relief? As I mentioned earlier and as a reporter reminded Pelosi this morning, the August proposal from the Problem Solvers Caucus offered more money than the centrist “framework” proposal does now, and would have avoided the economic damage over the last couple of months. So why negotiate on a figure that’s only 36% of what Pelosi demanded for the last six months?
Simple, Pelosi replied. Donald Trump lost the election, and now she’s willing to deal:
PELOSI has held out for a big deal for 6 or so months. She said this morning that now that BIDEN is president, she is willing to do a smaller deal. — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 4, 2020
“Perhaps you missed what I said earlier: Joe Biden pledged to crush the virus,” she snapped at a reporter, saying unlike Donald Trump, the president-elect wants to pass an even larger economic stimulus package after he takes office next month. In her telling, embracing a $900m package introduced this week by a group of Democrats and Republicans is a reflection of new realities – and incoming Democratic chief executive and coming coronavirus vaccines. “Don’t characterize what we did … as a mistake,” Ms Pelosi said of her months-long holding out for the kind of $2trn measure her chamber passed earlier this year but was blocked by the White House and Senate Republicans. “It was a decision, and it’s taken us to a place we can do the right thing. … I’m very proud of where we are.”
Total. Garbage. What makes this even more total garbage is that she’s essentially crediting Joe Biden with the vaccine, which is an absurdity beyond belief. It’s a “total game changer,” Pelosi says, even though it was Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed program that created the game-changer. It’s also been well-known that the vaccines would come before the end of the year, and almost arrived before the election itself.
Furthermore, Trump wasn’t an obstacle to spending more on relief — he was mainly Pelosi’s ally on that, even if he thought some of the spending priorities should be different. At one time, Trump even suggested adding together the plans from Pelosi and Mitch McConnell to spend almost $4 trillion, although Senate Republicans immediately balked at the suggestion.
This is an admission from Pelosi that she held up any relief to undermine Trump in the election. Under the circumstances, it’s disgusting, and this stench should stick to Pelosi just as the nuclear option and the Romney smear stenches stick to Harry Reid. Republicans should remind voters of this every day between now and the midterms, and it should be running as an ad in Georgia before the weekend is up. Shameful.


hotair--2020-12-04--Trump doubles down on threat to veto military funding after Inhofe refuses to add Section 230 repeal

Trump doubles down on threat to veto military funding after Inhofe refuses to add Section 230 repeal to bill

There ’ s not a lot to say here that wasn ’ t said in this post except that the president ’ s following the same M.O .
with the defense bill that he ’ s followed with his election-fraud complaints .
In both cases he won ’ t end up getting his way and will end up doing damage to his own legacy in the process , but it ’ ll give him and his more devoted fans an excuse to call Republicans who didn ’ t go along with him “ sellouts.
” Two different flavors of populist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new demands as we get closer to the vote on the bill in the House and Senate next week , knowing that these won ’ t be added either : Jim Inhofe , the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee , was actually overheard talking to Trump on speakerphone two days ago and telling him that , ah , it ’ s a little late in the process to parachute in a demand as momentous as repealing Section 230 .
Many new federal laws have only a glancing impact on Americans ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit the entire population in the gut as their favorite websites were scrambled to limit user-submitted content for liability reasons .
You don ’ t make a move as drastic as that as an afterthought to a spending bill , especially a spending bill that addresses an unrelated policy matter .
“ Section 230 has nothing to do with the military , ” said Inhofe to the media .
“ I agree with his sentiment , we ought to do away with Section 230 .
But you can ’ t do it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pertinent bill.
” In his eavesdropped conversation with Trump , Inhofe also tried to impress upon that time is of the essence .
“ This is the only chance to get our bill passed , ” he told the president , which isn ’ t exactly true — but is true enough .
The 4,517-page , $ 740.5 defense authorization bill for fiscal 2021 unveiled Thursday is the product of months of negotiations between House , Senate and Trump administration officials .
Congressional aides said they expect the bill to pass the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate following a day or two later… A presidential veto also brings with it problematic timing issues for Congress .
Both the House and Senate are scheduled to begin holiday recess at the end of next week , and the current congressional session ends on Jan 3 .
Enrolling the massive defense policy bill and sending it to the White House typically takes a week or more .
Trump will have 10 days to decide whether to issue the veto .
That timeline could leave congressional leaders scrambling to schedule a veto override @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill just days or hours before the new session of Congress is seated .
There ’ ll be enough votes in Congress on January 20 to pass the bill with Biden ’ s signature but that means waiting six long weeks to fund the Pentagon .
Even if the House and Senate have the votes to override Trump ’ s veto now , the timing of doing so is unclear : The conventional wisdom is that both chambers *do* have the two-thirds they ’ d need to override Trump .
Steny Hoyer apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his basis for believing it is also unclear .
It ’ s true that the bill initially passed the House in July with a greater than two-thirds majority , 295-125 , but that was before Trump seized it as a battlespace for a culture-war skirmish over Section 230 .
That was also before he staged his ultimate loyalty test , demanding that all Republicans endorse his belief that Joe Biden ’ s victory was rigged .
It was one thing for a House Republican in a solid red district to cross him in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the bill was the boutique issue of whether military bases named after Confederates should be renamed .
It ’ s another thing for them to defy him now , when he has a bunker mentality about the election and is trying to make the bill a proxy war between Big Tech and the populist right .
There are Republicans in Congress who are willing to go along with his new demands .
Are there enough to prevent a veto override ?
Hawley is Hawley , a guy who ’ ll say anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preserve his future presidential prospects — like the idea that this eleventh-hour Section 230 demand is “ absolutely reasonable ” when it absolutely isn ’ t .
Graham has no reason to cover for Trump here apart from pure sycophancy , though .
His distinguishing characteristic as a politician is his hyper-hawkishness and he just won reelection comfortably .
He won ’ t have to answer to Trumpist voters again for six years .
If ever there were a moment for him to stand up to Trump , it ’ s a moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He can ’ t do it .
The point , though , is that this bill *will* pass eventually without Section 230 reform just like Joe Biden *will* be sworn in on January 20 .
Trump ’ s not achieving anything meaningful with his obstructionism , just making it harder for his party to negotiate the political landscape after he departs .
And making it harder on the military too in the case of the defense bill , of course , if only for a few weeks .

There’s not a lot to say here that wasn’t said in this post except that the president’s following the same M.O. with the defense bill that he’s followed with his election-fraud complaints. In both cases he won’t end up getting his way and will end up doing damage to his own legacy in the process, but it’ll give him and his more devoted fans an excuse to call Republicans who didn’t go along with him “sellouts.” Two different flavors of populist kabuki.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1334718387583377408
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1334738533635010560
He’s actually adding new demands as we get closer to the vote on the bill in the House and Senate next week, knowing that these won’t be added either:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1334858416523780097
Jim Inhofe, the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was actually overheard talking to Trump on speakerphone two days ago and telling him that, ah, it’s a little late in the process to parachute in a demand as momentous as repealing Section 230. Many new federal laws have only a glancing impact on Americans’ daily lives, but nuking 230 would hit the entire population in the gut as their favorite websites were scrambled to limit user-submitted content for liability reasons. You don’t make a move as drastic as that as an afterthought to a spending bill, especially a spending bill that addresses an unrelated policy matter. “Section 230 has nothing to do with the military,” said Inhofe to the media. “I agree with his sentiment, we ought to do away with Section 230. But you can’t do it in this bill. That’s not a pertinent bill.”
In his eavesdropped conversation with Trump, Inhofe also tried to impress upon that time is of the essence. “This is the only chance to get our bill passed,” he told the president, which isn’t exactly true — but is true enough.
The 4,517-page, $740.5 defense authorization bill for fiscal 2021 unveiled Thursday is the product of months of negotiations between House, Senate and Trump administration officials. Congressional aides said they expect the bill to pass the House early next week, with the Senate following a day or two later… A presidential veto also brings with it problematic timing issues for Congress. Both the House and Senate are scheduled to begin holiday recess at the end of next week, and the current congressional session ends on Jan 3. Enrolling the massive defense policy bill and sending it to the White House typically takes a week or more. Trump will have 10 days to decide whether to issue the veto. That timeline could leave congressional leaders scrambling to schedule a veto override vote and fly members back to Capitol Hill just days or hours before the new session of Congress is seated.
There’ll be enough votes in Congress on January 20 to pass the bill with Biden’s signature but that means waiting six long weeks to fund the Pentagon. Even if the House and Senate have the votes to override Trump’s veto now, the timing of doing so is unclear:
Trump is dug in on vetoeing NDAA. difficult to see a veto and an override with the time left could be the first time in 6 decades that the NDAA doesnt pass. And over tech law — nothing to do with the military. https://t.co/G1cwOUqrYf — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 3, 2020
The conventional wisdom is that both chambers *do* have the two-thirds they’d need to override Trump. Steny Hoyer apparently said as much this morning, although his basis for believing it is also unclear. It’s true that the bill initially passed the House in July with a greater than two-thirds majority, 295-125, but that was before Trump seized it as a battlespace for a culture-war skirmish over Section 230. That was also before he staged his ultimate loyalty test, demanding that all Republicans endorse his belief that Joe Biden’s victory was rigged. It was one thing for a House Republican in a solid red district to cross him in July, when the only sticking point in the bill was the boutique issue of whether military bases named after Confederates should be renamed. It’s another thing for them to defy him now, when he has a bunker mentality about the election and is trying to make the bill a proxy war between Big Tech and the populist right.
There are Republicans in Congress who are willing to go along with his new demands. Are there enough to prevent a veto override?
Still, some Republicans sided with Trump trying to push the issue of Section 230, which conservatives and GOP lawmakers have long asserted gives big tech companies the ability to unfairly censor their voices. “I support him using all the leverage he can,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump confidant. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), one of Congress’ fiercest critics of big tech corporations, said he supports Trump’s move “100 percent” and that his demand is “absolutely reasonable.”
Hawley is Hawley, a guy who’ll say anything Trump wants him to in order to preserve his future presidential prospects — like the idea that this eleventh-hour Section 230 demand is “absolutely reasonable” when it absolutely isn’t. Graham has no reason to cover for Trump here apart from pure sycophancy, though. His distinguishing characteristic as a politician is his hyper-hawkishness and he just won reelection comfortably. He won’t have to answer to Trumpist voters again for six years. If ever there were a moment for him to stand up to Trump, it’s a moment to appropriate military funding without delay. He can’t do it.
The point, though, is that this bill *will* pass eventually without Section 230 reform just like Joe Biden *will* be sworn in on January 20. Trump’s not achieving anything meaningful with his obstructionism, just making it harder for his party to negotiate the political landscape after he departs. And making it harder on the military too in the case of the defense bill, of course, if only for a few weeks.


hotair--2020-12-04--Hawley: I'll fight any COVID-19 relief bill without voter relief included

“ I ’ m not sure why it ’ s controversial , ” Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) tells Sahil Kapur … and neither am I .
A second round of $ 1200 checks to taxpayers at and below a certain income level was popular in April , and has been popular in all of the discussions for a Phase 4 bill .
It has broad support in both parties , but Senate Republicans pulled it out to get to a “ skinny ” bill in the fall .
For some reason , centrists left it out too , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump for another round of direct aid .
While some on Capitol Hill are beginning to believe that a bill will emerge soon , Hawley plans on fighting anything without the stimulus checks : NBC reports this morning that a Phase 4 bill has never been closer , but it ’ s still not clear what components will be in the proposal once it emerges .
Apparently some sort of liability shield will be in it , although it might just be temporary : Sen. Chris Coons , D-Del.
, called it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that some sticking points remain .
“ There are issues — in particular , the size of state aid and the liability relief , ” he told reporters Thursday .
… Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas , a close McConnell ally , said Thursday that he is negotiating with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , on what the liability shield might look like .
“ We ’ re slowly but surely making some progress , ” Cornyn said .
“ I don ’ t think it ’ s been a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s been a lack of political will .
Now there seems to be a greater sense that we have to get this done .
So I ’ m encouraged.
” Consider that a concession from both sides on the major sticking points in earlier negotiations .
Republicans will give a little on bloc-granted state aid , while Democrats will give a little on liability waivers for businesses trying to stay open .
This compromise was obvious in July , and for every day ever since .
Centrists tried in August and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner — remember the “ Problem Solvers Caucus “ ?
Good times , good times .
The current framework for the resolution is the new , unnamed centrist caucus ’ plan to spend a little over $ 900 billion while splitting liability and bloc-grant babies down the middle .
That ’ s precisely what the Problem Solvers Caucus plan did too , only that had the second round of direct stimulus payments in the plan , to which no one objected at the time .
That ’ s why the earlier bill came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nearly exactly the halfway mark between proposals from Pelosi and Mitch McConnell .
Why not just go back to that proposal ?
Leaving out those stimulus checks would be a political disaster for everyone , especially right before Christmas .
It will get portrayed as a Wall Street bailout and a Main Street betrayal .
Hawley seems to be the only one in Washington who understands that .

“I’m not sure why it’s controversial,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) tells Sahil Kapur … and neither am I. A second round of $1200 checks to taxpayers at and below a certain income level was popular in April, and has been popular in all of the discussions for a Phase 4 bill. It has broad support in both parties, but Senate Republicans pulled it out to get to a “skinny” bill in the fall. For some reason, centrists left it out too, despite support from both Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump for another round of direct aid.
While some on Capitol Hill are beginning to believe that a bill will emerge soon, Hawley plans on fighting anything without the stimulus checks:
Josh Hawley tells me he's a NO on a Covid aid bill unless it includes another round of $1,200 direct payments. "I don't know why we wouldn't give assistance directly to families and individuals who need it," he says. "I'm not sure why it's controversial." https://t.co/mEqQfKK6GL — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) December 4, 2020
NBC reports this morning that a Phase 4 bill has never been closer, but it’s still not clear what components will be in the proposal once it emerges. Apparently some sort of liability shield will be in it, although it might just be temporary:
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., called it “a great framework” but acknowledged that some sticking points remain. “There are issues — in particular, the size of state aid and the liability relief,” he told reporters Thursday. … Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a close McConnell ally, said Thursday that he is negotiating with Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on what the liability shield might look like. “We’re slowly but surely making some progress,” Cornyn said. “I don’t think it’s been a matter of can we reach an agreement. It’s been a lack of political will. Now there seems to be a greater sense that we have to get this done. So I’m encouraged.”
Consider that a concession from both sides on the major sticking points in earlier negotiations. Republicans will give a little on bloc-granted state aid, while Democrats will give a little on liability waivers for businesses trying to stay open. This compromise was obvious in July, and for every day ever since. Centrists tried in August and September to bridge that gap in this manner — remember the “Problem Solvers Caucus“? Good times, good times.
The current framework for the resolution is the new, unnamed centrist caucus’ plan to spend a little over $900 billion while splitting liability and bloc-grant babies down the middle. That’s precisely what the Problem Solvers Caucus plan did too, only that had the second round of direct stimulus payments in the plan, to which no one objected at the time. That’s why the earlier bill came in a little over $1.4 trillion, nearly exactly the halfway mark between proposals from Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.
Why not just go back to that proposal? Leaving out those stimulus checks would be a political disaster for everyone, especially right before Christmas. It will get portrayed as a Wall Street bailout and a Main Street betrayal. Hawley seems to be the only one in Washington who understands that.


hotair--2020-12-04--Biden: If Kamala and I disagree, *someone* will claim a disease and resign

Under normal circumstances , this might be an amusing way of understanding the ethics of serving in an administration .
And it still might be , if not for a lack of clarity on precisely to whom Joe Biden applies this standard … especially as the nation ’ s oldest presumptive president prepares to take office .
CNN ’ s Jake Tapper wondered how Biden and Kamala Harris , once bitter rivals , have gotten along as running mates and now transitioning to office .
Just fine , Biden said , but if that changes , Biden says he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had with Barack Obama .
Someone will have to “ develop a disease and resign , ” Biden says , but who ?
BIDEN : First of all , I understand how campaigns can sometimes get a little out of whack a little bit .
And , as I told her , because you asked the question , I don ’ t hold grudges .
It ’ s — I mean , that ’ s why Richard Ben Cramer questioned whether I was really Irish , you know , I mean — but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me she holds them for you .
BIDEN : Yes , she does , but not with — she ’ s — she and Kamala have become friends .
BIDEN : But , all kidding aside , it ’ s a matter of , the thing , we are simpatico on our philosophy of government and simpatico on how we want to attach — approach these issues that we ’ re facing .
And so I don ’ t have — and when we disagree , it will be just like — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like when Barack and I did .
It ’ s in private .
She ’ ll say , I think we should do A , B , C , or D , and I will say , I like A , don ’ t like B and C. And let ’ s go , OK .
But — and like I told Barack , if I reach something where there ’ s a fundamental disagreement we have based on a moral principle , I will develop some disease and say I have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris will “ develop a disease ” if she disagrees with his policies .
That ’ s not how Biden puts it here , though — he says that he ’ d have to resign .
And Harris remains very , very quiet on this point , even though that loyalty/ethics principle should apply to her rather than Biden , who got elected to the top office and should be the one setting policy .
Needless to say , this is precisely what Republicans have argued about a Biden presidency all along .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a Trojan horse for progressives and that he ’ d find an excuse to hand off the reins early in his administration .
However , it ’ s been pretty clear from the nominations announced , candidates short-listed , and the reaction of progressives to all of the above that this is — so far — very much a Joe Biden administration and not a Harris administration .
In fact , it ’ s a bit surprising to see so far just how little influence Harris has seemingly had , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clip : TAPPER : I don ’ t need to tell you , Mr. President-Elect , that the NAACP is suggesting that they are disappointed so far that there haven ’ t been more black Americans named to high-profile positions , present company excepted , and that Jim Clyburn said he ’ s watching your Cabinet picks and , — quote — “ I can think of at least 10 black folks that qualify for every single one.
” One position you have yet to announce is attorney general .
Do you think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter , the social justice issues , the justice — criminal justice reform issues that a black attorney general would be the right direction ?
BIDEN : Look , I ’ m going to be announcing the remaining 15 members of the Cabinet .
The first eight members are the most diverse Cabinet anyone in American history has ever announced .
There are three white men .
There are — excuse me — there are three men .
There are five women .
There are five people of color , three white people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be an incredibly diverse — I ’ m going to keep my commitment that the administration , both in the White House and outside in the Cabinet , is going to look like the country .
Harris barely says peep in this exchange , too .
Eeeeeeenteresting .
Anyway , this looks like yet another of the Old Gaffer ’ s rhetorical fumbles , and nothing much more than that .
Harris so far looks like she ’ s just happy to be along for the ride .
We ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next four years , assuming no one develops a disease .

Under normal circumstances, this might be an amusing way of understanding the ethics of serving in an administration. And it still might be, if not for a lack of clarity on precisely to whom Joe Biden applies this standard … especially as the nation’s oldest presumptive president prepares to take office.
CNN’s Jake Tapper wondered how Biden and Kamala Harris, once bitter rivals, have gotten along as running mates and now transitioning to office. Just fine, Biden said, but if that changes, Biden says he’ll fall back on the understanding he had with Barack Obama. Someone will have to “develop a disease and resign,” Biden says, but who?
Joe Biden is asked about his disagreements with Kamala Harris on certain issues: "Like I told Barack, if I reach something where there's a fundamental disagreement we have based on a moral principle, I'll develop some disease and say I have to resign." pic.twitter.com/SLcvrwaPCA — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 4, 2020
BIDEN: First of all, I understand how campaigns can sometimes get a little out of whack a little bit. And, as I told her, because you asked the question, I don’t hold grudges. It’s — I mean, that’s why Richard Ben Cramer questioned whether I was really Irish, you know, I mean — but all kidding aside… TAPPER: The first-lady-to-be told me she holds them for you. BIDEN: Yes, she does, but not with — she’s — she and Kamala have become friends. HARRIS: Yes. BIDEN: But, all kidding aside, it’s a matter of, the thing, we are simpatico on our philosophy of government and simpatico on how we want to attach — approach these issues that we’re facing. And so I don’t have — and when we disagree, it will be just like — so far, it has been just like when Barack and I did. It’s in private. She’ll say, I think we should do A, B, C, or D, and I will say, I like A, don’t like B and C. And let’s go, OK. But — and like I told Barack, if I reach something where there’s a fundamental disagreement we have based on a moral principle, I will develop some disease and say I have to resign.
I assume he means that Harris will “develop a disease” if she disagrees with his policies. That’s not how Biden puts it here, though — he says that he’d have to resign. And Harris remains very, very quiet on this point, even though that loyalty/ethics principle should apply to her rather than Biden, who got elected to the top office and should be the one setting policy.
Needless to say, this is precisely what Republicans have argued about a Biden presidency all along. They contended that Biden would be nothing more than a Trojan horse for progressives and that he’d find an excuse to hand off the reins early in his administration. However, it’s been pretty clear from the nominations announced, candidates short-listed, and the reaction of progressives to all of the above that this is — so far — very much a Joe Biden administration and not a Harris administration. In fact, it’s a bit surprising to see so far just how little influence Harris has seemingly had, a point that Tapper raises just after this clip:
TAPPER: I don’t need to tell you, Mr. President-Elect, that the NAACP is suggesting that they are disappointed so far that there haven’t been more black Americans named to high-profile positions, present company excepted, and that Jim Clyburn said he’s watching your Cabinet picks and, — quote — “I can think of at least 10 black folks that qualify for every single one.” One position you have yet to announce is attorney general. Do you think, given George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, the social justice issues, the justice — criminal justice reform issues that a black attorney general would be the right direction? BIDEN: Look, I’m going to be announcing the remaining 15 members of the Cabinet. The first eight members are the most diverse Cabinet anyone in American history has ever announced. There are three white men. There are — excuse me — there are three men. There are five women. There are five people of color, three white people. I mean, this is going to be an incredibly diverse — I’m going to keep my commitment that the administration, both in the White House and outside in the Cabinet, is going to look like the country.
Harris barely says peep in this exchange, too. Eeeeeeenteresting.
Anyway, this looks like yet another of the Old Gaffer’s rhetorical fumbles, and nothing much more than that. Harris so far looks like she’s just happy to be along for the ride. We’ll have a lot more of these Bidenisms over the next four years, assuming no one develops a disease.


hotair--2020-12-04--Hmmm: Kemp wants Raffensperger to conduct signature audit

It ’ s a bit late in the day for a signature audit , but apparently never too late to protect your right flank .
In a town-hall event hosted by Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham last night , Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp reacted to a viral video shown in a Georgia legislative hearing by hitting reverse .
“ I called early on for a signature [ audit ] , ” Kemp insisted , while noting that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger would have to order one .
“ There needs to be more transparency , ” Kemp added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The Republican , who has been criticized by President Trump for his handling of the election , told host Laura Ingraham in a Fox News town hall that he was troubled after hearings before Georgia Senate panels on Thursday in which attorneys working with the president ’ s legal team revealed surveillance video they claim shows ballot-counting irregularities at State Farm Arena in Atlanta .
“ I called early on for a signature .
Obviously the secretary of state , per the laws in the Constitution , would have to order that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it should be done , ” Kemp said of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger .
“ I think especially what we saw today , it raises more questions .
There needs to be transparency on that .
I would again call for that .
I think in the next 24 hours , hopefully , we will see a lot more from the hearings that the legislature had today , and we will be able to look and see what the next steps are , ” he added .
A signature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not to ballots .
Bear in mind that signatures get checked twice — first when the application for the mail-in ballot is received , and then again when the ballot itself is received .
At receipt of the ballot , that second check takes place and then the ballot envelope gets opened if they match .
The state constitution requires secret ballots , which is why ballots are separated from their containing envelopes with the signatures after the envelopes get opened .
Therefore , any “ audit ” now would not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there was a signature mismatch … which makes this a moot point in an election challenge , although an audit would be useful to ensure that the processes are effective in future elections .
This , therefore , is nonsense : Again : two signature checks have already taken place , and there is no way to identify any specific mismatched ballot now .
Kemp certainly knows this , but clearly feels a lot of pressure to bend — or at least is hoping to find a way to stay ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not unusual for a politician , and unfortunately neither is doing so by tossing an ally to the mob .
So what touched this off ?
This testimony from the hearing yesterday in the Georgia legislature , reportedly showing mail-in ballots being tabulated without supervision , which Rudy Giuliani and his team describe as a “ smoking gun ” in their fraud case : The Trump legal team has presented what they say is compelling evidence of voter fraud , alleging that election night video footage from Fulton County , Ga. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots being pulled out from under a table after election supervisors had told poll workers to leave the room .
The footage appears to also show four women staying behind to count votes .
… Stephen Fowler of NPR says that the man in the blue jacket that can be seen in the video is “ an official monitor from the secretary of state ’ s office who was there watching the vote counting.
” According to Fowler , “ While some partisan monitors left , it wasn ’ t unsupervised.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney working with Trump ’ s legal team , even though “ two Republican field organizers had been sent ” there to observe the vote counting , “ At no time were they permitted to observe in any meaningful way.
” That ’ s not true , says the elections director of Fulton County , and the video doesn ’ t show what Giuliani alleges : Here ’ s what Fulton County Elections Director Rick Barron had to say about the surveillance video from State Farm Arena that has become a major point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was fraud in Georgia ’ s election process : “ I ’ ll just address the timeline of that evening – the staff at State Farm that evening , they began letting certain people go , no announcement was ever made to leave , for anyone to leave .
Certain staff that were on the cutting stations , that were on the flattening stations , that were extracting from the inner envelopes , those staff left as work completed .
I found out sometime , I think a little after10:30 , that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told them not to do that… at about 11:15 they were fully scanning again , and once they were scanning Carter Jones , the State Election Board monitor , he told me 11:42 or 11:52 that he arrived .
There were media in the room , external affairs representative there until approximately 11:15 .
The Secretary of States investigator arrived at 12:15 , and they scanned until all the ballots they had available to scan were complete and then cleaned up the room .
“ What the video shows is that they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desks , those are bins that they keep under their desks near the scanners .
They will cut those seals that are on those , open those up and pull the ballots out .
“ They were still in the process of cleaning so they hadn ’ t sealed those ballot boxes up , so they were able to just start right back up , normal processing that occurred there.
” Barron says his team has been cooperating with Raffensperger ’ s investigators on this issue all along , and insists nothing untoward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also debunks the theory and notes that investigators were in the room for almost all of this time .
That ’ s because Raffensperger didn ’ t trust Fulton County in the first place and was looking for evidence of incompetence or corruption : Presumably , that ’ s what Raffensperger will be telling Kemp at some point today , too .
He might need to explain it to the Georgia legislature as well .
At this point , though , Raffensperger will likely need to order a signature audit , regardless of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges or not .
Hopefully , the outcome of an audit will help settle things down .
Although , to be clear , a signature audit doesn ’ t have anything to do with the video above that prompted Kemp ’ s call for it , either .
Update : Fowler ’ s link goes to an explanation provided by Republican election official Gabriel Sterling , who insists that the tape doesn ’ t show anything nefarious at all .
Raffensperger ’ s chief investigator agrees : Election workers known as “ cutters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee ballot envelopes and verify ballots for eventual scanning and counting were dismissed for the night sometime after 10 p.m. on November 3 , 2020 , because their work for the evening had been completed , he explained .
Those workers who remained were responsible for conducting the scanning portion of the process , since ballots could not be left without being scanned overnight .
He said : “ If you look at the video tape , the work you see is the work you would expect , which is you take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place the ballots on the scanner in manageable batches and you scan them.
” Frances Watson , chief investigator for the Georgia secretary of state , told Lead Stories during a phone call on December 3 , 2020 , that the ballots were in standard containers , and the work during the time in question had nothing to do with pulling ballots from under a table .
She said : “ There wasn ’ t a bin that had ballots in it under that table .
It was an empty bin and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the table when the media were still there , and then it was placed back into the box when the media were still there and placed next to the table.
” There was never an announcement made to the media and other observers about the counting being over for the night and them needing to leave , according to Watson , who was provided information by the media liaison , who was present .
She said they just followed the “ cutters ” as they left .
“ Nobody told them to stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nobody gave them any advice on what they should do .
And It was still open for them or the public to come back in to view at whatever time they wanted to , as long as they were still working.
” In addition , she explained that the only ballots that were scanned after the media and other observers had left were those that had already been opened in front of these observers .
Contrary to the claim , the ballots were not in suitcases , she said .
The black boxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the standard container used for the ballot counting process .

It’s a bit late in the day for a signature audit, but apparently never too late to protect your right flank. In a town-hall event hosted by Fox News’ Laura Ingraham last night, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp reacted to a viral video shown in a Georgia legislative hearing by hitting reverse. “I called early on for a signature [audit],” Kemp insisted, while noting that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger would have to order one.
“There needs to be more transparency,” Kemp added, and he certainly looked transparent here:
FINALLY Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is calling for a signature audit. What took him so long??? This is BASIC election integrity ignored until now… https://t.co/xK6fIJY2aj — Kayleigh McEnany (@kayleighmcenany) December 4, 2020
The Republican, who has been criticized by President Trump for his handling of the election, told host Laura Ingraham in a Fox News town hall that he was troubled after hearings before Georgia Senate panels on Thursday in which attorneys working with the president’s legal team revealed surveillance video they claim shows ballot-counting irregularities at State Farm Arena in Atlanta. “I called early on for a signature. Obviously the secretary of state, per the laws in the Constitution, would have to order that. He has not done that. I think it should be done,” Kemp said of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. “I think especially what we saw today, it raises more questions. There needs to be transparency on that. I would again call for that. I think in the next 24 hours, hopefully, we will see a lot more from the hearings that the legislature had today, and we will be able to look and see what the next steps are,” he added.
A signature audit would only compare signatures to applications, not to ballots. Bear in mind that signatures get checked twice — first when the application for the mail-in ballot is received, and then again when the ballot itself is received. At receipt of the ballot, that second check takes place and then the ballot envelope gets opened if they match. The state constitution requires secret ballots, which is why ballots are separated from their containing envelopes with the signatures after the envelopes get opened. Therefore, any “audit” now would not be able to identify an invalid ballot even if there was a signature mismatch … which makes this a moot point in an election challenge, although an audit would be useful to ensure that the processes are effective in future elections.
This, therefore, is nonsense:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1334711509977608192
Again: two signature checks have already taken place, and there is no way to identify any specific mismatched ballot now. Kemp certainly knows this, but clearly feels a lot of pressure to bend — or at least is hoping to find a way to stay ahead of the public passion on this. That’s not unusual for a politician, and unfortunately neither is doing so by tossing an ally to the mob.
So what touched this off? This testimony from the hearing yesterday in the Georgia legislature, reportedly showing mail-in ballots being tabulated without supervision, which Rudy Giuliani and his team describe as a “smoking gun” in their fraud case:
https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1334569329334083586?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1334569329334083586%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2Fmatt-margolis%2F2020%2F12%2F03%2Fwatch-team-trump-says-video-is-smoking-gun-evidence-of-election-fraud-ballot-stuffing-in-georgia-n1189837
The Trump legal team has presented what they say is compelling evidence of voter fraud, alleging that election night video footage from Fulton County, Ga., shows at least four suitcases of ballots being pulled out from under a table after election supervisors had told poll workers to leave the room. The footage appears to also show four women staying behind to count votes. … Stephen Fowler of NPR says that the man in the blue jacket that can be seen in the video is “an official monitor from the secretary of state’s office who was there watching the vote counting.” According to Fowler, “While some partisan monitors left, it wasn’t unsupervised.” But, according to Jacki Pick, an attorney working with Trump’s legal team, even though “two Republican field organizers had been sent” there to observe the vote counting, “At no time were they permitted to observe in any meaningful way.”
That’s not true, says the elections director of Fulton County, and the video doesn’t show what Giuliani alleges:
Here’s what Fulton County Elections Director Rick Barron had to say about the surveillance video from State Farm Arena that has become a major point of contention among those who believe there was fraud in Georgia’s election process: “I’ll just address the timeline of that evening – the staff at State Farm that evening, they began letting certain people go, no announcement was ever made to leave, for anyone to leave. Certain staff that were on the cutting stations, that were on the flattening stations, that were extracting from the inner envelopes, those staff left as work completed. I found out sometime, I think a little after10:30, that they were gonna cease operations and I told them not to do that… at about 11:15 they were fully scanning again, and once they were scanning Carter Jones, the State Election Board monitor, he told me 11:42 or 11:52 that he arrived. There were media in the room, external affairs representative there until approximately 11:15. The Secretary of States investigator arrived at 12:15, and they scanned until all the ballots they had available to scan were complete and then cleaned up the room. “What the video shows is that they have pulled out plastic bins from underneath the desks, those are bins that they keep under their desks near the scanners. They will cut those seals that are on those, open those up and pull the ballots out. “They were still in the process of cleaning so they hadn’t sealed those ballot boxes up, so they were able to just start right back up, normal processing that occurred there.”
Barron says his team has been cooperating with Raffensperger’s investigators on this issue all along, and insists nothing untoward happened. Georgia NPR reporter Stephen Fowler also debunks the theory and notes that investigators were in the room for almost all of this time. That’s because Raffensperger didn’t trust Fulton County in the first place and was looking for evidence of incompetence or corruption:
“The officials said the ballots seen in the video were in regular ballot containers — not suitcases — and they had been removed from their envelopes and processed while news media and election observers for the Republican Party and Trump campaign were present.” — stephen fowler (@stphnfwlr) December 4, 2020
In reality, the GOP-led Secretary of State’s office had monitors there because *they don’t trust Fulton to not mess up* and have frequently bashed how they run elections. Would an SOS monitor allow them to do a fraud in front of them? For what purpose? — stephen fowler (@stphnfwlr) December 4, 2020
Presumably, that’s what Raffensperger will be telling Kemp at some point today, too. He might need to explain it to the Georgia legislature as well.
At this point, though, Raffensperger will likely need to order a signature audit, regardless of whether it’s meaningful in these challenges or not. Hopefully, the outcome of an audit will help settle things down. Although, to be clear, a signature audit doesn’t have anything to do with the video above that prompted Kemp’s call for it, either.
Update: Fowler’s link goes to an explanation provided by Republican election official Gabriel Sterling, who insists that the tape doesn’t show anything nefarious at all. Raffensperger’s chief investigator agrees:


hotair--2020-12-05--Biden's virtual inauguration is “going to have to be more imaginative" than the dreadful Democrat co

Biden's virtual inauguration is “going to have to be more imaginative" than the dreadful Democrat convention

Joe Biden ’ s inauguration on January 20 , 2021 , will be unlike others we ’ ve seen in recent years .
It will likely be comprised of virtual events instead of a big production with a massive crowd of people on the National Mall .
There may or may not be an inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue .
People want to celebrate , though , he said Friday , so there will be some type of “ platform ceremony ” .
It won ’ t be a bigger version of the RNC ’ s Rose Garden event last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his re-election campaign formally began .
Biden wanted to be sure to virtue-signal about how he is following the science , though he spoke of that without wearing a face mask , and his intent was a dig at Trump .
He wants to keep people safe , you know , implying that Trump does not .
It ’ s how Joe Biden , the civil and nice guy if you listen to his supporters , conducts himself .
The Swamp creatures take nuanced jabs at each other instead of Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrasted his cautious approach to the Republican National Convention in August , which included hundreds of GOP dignitaries sitting shoulder-to-shoulder on the White House lawn as Trump accepted his party ’ s nomination during a 71-minute speech — capped off with a fireworks display .
“ It ’ s going to have to be more imaginative , ” he said from a theater in Wilmington , Del .
“ I think the convention we put on really opened up avenues that we never thought existed.
” Biden ’ s staff is consulting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on planning the events of the day .
He told reporters that the inauguration will likely be like the 2020 Democratic National Convention , only better .
Remember what a snoozefest that multi-night production was to those of us at home ?
The best part of it was the state roll call and I don ’ t know if something like that could be put into the mix .
Maybe Creepy Joe can get some of his celebrity friends to come and liven things up .
Just spitballing here but I imagine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the chance to narrate something for him .
Joe ’ s inauguration committee is up and working on arrangements for the 78-year-old ’ s big day .
It is raking in big bucks to pay for galas and balls and the like but it ’ s not clear how much of that sort of celebration will occur .
There is an inauguration theme , that much is known .
The theme is “ Our Determined Democracy : Forging a More Perfect Union.
” That ’ s a pompous slogan – “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and his team do not lack arrogance .
The JCCIC says the ceremony will be on the West Front of the Capitol .
That is where the platform ceremony will take place .
If there is a parade , the District has repaved Pennsylvania Avenue in preparation .
It is unclear if the offices of members of Congress will be distributing tickets to the inauguration this year .
Travelers to D.C. will have to get a negative coronavirus test before coming .
If you ’ re staying longer than three days , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another coronavirus test in the city .
There is also a 14-day quarantine requirement for visitors coming from certain states .
Bless his heart .
Joe Biden has been trying to get elected to the presidency since 1988 .
He finally got his big dream job and now the celebration has to be dramatically scaled back .

Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021, will be unlike others we’ve seen in recent years. It will likely be comprised of virtual events instead of a big production with a massive crowd of people on the National Mall. There may or may not be an inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.
People want to celebrate, though, he said Friday, so there will be some type of “platform ceremony”. It won’t be a bigger version of the RNC’s Rose Garden event last summer when President Trump accepted the nomination and his re-election campaign formally began. Biden wanted to be sure to virtue-signal about how he is following the science, though he spoke of that without wearing a face mask, and his intent was a dig at Trump. He wants to keep people safe, you know, implying that Trump does not. It’s how Joe Biden, the civil and nice guy if you listen to his supporters, conducts himself. The Swamp creatures take nuanced jabs at each other instead of Trump’s blunt manner of speaking.
Biden contrasted his cautious approach to the Republican National Convention in August, which included hundreds of GOP dignitaries sitting shoulder-to-shoulder on the White House lawn as Trump accepted his party’s nomination during a 71-minute speech — capped off with a fireworks display. “It’s going to have to be more imaginative,” he said from a theater in Wilmington, Del. “I think the convention we put on really opened up avenues that we never thought existed.”
Biden’s staff is consulting with public health experts to get some guidance on planning the events of the day. He told reporters that the inauguration will likely be like the 2020 Democratic National Convention, only better. Remember what a snoozefest that multi-night production was to those of us at home? The best part of it was the state roll call and I don’t know if something like that could be put into the mix. Maybe Creepy Joe can get some of his celebrity friends to come and liven things up. Just spitballing here but I imagine that Eva Longoria or Julia Louis-Dreyfus would jump at the chance to narrate something for him.
Joe’s inauguration committee is up and working on arrangements for the 78-year-old’s big day. It is raking in big bucks to pay for galas and balls and the like but it’s not clear how much of that sort of celebration will occur.
There is an inauguration theme, that much is known. The theme is “Our Determined Democracy: Forging a More Perfect Union.” That’s a pompous slogan – “a more perfect union”. Really? Biden and his team do not lack arrogance.
The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) is responsible for planning the swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol on Jan. 20. The theme of the swearing-in ceremony will be “Our Determined Democracy: Forging a More Perfect Union.” The six-member committee is led by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and includes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
The JCCIC says the ceremony will be on the West Front of the Capitol. That is where the platform ceremony will take place. If there is a parade, the District has repaved Pennsylvania Avenue in preparation. It is unclear if the offices of members of Congress will be distributing tickets to the inauguration this year. Travelers to D.C. will have to get a negative coronavirus test before coming. If you’re staying longer than three days, D.C. rules say that you must receive another coronavirus test in the city. There is also a 14-day quarantine requirement for visitors coming from certain states.
Bless his heart. Joe Biden has been trying to get elected to the presidency since 1988. He finally got his big dream job and now the celebration has to be dramatically scaled back.


hotair--2020-12-05--Twitter spat between Marco Rubio, AOC and Sarah Palin over hard work

This particular Twitter spat started Thursday with AOC taking a shot at Project Veritas .
Project Veritas ’ James O ’ Keefe responded to that by pointing to a letter dated May in which he explained why he had decided to accept the loan , i.e .
to protect the salaries of his 50 employees : Of course , helping small businesses meet their payrolls is what the PPP loans were designed to do , but for AOC the desire to punish the right always takes precedence I guess .
In any case , Sen. Marco Rubio responded to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These PPP loans were part of the CARES Act which was passed back in March .
AOC denounced that bill on the House floor and then voted against it .
It ’ s actually a bit hard to pin down how Members of Congress voted in this case because the bill was passed by a voice vote .
But the Intercept went back and tried to nail down how every person voted and they gave AOC a definite NO based on statements she made in an interview with Democracy Now after the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill , because I believe that people will soon see the extraordinary asymmetrical assistance that went to corporations.
” AOC knew this was going to pass almost almost unanimously and since it was a voice vote no vote was recorded , but she said she did not support the bill and would have voted against it if votes had been recorded .
That ’ s why Sen. Rubio may be hitting her about R ’ s & D ’ s working together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that .
AOC then replied to Sen. Rubio with this : Sen. Rubio did respond to that tweet the next morning : But getting back to Thursday , this seemed to really bother AOC and she kept tweeting about it , specifically about how much tougher she is than Republicans : Ben Shapiro had a question about her lack of good healthcare .
Keep in mind she worked as a waitress after she graduated college in 2011 : Anyway she kept going about how her work as a waitress proved how tough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoes would have crumbled : For the record , I don ’ t think Republicans are really making fun of the fact she was a waitress .
I think they ’ re making fun of the fact that the former waitress now seems to think she ’ s qualified to remake America into a socialist paradise .
I don ’ t think anyone is saying she ’ s not qualified to serve drinks .
Friday , Sarah Palin stepped in and absolutely hammered AOC as part of the every-kid-gets-a-trophy generation : Rep. Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet about wimpy Republicans collapsing from a double shift : AOC never apologizes , she only lectures more stridently : She just kept going : Of course plentiful government loans played a role in the rising costs of college but she doesn ’ t mention that .
Plenty of people were pointing out that it ’ s still possible to work your way through college : But while some people are thinking others are doing this : So there you have it .
AOC was a hard working waitress and no Republican could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s really how she sees it .
And for the record , waitressing really is hard work but it ’ s not the only hard work .
I worked as a mason tender one summer during college to make money .
The crew I was on helped build the Student Center at Virginia Tech .
What I can tell you is that lifting bricks 11 at a time onto scaffolding and mixing concrete by hand in the summer sun is hard work .
I can still remember the masons calling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hardest physical work I ’ ve ever done in my life but I did not collapse in tears in a walk-in freezer ( though a walk-in freezer would have been handy ) .
Lots of us have worked hard at various things and AOC ’ s assumption that Republicans don ’ t know what that ’ s like is offensive and dumb .

This particular Twitter spat started Thursday with AOC taking a shot at Project Veritas. Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe responded to that by pointing to a letter dated May in which he explained why he had decided to accept the loan, i.e. to protect the salaries of his 50 employees:
We did not CHOOSE to have our employees, working families, livelihoods jeopardized by @NYGovCuomo shutdown. We operate without fear or favor. We Will NEVER bow to political pressure from you, NYState or the feds. We do not prostitute ourselves to a commercial imperative.#Gulag pic.twitter.com/rLHoFUdOrk — James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) December 3, 2020
Of course, helping small businesses meet their payrolls is what the PPP loans were designed to do, but for AOC the desire to punish the right always takes precedence I guess. In any case, Sen. Marco Rubio responded to her tweet with this bit of advice:
Working together R’s & D’s helped save the jobs of 55 million Americans through PPP Work more, tweet less & one day you too can make a difference https://t.co/WprW5OR9LP — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 3, 2020
These PPP loans were part of the CARES Act which was passed back in March. AOC denounced that bill on the House floor and then voted against it. It’s actually a bit hard to pin down how Members of Congress voted in this case because the bill was passed by a voice vote. But the Intercept went back and tried to nail down how every person voted and they gave AOC a definite NO based on statements she made in an interview with Democracy Now after the vote. Here’s what she said: “I could not bring myself to ultimately support this bill, because I believe that people will soon see the extraordinary asymmetrical assistance that went to corporations.”
AOC knew this was going to pass almost almost unanimously and since it was a voice vote no vote was recorded, but she said she did not support the bill and would have voted against it if votes had been recorded. That’s why Sen. Rubio may be hitting her about R’s & D’s working together, because she wasn’t part of that. AOC then replied to Sen. Rubio with this:
Yesterday I recruited 5,000 volunteers to train and tutor kids in my community who are struggling with remote learning, and that was after investigating the Treasury Secretary’s rationale for stopping CARES Act funding and voting on House legislation. What did you do? https://t.co/Ytkq6qZKiI — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 3, 2020
Sen. Rubio did respond to that tweet the next morning:
Apologies for late response Was busy this week helping a Floridian get travel documents to see his dying sister,a high schooler whose mother died get SSI benefits,a specialist for a child with a crazy Obamacare deductible & negotiating Intelligence bill & another round of PPP https://t.co/HlsFeQHp3m — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 4, 2020
But getting back to Thursday, this seemed to really bother AOC and she kept tweeting about it, specifically about how much tougher she is than Republicans:
The thing that these conservative Senators don’t seem to understand is that I’ve actually had a physically difficult working-class job without good healthcare most of my adult life. I bring that work ethic to Congress & to my community. They sit around on leather chairs all day. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 3, 2020
Ben Shapiro had a question about her lack of good healthcare. Keep in mind she worked as a waitress after she graduated college in 2011:
Obamacare became law in May 2010, when she was 20. https://t.co/qJsX2dHQoh — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 4, 2020
Anyway she kept going about how her work as a waitress proved how tough she was and how Republicans in her shoes would have crumbled:
Republicans like to make fun of the fact that I used to be a waitress, but we all know if they ever had to do a double they’d be the ones found crying in the walk-in fridge halfway through their first shift bc someone yelled at them for bringing seltzer when they wanted sparkling — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 4, 2020
For the record, I don’t think Republicans are really making fun of the fact she was a waitress. I think they’re making fun of the fact that the former waitress now seems to think she’s qualified to remake America into a socialist paradise. I don’t think anyone is saying she’s not qualified to serve drinks.
Friday, Sarah Palin stepped in and absolutely hammered AOC as part of the every-kid-gets-a-trophy generation:
With babies to care for, elderly parents to tend to, businesses to run, voluntarily helping others, working second- and third jobs, etc without whining and drawing the self-attention for which you’re known? — Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) December 4, 2020
You’re not special, Representative. To magnanimously think you’re set aside deserving a seat of judgment SOLELY bc you temporarily slung shots proves that condescending woe-is-me entitlement thinking is what happens when every kid gets a trophy. -SP — Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) December 4, 2020
Rep. Paul Mitchell also responded to AOC’s tweet about wimpy Republicans collapsing from a double shift:
This comment is ridiculous stereotyping. I delivered newspapers year-round on foot or on my bike for several years. Worked numerous doubles in Respiratory Therapy where a mistake could result in death. Worked nearly full time to pay for college. What do I not understand? https://t.co/uRwehFzd5L — Paul Mitchell (@RepPaulMitchell) December 5, 2020
AOC never apologizes, she only lectures more stridently:
Forever telling on yourselves. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 5, 2020
She just kept going:
These Republicans who are defensively rage-tweeting “But you’re wrong! I worked my way to pay through college!!” don’t realize they sound like folks who speak of the days when Hershey bars were 5¢ at the general store. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 5, 2020
(Frankly they’ve exploded for far longer than that too) — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 5, 2020
Of course plentiful government loans played a role in the rising costs of college but she doesn’t mention that. Plenty of people were pointing out that it’s still possible to work your way through college:
Yep. My son got an aerospace engineering degree 3 years ago, worked while in school and paid his loans off within 2 years of graduating after getting a job. Now working on a masters that his company is paying for. — Doug Powers (@ThePowersThatBe) December 5, 2020
But while some people are thinking others are doing this:
Same here! AOC is a force and I'd love to see her as President one day. 👍 — Rice Krispy Tweets (@kristirice47) December 5, 2020
So there you have it. AOC was a hard working waitress and no Republican could have done her job. I think that’s really how she sees it. And for the record, waitressing really is hard work but it’s not the only hard work. I worked as a mason tender one summer during college to make money. The crew I was on helped build the Student Center at Virginia Tech. What I can tell you is that lifting bricks 11 at a time onto scaffolding and mixing concrete by hand in the summer sun is hard work. I can still remember the masons calling out “Shake up!” It was the hardest physical work I’ve ever done in my life but I did not collapse in tears in a walk-in freezer (though a walk-in freezer would have been handy). Lots of us have worked hard at various things and AOC’s assumption that Republicans don’t know what that’s like is offensive and dumb.


hotair--2020-12-05--Socialist Seattle City Councilmember's recall appeal heads to Washington Supreme Court

Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant is fighting a recall .
Seattle residents are not happy with her personal conduct during recent protests .
The bitter fight is going to the Washington Supreme Court in January after an appeal from Sawant .
Kshama Sawant is a socialist .
She ’ s proudly left of traditional socialism , as she is a member of the “ Socialist Alternative ” party .
The party is farther left than the Democratic Socialists of America , who backed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
She is accused of abusing her office .
Of the six original charges , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rogers tossed out two charges in the petition .
At the time Judge Rogers said , “ the petitioner has shown actual knowledge of facts indicating that the councilmember intended to commit an unlawful act.
” The remaining four allegations against Sawant are giving protesters access to City Hall , leading a march to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan ’ s house , using city resources to promote a Tax Amazon ballot initiative , and delegating hiring decisions to her political group , Socialist Alternative .
In September the Seattle City Council voted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal bills – reported to be $ 75,000 .
Sawant is facing criticism from Mayor Jenny Durkan who faced her own recall battle recently .
You remember Mayor Jenny , right ?
She ’ s the liberal kook who originally characterized the protests and rioting and looting going on in Seattle during the summer as a reincarnation of the Summer of Love .
Now her support for the degenerates and violent Antifa thugs in the streets of Seattle has evaporated .
It ’ s all fun and games until the angry mob protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spray-paints bad words on it .
“ All of us have joined hundreds of demonstrations across the City , but Councilmember Sawant and her followers chose to do so with reckless disregard of the safety of my family and children , ” Durkan said in a letter to the city council president this summer .
“ In addition , during or after Councilmember Sawant ’ s speech at that rally , her followers vandalized my home by spray-painting obscenities.
” Why wasn ’ t Mayor Jenny concerned for the “ safety of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began to burn ?
The woke are so short-sighted .
Sawant ’ s legal defense lawyer submitted an appeal of the lower court ’ s certification of the recall .
In the Appellants Brief filed last week by Sawant ’ s legal team , the defense doubled down on arguments that the charges were “ factually and legally insufficient ” .
The team disputes that Sawant didn ’ t meet the burden of proof that is required .
“ This is not a campaign event , this is not a process through which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members who want to level a laundry list of complaints about her conduct , ” Iglitzin said .
“ You can ’ t convert political disagreement into a recall.
” On Thursday , in accordance with the state-set timeline for the appeal , Lou and the Recall Sawant effort filed their response to the brief .
Their argument is that “ voters can decide for themselves ” and decide if Sawant ’ s actions warrant removal from office .
Mayor Jenny wants Sawant investigated after her participation in the protest in front of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in June requesting an investigation .
Sawant has until June 10 to issue a reply brief on that investigation .

Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant is fighting a recall. Seattle residents are not happy with her personal conduct during recent protests. The bitter fight is going to the Washington Supreme Court in January after an appeal from Sawant.
Kshama Sawant is a socialist. She’s proudly left of traditional socialism, as she is a member of the “Socialist Alternative” party. The party is farther left than the Democratic Socialists of America, who backed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She is accused of abusing her office. Of the six original charges, in September, King County Superior Judge Jim Rogers tossed out two charges in the petition. At the time Judge Rogers said, “the petitioner has shown actual knowledge of facts indicating that the councilmember intended to commit an unlawful act.”
The remaining four allegations against Sawant are giving protesters access to City Hall, leading a march to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan’s house, using city resources to promote a Tax Amazon ballot initiative, and delegating hiring decisions to her political group, Socialist Alternative.
On Thursday, Seattle resident Ernest Lou made his case again for the recall effort, which he based on four specific charges relating to how Councilwoman Kshama Sawant. allegedly abused her office. Specifically, Lou alleges that Sawant let protesters into City Hall during a nighttime protest and spoke at another demonstration in front of the Democratic Mayor Jenny Durkan’s house.
In September the Seattle City Council voted in favor of paying for Sawant’s legal bills – reported to be $75,000. Sawant is facing criticism from Mayor Jenny Durkan who faced her own recall battle recently.
A recall effort in Seattle, Washington, to recall Mayor Jenny Durkan was initiated in June 2020.[1] On October 8, 2020, the Washington Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling which allowed the recall effort against Durkan. The supreme court’s order read, “The allegations in this case are deeply troubling and our review requires that we treat the factual allegations as true. Nevertheless, after carefully considering the issues presented, the court concludes that the recall charges presented in this case are factually and legally insufficient.”
You remember Mayor Jenny, right? She’s the liberal kook who originally characterized the protests and rioting and looting going on in Seattle during the summer as a reincarnation of the Summer of Love. Now her support for the degenerates and violent Antifa thugs in the streets of Seattle has evaporated. It’s all fun and games until the angry mob protests in front of your own home and spray-paints bad words on it.
“All of us have joined hundreds of demonstrations across the City, but Councilmember Sawant and her followers chose to do so with reckless disregard of the safety of my family and children,” Durkan said in a letter to the city council president this summer. “In addition, during or after Councilmember Sawant’s speech at that rally, her followers vandalized my home by spray-painting obscenities.”
Why wasn’t Mayor Jenny concerned for the “safety of her family and children” when Seattle first began to burn? The woke are so short-sighted.
Sawant’s legal defense lawyer submitted an appeal of the lower court’s certification of the recall. In the Appellants Brief filed last week by Sawant’s legal team, the defense doubled down on arguments that the charges were “factually and legally insufficient”. The team disputes that Sawant didn’t meet the burden of proof that is required. “This is not a campaign event, this is not a process through which people who have political disagreements with council members who want to level a laundry list of complaints about her conduct,” Iglitzin said. “You can’t convert political disagreement into a recall.”
On Thursday, in accordance with the state-set timeline for the appeal, Lou and the Recall Sawant effort filed their response to the brief. Their argument is that “voters can decide for themselves” and decide if Sawant’s actions warrant removal from office.
“Councilmember Sawant repeatedly denies that there is evidence of her intent to act unlawfully, when there is substantial evidence from which to infer her intent,” the petitioners wrote. “Voters have the right to draw that inference and determine the facts.”
Mayor Jenny wants Sawant investigated after her participation in the protest in front of her home. She wrote to councilmembers in June requesting an investigation. Sawant has until June 10 to issue a reply brief on that investigation.


hotair--2020-12-05--Atlanta news station debunks "smoking gun" voter-fraud video

It ’ s just completely , completely pointless for media outlets to invest resources in doing fact-checks like this .
It ’ s their duty , and it ’ s virtuous .
But you can ’ t falsify a theory that ’ s designed to be nonfalsifiable , by definition .
The big “ Stop the Steal !
” crusade is a loyalty test , not an evidentiary undertaking .
If Trump and Giuliani say that this video shows people counting fraudulent ballots then it shows them counting fraudulent ballots and you ’ re a traitor if you disagree .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s no indication that Giuliani or his team tried to evaluate the content of the video before presenting it as dispositive , ” notes Philip Bump .
“ This isn ’ t surprising , either : Giuliani has repeatedly offered unvetted claims of wrongdoing by Trump ’ s opponents without checking them out beforehand.
” We may have reached the point where he ’ s even inventing court victories whole cloth : A Twitter pal thinks the claim originated with Rudy crony Bernard Kerik , the former NYPD commissioner who ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud and was ultimately pardoned by Trump .
Kerik didn ’ t cite any source for his claim and no one seems able to substantiate it .
Maybe he and Rudy decided that they needed to concoct some phantom legal triumps because the real thing has been so hard to come by .
Speaking of which , the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals shot down Lin Wood ’ s lawsuit this morning seeking to block certification of Georgia ’ s election results .
Among the three-judge panel were two conservatives , both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court nominees in the past .
One was William Pryor , who authored the opinion ; the other was Barbara Lagoa , who was considered for the seat this fall that went to Amy Coney Barrett .
Their ruling was unanimous that Wood had no standing to sue and that , even if he had , his claim has been mooted by Georgia ’ s certification of its results .
Waiting too long to attack a state ’ s allegedly troubling electoral process has been a chronic problem for the president and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Erick Erickson points out : By the way , the Georgia GOP could have examined the absentee ballot electors before election day ; they could have fought to observe the signature verification process ; and they could have demanded to stay and observe that night , but they didn ’ t .
So part of the narrative here that you must understand is that the Georgia GOP did not do the things it could have done to make sure there were no shenanigans and now is obfuscating and misdirecting blame .
Trump himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , either making stuff up to lead on his fans or doubling , tripling , and quadrupling down on claims that have been already debunked repeatedly .
E.g .
: It ’ s been explained by now ad nauseam , by literally hundreds of commentators , that signature matches were already performed twice on Georgia ’ s mail-in ballots before those ballots were counted and that they can ’ t be performed again after the fact .
Each ballot has already been separated from its signed envelope ; even if you could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t know whether to subtract that vote from Biden ’ s column or from Trump ’ s .
I don ’ t know if Trump is still so ill-informed about the election process that he continues not to understand that , more than a month after Election Day , or if he understands it but continues to hammer the point because , again , this is a loyalty test , not a serious challenge to the results .
All his tweet means , really , is “ Kemp isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” The fact that there ’ s nothing Kemp can realistically do for him is a detail .
There ’ s so much spaghetti being thrown at the wall to see what sticks that it ’ s easy to overlook basic logical inconsistencies like this one identified by Fred Bauer : If the font of all evil here is the Dominion voting machines that allegedly allowed votes to be changed electronically , why is Trump hung up on signature checks ?
Is he seriously suggesting that fraud was perpetrated via *both* forms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via Dominion and separately via mail ballots ?
Why would the sinister forces that supposedly rigged the vote go to all that trouble knowing that it would increase their risk of being caught ?
Either hack the in-person vote or manufacture phony mail ballots to provide a margin of victory .
There ’ s no need to do both .
The fact that Trump is untroubled by his own internal illogic is all one needs to know to understand what a pure gaslighting effort this is .
Even his and Rudy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having their credibility shredded after the fact as the media looks into how trustworthy their testimony might be .
I ’ ll leave you with this , which captures both the idiocy and the villainy of this episode in a single economical tweet .
Republican voters , following the president ’ s lead , absolutely deserve to lose the Senate runoffs for having enabled stuff like this .
Whether they will is a separate question .

It’s just completely, completely pointless for media outlets to invest resources in doing fact-checks like this. It’s their duty, and it’s virtuous. But you can’t falsify a theory that’s designed to be nonfalsifiable, by definition. The big “Stop the Steal!” crusade is a loyalty test, not an evidentiary undertaking. If Trump and Giuliani say that this video shows people counting fraudulent ballots then it shows them counting fraudulent ballots and you’re a traitor if you disagree. Watch, then read on.
“There’s no indication that Giuliani or his team tried to evaluate the content of the video before presenting it as dispositive,” notes Philip Bump. “This isn’t surprising, either: Giuliani has repeatedly offered unvetted claims of wrongdoing by Trump’s opponents without checking them out beforehand.” We may have reached the point where he’s even inventing court victories whole cloth:
Nobody I can find has heard of this case or posted any related court order/docs. MI's 13th Circuit Court, which includes Antrim, Grand Traverse & Leelenau counties, has an impressively user friendly online search function. (more) pic.twitter.com/RSorlZB6gi — Paul Egan (@paulegan4) December 5, 2020
A Twitter pal thinks the claim originated with Rudy crony Bernard Kerik, the former NYPD commissioner who ended up doing time in prison for tax fraud and was ultimately pardoned by Trump. Kerik didn’t cite any source for his claim and no one seems able to substantiate it. Maybe he and Rudy decided that they needed to concoct some phantom legal triumps because the real thing has been so hard to come by.
Speaking of which, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals shot down Lin Wood’s lawsuit this morning seeking to block certification of Georgia’s election results. Among the three-judge panel were two conservatives, both of whom have been mentioned as potential Supreme Court nominees in the past. One was William Pryor, who authored the opinion; the other was Barbara Lagoa, who was considered for the seat this fall that went to Amy Coney Barrett. Their ruling was unanimous that Wood had no standing to sue and that, even if he had, his claim has been mooted by Georgia’s certification of its results. Waiting too long to attack a state’s allegedly troubling electoral process has been a chronic problem for the president and his allies in their post-election lawsuits, as Erick Erickson points out:
By the way, the Georgia GOP could have examined the absentee ballot electors before election day; they could have fought to observe the signature verification process; and they could have demanded to stay and observe that night, but they didn’t. So part of the narrative here that you must understand is that the Georgia GOP did not do the things it could have done to make sure there were no shenanigans and now is obfuscating and misdirecting blame.
Trump himself is in the same headspace Giuliani is now, either making stuff up to lead on his fans or doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on claims that have been already debunked repeatedly. E.g.:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1335268230206722048
It’s been explained by now ad nauseam, by literally hundreds of commentators, that signature matches were already performed twice on Georgia’s mail-in ballots before those ballots were counted and that they can’t be performed again after the fact. Each ballot has already been separated from its signed envelope; even if you could show that a signature is fraudulent you wouldn’t know whether to subtract that vote from Biden’s column or from Trump’s. I don’t know if Trump is still so ill-informed about the election process that he continues not to understand that, more than a month after Election Day, or if he understands it but continues to hammer the point because, again, this is a loyalty test, not a serious challenge to the results. All his tweet means, really, is “Kemp isn’t doing everything possible to help me win!” The fact that there’s nothing Kemp can realistically do for him is a detail.
There’s so much spaghetti being thrown at the wall to see what sticks that it’s easy to overlook basic logical inconsistencies like this one identified by Fred Bauer:
Many of its legal filings have been laughed out of court. Many of its witnesses have been less than credible. Some of the charges are self-contradictory (Why do you care about signature-matching for ballots if you argue that the vote totals were “hacked”?) — Fred Bauer (@fredbauerblog) December 5, 2020
If the font of all evil here is the Dominion voting machines that allegedly allowed votes to be changed electronically, why is Trump hung up on signature checks? Is he seriously suggesting that fraud was perpetrated via *both* forms of voting in Georgia, in person via Dominion and separately via mail ballots? Why would the sinister forces that supposedly rigged the vote go to all that trouble knowing that it would increase their risk of being caught? Either hack the in-person vote or manufacture phony mail ballots to provide a margin of victory. There’s no need to do both. The fact that Trump is untroubled by his own internal illogic is all one needs to know to understand what a pure gaslighting effort this is.
Even his and Rudy’s star “witnesses” to fraud are having their credibility shredded after the fact as the media looks into how trustworthy their testimony might be.
I’ll leave you with this, which captures both the idiocy and the villainy of this episode in a single economical tweet. Republican voters, following the president’s lead, absolutely deserve to lose the Senate runoffs for having enabled stuff like this. Whether they will is a separate question.
https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1335269991000797184