hotair--2020-08-07--Let the lawsuits begin: Trump boots TikTok and WeChat by EO

If this was a film from the 1980s , it would end in a dance-off , right ?
Kevin Bacon and William Zabka would break it down , this time on cellphone video , vying for the heart of Molly Ringwald .
Alas , this time the dance is much more lethal , and neither Donald Trump nor Xi Jinping will simply concede after a killer spin on the floor .
A killer spin on the courtroom floor ?
Maybe : President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders banning U.S. transactions with Chinese tech firms Tencent and ByteDance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ByteDance is the Beijing-based parent company of the widely popular short video-sharing app TikTok .
The ban will take effect in 45 days and may attract retaliation from Beijing .
While the scope of the ban remains unclear , the executive orders said that after 45 days , Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross “ shall identify the transactions ” that will be subjected to the prohibition .
TikTok has long been suspected of datamining for Beijing as well as famous for its popularity among younger users , but the WeChat app is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times calls it “ China ’ s bridge to the world , ” a way for ex-pats to stay connected to friends and family back home .
It also offers such a comprehensive experience that the NYT notes it “ does more than any app rightfully should , ” which should be a warning in and of itself : With much of the Chinese internet locked behind a wall of filters and censors , the country ’ s everything app is also one of the few digital bridges connecting China to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way exchange students talk to their families , immigrants keep up with relatives and much of the Chinese diaspora swaps memes , gossip and videos .
Now , that bridge is threatening to crumble .
Late Thursday , the Trump administration issued an executive order that could pull China ’ s most important app from Apple and Google stores across the world and prevent American companies from doing business with its parent company , Tencent .
Light on details , the decree could prove cosmetic , crushing or something in between .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 45 days , the order will take dead aim at China ’ s single most groundbreaking internet product , which 1.2 billion people use every month .
An effective ban on the app in the United States would cut short millions of conversations between investors , business partners , family members and friends .
The threat alone will likely start a new chapter in the deepening standoff between China and the United States over the future of technology .
However , the NYT also notes farther down in the article that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more malicious than TikTok : The executive order tellingly spends much more time outlining the threat from WeChat than TikTok : WeChat , a messaging , social media , and electronic payment application owned by the Chinese company Tencent Holdings Ltd. , reportedly has over one billion users worldwide , including users in the United States .
Like TikTok , WeChat automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users .
This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans ’ personal and proprietary information .
In addition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information of Chinese nationals visiting the United States , thereby allowing the Chinese Communist Party a mechanism for keeping tabs on Chinese citizens who may be enjoying the benefits of a free society for the first time in their lives .
For example , in March 2019 , a researcher reportedly discovered a Chinese database containing billions of WeChat messages sent from users in not only China but also the United States , Taiwan , South Korea , and Australia .
WeChat , like TikTok , also reportedly censors content that the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party .
These risks have led other countries , including Australia and India , to begin restricting or banning the use of WeChat .
The United States must take aggressive action against the owner of WeChat to protect our national security .
TikTok owner Bytedance suggested that it might challenge Trump to a dance-off in US federal court ( via Google Translate ) : We have made it clear that we are willing to negotiate a solution with the US government so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users , creators , business partners , employees , and American society .
However , in this process , the U.S. government has never followed due process of law or acted in accordance with the law .
The source of the “ report ” cited by the executive order is unknown or unproven , and there is no substantive basis for the concern that the app “ may ” be used for false propaganda activities .
In addition , TikTok ’ s questioned data collection behavior has always been a common practice in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have made it clear that TikTok has never shared user data with the Chinese government , and has never reviewed content upon request .
In fact , we have disclosed our review policy and algorithm source code through the establishment of a Transparency Center .
No technology company of the same type has committed to fulfilling this responsibility .
We even stated that we could sell our US business to a US company .
This executive order would undermine the trust of global companies in the U.S. rule of law commitments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign investment and promoted US economic growth .
The order set a dangerous precedent that violated freedom of expression and open markets .
We will make every effort to take all feasible measures to ensure that the rule of law is not abandoned and that our company and users are treated fairly .
If the US government can not treat us fairly , we will resort to the US courts .
Courts are likely to give Trump some leeway on this , especially considering the nature of the risks cited in the EO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security , and foreign policy , the executive reaches its zenith of legitimate authority , although that ’ s not to say it ’ s entirely unlimited .
However , Bytedance now faces a class-action lawsuit from angry parents of its users over TikTok ’ s data-privacy practices , which means it might be a lot less enthusiastic about the “ rule of law commitments ” it cites in this statement sooner rather than later .
This is a long-overdue move in constraining China ’ s economic and propagandistic interference in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice about jousting with Trump ?
The WeChat ban will cut a lot deeper than the loss of its TikTok dance-off platform .
It might be time to exit the barn and let the local kids have their dance to themselves .

If this was a film from the 1980s, it would end in a dance-off, right? Kevin Bacon and William Zabka would break it down, this time on cellphone video, vying for the heart of Molly Ringwald. Alas, this time the dance is much more lethal, and neither Donald Trump nor Xi Jinping will simply concede after a killer spin on the floor.
A killer spin on the courtroom floor? Maybe:
President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders banning U.S. transactions with Chinese tech firms Tencent and ByteDance. Tencent owns Chinese messaging app WeChat, and ByteDance is the Beijing-based parent company of the widely popular short video-sharing app TikTok. The ban will take effect in 45 days and may attract retaliation from Beijing. While the scope of the ban remains unclear, the executive orders said that after 45 days, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross “shall identify the transactions” that will be subjected to the prohibition.
TikTok has long been suspected of datamining for Beijing as well as famous for its popularity among younger users, but the WeChat app is somewhat less well known. The New York Times calls it “China’s bridge to the world,” a way for ex-pats to stay connected to friends and family back home. It also offers such a comprehensive experience that the NYT notes it “does more than any app rightfully should,” which should be a warning in and of itself:
With much of the Chinese internet locked behind a wall of filters and censors, the country’s everything app is also one of the few digital bridges connecting China to the rest of the world. It is the way exchange students talk to their families, immigrants keep up with relatives and much of the Chinese diaspora swaps memes, gossip and videos. Now, that bridge is threatening to crumble. Late Thursday, the Trump administration issued an executive order that could pull China’s most important app from Apple and Google stores across the world and prevent American companies from doing business with its parent company, Tencent. Light on details, the decree could prove cosmetic, crushing or something in between. If enforced strongly when it takes effect in 45 days, the order will take dead aim at China’s single most groundbreaking internet product, which 1.2 billion people use every month. An effective ban on the app in the United States would cut short millions of conversations between investors, business partners, family members and friends. The threat alone will likely start a new chapter in the deepening standoff between China and the United States over the future of technology.
However, the NYT also notes farther down in the article that the WeChat app is already known to be more malicious than TikTok:
Within China, the app is heavily censored and monitored by a newly empowered force of internet police. Outside China’s borders, the app has become a key conduit for the spread of Beijing’s propaganda. Chinese security forces have also regularly used WeChat to intimidate and silence members of the Chinese diaspora, including minority Uighurs seeking to raise awareness of harsh crackdowns in their homeland in western China.
The executive order tellingly spends much more time outlining the threat from WeChat than TikTok:
WeChat, a messaging, social media, and electronic payment application owned by the Chinese company Tencent Holdings Ltd., reportedly has over one billion users worldwide, including users in the United States. Like TikTok, WeChat automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users. This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information. In addition, the application captures the personal and proprietary information of Chinese nationals visiting the United States, thereby allowing the Chinese Communist Party a mechanism for keeping tabs on Chinese citizens who may be enjoying the benefits of a free society for the first time in their lives. For example, in March 2019, a researcher reportedly discovered a Chinese database containing billions of WeChat messages sent from users in not only China but also the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, and Australia. WeChat, like TikTok, also reportedly censors content that the Chinese Communist Party deems politically sensitive and may also be used for disinformation campaigns that benefit the Chinese Communist Party. These risks have led other countries, including Australia and India, to begin restricting or banning the use of WeChat. The United States must take aggressive action against the owner of WeChat to protect our national security.
TikTok owner Bytedance suggested that it might challenge Trump to a dance-off in US federal court (via Google Translate):
We have made it clear that we are willing to negotiate a solution with the US government so that we can continue to serve our users, creators, business partners, employees, and American society. However, in this process, the U.S. government has never followed due process of law or acted in accordance with the law. The source of the “report” cited by the executive order is unknown or unproven, and there is no substantive basis for the concern that the app “may” be used for false propaganda activities. In addition, TikTok’s questioned data collection behavior has always been a common practice in thousands of mobile apps around the world. We have made it clear that TikTok has never shared user data with the Chinese government, and has never reviewed content upon request. In fact, we have disclosed our review policy and algorithm source code through the establishment of a Transparency Center. No technology company of the same type has committed to fulfilling this responsibility. We even stated that we could sell our US business to a US company. This executive order would undermine the trust of global companies in the U.S. rule of law commitments. For decades, it has attracted foreign investment and promoted US economic growth. The order set a dangerous precedent that violated freedom of expression and open markets. We will make every effort to take all feasible measures to ensure that the rule of law is not abandoned and that our company and users are treated fairly. If the US government cannot treat us fairly, we will resort to the US courts.
Courts are likely to give Trump some leeway on this, especially considering the nature of the risks cited in the EO. When it comes to trade, national security, and foreign policy, the executive reaches its zenith of legitimate authority, although that’s not to say it’s entirely unlimited. However, Bytedance now faces a class-action lawsuit from angry parents of its users over TikTok’s data-privacy practices, which means it might be a lot less enthusiastic about the “rule of law commitments” it cites in this statement sooner rather than later.
This is a long-overdue move in constraining China’s economic and propagandistic interference in the US. Will it make Xi think twice about jousting with Trump? The WeChat ban will cut a lot deeper than the loss of its TikTok dance-off platform. It might be time to exit the barn and let the local kids have their dance to themselves.


hotair--2020-08-08--Wall of grandma: Two elderly women who stood up to the mob in Portland have become heroes in the nei

Wall of grandma: Two elderly women who stood up to the mob in Portland have become heroes in the neighborhood

Yesterday , Allahpundit wrote about the two elderly women in Portland who stood up to the mob vandalizing and setting fires at a police precinct .
Videos of the two women being confronted and splattered with paint by the crowd circulated widely on social media including by Portland police : I referred to the unknown woman as the wall of grandma because despite being alone and being harassed , she stood up to the entire crowd .
KGW 8 tracked down both women , who live in the neighborhood near the police precinct that was being vandalized .
Penny is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out a fire set in a trash can .
“ Wednesday night they broke windows and it was a real mess , ” she told KGW .
She added , “ I ’ m very , very pro Black Lives Matter but I just think that the vandalism sabotages the message.
” After Penny put out the fire , someone came up and stole her fire extinguisher while another protester used a paint can to try to smash the plywood outside the precinct .
Then the protesters lit the fire again .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mob was 77-year-old Coby .
She ’ s the one who got doused with paint .
“ I just got heated under the collar and I went up and said ‘ Hey , this is not okay , ' ” she said .
She told the crowd , “ You ’ re not helping my black friends.
” Another local channel caught up with a man named Jay who was part of the protest but appeared disturbed by what he saw .
He walked over to one of the two women after she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk her home to ensure her safety .
He told KOIN 6 “ Everybody has a right to their opinion .
That ’ s great but , you know , you start destroying things and burning things , you shouldn ’ t cry about getting tear-gassed.
” Here ’ s the KGW interview with Penny and Coby .
Neither woman plans to press charges but both are now being hailed as heroes by people in their neighborhood .

Yesterday, Allahpundit wrote about the two elderly women in Portland who stood up to the mob vandalizing and setting fires at a police precinct. Videos of the two women being confronted and splattered with paint by the crowd circulated widely on social media including by Portland police:
This unknown woman using a walker was confronted by the group currently outside East Precinct and paint was strewn all over her. pic.twitter.com/k1cCVMbNht — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) August 7, 2020
I referred to the unknown woman as the wall of grandma because despite being alone and being harassed, she stood up to the entire crowd.
KGW 8 tracked down both women, who live in the neighborhood near the police precinct that was being vandalized. Penny is 73-years-old and was the woman who put out a fire set in a trash can. “Wednesday night they broke windows and it was a real mess,” she told KGW. She added, “I’m very, very pro Black Lives Matter but I just think that the vandalism sabotages the message.”
After Penny put out the fire, someone came up and stole her fire extinguisher while another protester used a paint can to try to smash the plywood outside the precinct. Then the protesters lit the fire again.
The other woman who stood up to the mob was 77-year-old Coby. She’s the one who got doused with paint. “I just got heated under the collar and I went up and said ‘Hey, this is not okay,'” she said. She told the crowd, “You’re not helping my black friends.”
Another local channel caught up with a man named Jay who was part of the protest but appeared disturbed by what he saw. He walked over to one of the two women after she was hit with paint and offered to walk her home to ensure her safety. He told KOIN 6 “Everybody has a right to their opinion. That’s great but, you know, you start destroying things and burning things, you shouldn’t cry about getting tear-gassed.”
Here’s the KGW interview with Penny and Coby. Neither woman plans to press charges but both are now being hailed as heroes by people in their neighborhood.


hotair--2020-08-08--Breaking: Trump extends unemployment benefits through executive orders

I suppose we should have seen this coming .
As we ’ ve discussed here previously , Congress failed to reach an agreement that would extend federally enhanced unemployment benefits for those who lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic , previously set at $ 600 per week .
After talks broke down , the President signed an executive order this afternoon that would split the difference and provide an additional $ 400 per week to the jobless .
How this will play out with Republicans who wanted a more modest package and Democrats who claimed that the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be seen .
( NBC News ) President Donald Trump signed executive orders Saturday for coronavirus economic relief , upending negotiations with Congress after lawmakers failed to reach a deal on Friday .
The executive orders defer payroll taxes through the end of the year for Americans earning less than $ 100,000 a year .
They also defer student loan payments through the end of the year ; continue eviction moratoriums ; and extend enhanced unemployment benefits that expired last week , but at a reduced level of $ 400 instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m victorious on November 3rd , I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax , ” Trump said .
“ Joe Biden and the Democrats may not want that , they don ’ t want that.
” I don ’ t want to go back to the idea that Trump is playing three-dimensional political chess here , but this is a pretty good move .
Both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer had previously said that if the President tried to step in and take executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to court to block him .
Well , he ’ s done it .
So where does that leave Chuck and Nancy ?
They ’ ve supposedly been in the trenches fighting tooth and nail to extend the federal unemployment enhancement benefits .
They couldn ’ t cut a deal with Cocaine Mitch that Trump would ( supposedly ) approve , so everyone walked away from the table with no extension to the benefit .
As long as that harmed unemployed workers , it benefitted the Democrats who would see the angry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls ready to vote against the Republicans .
But now Donald Trump has stepped in with the Hammer of Thor and said that the unemployed could have 2/3 of the previous enhancement back to tide them over .
This leaves Chuck and Nancy in the position to either stop the President from helping all of those who are out of work or eat their previous words .
With apologies to all of the NeverTrumpers out there , this was a pretty brilliant play .
Speaker Pelosi can either back down on her previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the one to personally block the unemployed from receiving a boost .
This looks like one point to Trump , if not the entire game , set and match .
Perhaps the Democrats will come up with a counterstrategy over the weekend .

I suppose we should have seen this coming. As we’ve discussed here previously, Congress failed to reach an agreement that would extend federally enhanced unemployment benefits for those who lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, previously set at $600 per week. After talks broke down, the President signed an executive order this afternoon that would split the difference and provide an additional $400 per week to the jobless. How this will play out with Republicans who wanted a more modest package and Democrats who claimed that the President had no authority to do this remains to be seen. (NBC News)
President Donald Trump signed executive orders Saturday for coronavirus economic relief, upending negotiations with Congress after lawmakers failed to reach a deal on Friday. The executive orders defer payroll taxes through the end of the year for Americans earning less than $100,000 a year. They also defer student loan payments through the end of the year; continue eviction moratoriums; and extend enhanced unemployment benefits that expired last week, but at a reduced level of $400 instead of the prior $600. “If I’m victorious on November 3rd, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax,” Trump said. “Joe Biden and the Democrats may not want that, they don’t want that.”
I don’t want to go back to the idea that Trump is playing three-dimensional political chess here, but this is a pretty good move. Both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer had previously said that if the President tried to step in and take executive action on this matter that they would go to court to block him. Well, he’s done it.
So where does that leave Chuck and Nancy? They’ve supposedly been in the trenches fighting tooth and nail to extend the federal unemployment enhancement benefits. They couldn’t cut a deal with Cocaine Mitch that Trump would (supposedly) approve, so everyone walked away from the table with no extension to the benefit. As long as that harmed unemployed workers, it benefitted the Democrats who would see the angry army of unemployed showing up at the polls ready to vote against the Republicans.
But now Donald Trump has stepped in with the Hammer of Thor and said that the unemployed could have 2/3 of the previous enhancement back to tide them over. This leaves Chuck and Nancy in the position to either stop the President from helping all of those who are out of work or eat their previous words. With apologies to all of the NeverTrumpers out there, this was a pretty brilliant play. Speaker Pelosi can either back down on her previous threat and let the money flow or be the one to personally block the unemployed from receiving a boost.
This looks like one point to Trump, if not the entire game, set and match. Perhaps the Democrats will come up with a counterstrategy over the weekend.


hotair--2020-08-08--California weighs anti-Karen 911 call hate crime law

California Dreaming is more than a Beach Boys song , people .
( Younger readers can ask their parents about that reference . )
The legislature of the Golden State is fed up with all of the Karens out there misusing the 911 emergency call lines to commit racist acts of harassment and they ’ re dreaming of a solution .
And if they have their way , such instances will be treated as a hate crime , with stiffened penalties up to and including a $ 2,000 fine and a year in jail .
The legislation under discussion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on the floor of the Assembly yesterday .
If you think this sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen , then you ’ ve probably been paying attention to the news lately .
( CBS Los Angeles ) The California Legislature Friday will begin debating a bill which would make it against the law to make a false 911 call based on a person ’ s ethnic background , gender , religion or sexual orientation .
Assembly Bill 1775 would make it a hate crime to make a discriminatory 911 call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would come with a misdemeanor sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $ 2,000 .
AB 1775 is combining three previous bills under one , Huntington Park Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer said Thursday .
In addition to a stiff fine and potential jail time , AB-1775 would allow the person being reported on a false call to sue the caller for damages in civil court .
( You can read the full text of the bill here . )
There are some flaws with this idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , it ’ s already against the law to make false reports using the 911 system .
As with all so-called “ hate crime ” laws , this would just impose a more severe penalty to falsely report certain favored classes .
You can still call in a false report against a straight , Christian , cisgender , White male and only face the previous fine of $ 250 on the first offense and up to six months in the county jail for a subsequent violation .
A more serious concern comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a call as being “ false.
” If someone is chasing you through the park , they might be coming to tell you that you dropped your wallet .
On the other hand , they may be coming to take your wallet at knifepoint .
How long are you supposed to wait to find out before dialing 911 on the run ?
The linked CBS article once again makes reference to the now-infamous Central Park Karen because it ’ s apparently the only solid example the press can dredge up these days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ solid ” won ’ t be known until her court date , as we ’ ve covered here before . )
There ’ s a much bigger concern here as well .
Let ’ s say you run into a situation where you feel legitimately frightened for your personal safety , perhaps when the BLM rioters show up in your neighborhood and some of them appear to be armed .
Are people who are aware of this law going to hesitate to call for help out of fear of being arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit ?
If that hesitation leads to them being down on the ground before they can correct their error and take out their phone , you ’ ve generated a far worse outcome than the alternative , which would be a phone call leading to no legitimate threat or arrest .
Let ’ s also consider the consequences of each course of action or lack thereof and compare them .
If you call 911 over a suspicious-looking character and they turn out to not be a threat , what damages have been incurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a cop , assuming one shows up to investigate .
But the wrongly-suspected person winds up going about their business .
Now let ’ s consider what happens if that suspicious-looking character turns out to be armed and intent on robbing you , assaulting you or worse but you hesitated to call for fear of being arrested on hate crime charges .
I don ’ t think you need any help answering that one .
Look if someone is repeatedly calling 911 on their ex or some neighbor they have a beef @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trouble for them , by all means , arrest them for abusing the emergency helpline .
And since we clearly are living in the era of thought crimes , if you want to tack on some extra penalties if the person is a minority , I suppose you can do that as well .
But if someone makes a single 911 call in a situation where they may have legitimately felt threatened and they wind up going to jail , then this law will have proven itself to be an abomination .

California Dreaming is more than a Beach Boys song, people. (Younger readers can ask their parents about that reference.) The legislature of the Golden State is fed up with all of the Karens out there misusing the 911 emergency call lines to commit racist acts of harassment and they’re dreaming of a solution. And if they have their way, such instances will be treated as a hate crime, with stiffened penalties up to and including a $2,000 fine and a year in jail. The legislation under discussion is Assembly Bill AB-1775 and it was taken up on the floor of the Assembly yesterday. If you think this sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen, then you’ve probably been paying attention to the news lately. (CBS Los Angeles)
The California Legislature Friday will begin debating a bill which would make it against the law to make a false 911 call based on a person’s ethnic background, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Assembly Bill 1775 would make it a hate crime to make a discriminatory 911 call. Under the bill, doing so would come with a misdemeanor sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. AB 1775 is combining three previous bills under one, Huntington Park Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer said Thursday.
In addition to a stiff fine and potential jail time, AB-1775 would allow the person being reported on a false call to sue the caller for damages in civil court. (You can read the full text of the bill here.) There are some flaws with this idea that should be immediately obvious.
First of all, it’s already against the law to make false reports using the 911 system. As with all so-called “hate crime” laws, this would just impose a more severe penalty to falsely report certain favored classes. You can still call in a false report against a straight, Christian, cisgender, White male and only face the previous fine of $250 on the first offense and up to six months in the county jail for a subsequent violation.
A more serious concern comes with the question of what specifically qualifies a call as being “false.” If someone is chasing you through the park, they might be coming to tell you that you dropped your wallet. On the other hand, they may be coming to take your wallet at knifepoint. How long are you supposed to wait to find out before dialing 911 on the run? The linked CBS article once again makes reference to the now-infamous Central Park Karen because it’s apparently the only solid example the press can dredge up these days. (And whether or not that one is “solid” won’t be known until her court date, as we’ve covered here before.)
There’s a much bigger concern here as well. Let’s say you run into a situation where you feel legitimately frightened for your personal safety, perhaps when the BLM rioters show up in your neighborhood and some of them appear to be armed. Are people who are aware of this law going to hesitate to call for help out of fear of being arrested themselves or caught up in a ruinous lawsuit? If that hesitation leads to them being down on the ground before they can correct their error and take out their phone, you’ve generated a far worse outcome than the alternative, which would be a phone call leading to no legitimate threat or arrest.
Let’s also consider the consequences of each course of action or lack thereof and compare them. If you call 911 over a suspicious-looking character and they turn out to not be a threat, what damages have been incurred? You’ve wasted the time of a cop, assuming one shows up to investigate. But the wrongly-suspected person winds up going about their business. Now let’s consider what happens if that suspicious-looking character turns out to be armed and intent on robbing you, assaulting you or worse but you hesitated to call for fear of being arrested on hate crime charges. I don’t think you need any help answering that one.
Look if someone is repeatedly calling 911 on their ex or some neighbor they have a beef with, in the hopes of causing trouble for them, by all means, arrest them for abusing the emergency helpline. And since we clearly are living in the era of thought crimes, if you want to tack on some extra penalties if the person is a minority, I suppose you can do that as well. But if someone makes a single 911 call in a situation where they may have legitimately felt threatened and they wind up going to jail, then this law will have proven itself to be an abomination.


hotair--2020-08-08--Is Gov. Whitmer the dark horse candidate in the veepstakes race?

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer very quietly flew to Delaware last Sunday to meet with Joe Biden .
The natural conclusion is that she went to be interviewed in person for the job of vice-president .
Frankly , Whitmer has dropped off my radar but now it strikes me that she may just be a dark horse in the race to be Biden ’ s running mate .
Whitmer ’ s trip to Delaware was conveniently leaked to the press by two anonymous blabbermouths , described as “ two high-ranking Michigan Democrats who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly.
” Implied but unspoken is they were authorized to discuss the matter with the press .
I don ’ t make the rules , it ’ s just how the game works .
The governor has worked diligently to raise her profile nationally , taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to promote herself as a strong leader .
It has worked because she ended up on lots of cable and network shows being interviewed as an up and coming Democrat woman leader .
Biden and Whitmer already have a friendship .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Michigan .
She is in her first term as governor , having served in the Michigan House of Representatives and Michigan Senate before that .
Biden is now in the phase of the selection process where he meets with potential running mates in person to interview them .
Whitmer is believed to be the first to be interviewed .
That Delaware airport is reported to be about 20 miles from Biden ’ s home .
Both Team Biden and Team Whitmer declined to provide comments to reporters .
Saturday morning as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s campaign says that Biden claims to have already made his choice .
Contrary to the Associated Press report published today , NBC reported on Thursday that Biden was holding the last of his one-on-one interviews and Whitmer was still very much on his list .
Who knows what to believe with Biden ?
Perhaps his staff has made his decision and told him who he picked .
Biden is supposed to make his announcement during the coming week .
Democrats with knowledge of the process tell NBC News Whitmer did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential pick , but had long remained in the top tier for the only person with a vote in the process : Biden himself .
Top labor leaders in Whitmer ’ s battleground state tell NBC News that the Biden campaign has reached out to the state chapters of the UAW , AFL-CIO and Teamsters to sound them out about Whitmer .
That outreach began as early as January ahead of the Iowa caucuses , but intensified lately as the vetting process advanced .
“ I think what the national team recognizes is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat to become president if they can ’ t carry Michigan , ” said state Rep. Brian Elder , chair of the Michigan Legislative Labor Caucus .
To entertain the thought of a Whitmer pick , it could be looked at as a practical choice .
She ’ s the governor of a battleground state that Biden needs to win the presidency .
Trump ’ s victory in Michigan in the 2016 election was a squeaker .
He won by 10,704 votes .
In today ’ s Real Clear Politics average , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Michigan .
There is plenty of time for that number to tighten up , which I think it will .
Whitmer is a governor which brings a more well-rounded skill set to the job .
She ’ s run for elected office and won , which means she could put her experience to use on the national campaign trail .
She would be someone that voters in middle America could relate to , which Biden needs .
The swamp already has gone all-in for Biden , as have Democrats on both coasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Belt and the midwest , especially as Democrats realize Biden promises to bring back the policies from the Obama era that over-regulated businesses and shut down the energy sector at every opportunity .
Obama ’ s record on job creation is one of stagnation and Americans being told to settle for less while Trump ’ s record , pre-pandemic , is one of explosive job creation and historic levels of employment in all categories .
Biden pledged to pick a woman as his vice-president .
In today ’ s atmosphere , many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black woman , including me .
Whitmer is White and I just don ’ t think that will fly in the days of the Black Lives Matter protests and riots .
Joe Biden promised to nominate a Black woman for the next Supreme Court vacancy but who knows how long Ruth Bader Ginsburg will hold on ?
The vice-president pick is instant gratification for Black voters and White liberal social justice warriors .
Whitmer has made attempts to appease the BLM movement and as recently as Wednesday , just three days after meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health crisis .
Whitmer delivered the Democrats ’ response to President Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union address , which seems so long ago now .
She has been in some dust-ups with President Trump over the pandemic outbreak and the federal response to it .
Trump refers to her as “ that woman in Michigan ” .
And , she is a co-chair of Biden ’ s campaign .
We should know in a few days who Biden ’ s team picked for him .
I still think the choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rice or Kamala Harris .
I tend to favor Rice of those two choices .
She ’ s the one with a good working relationship with Biden and he feels comfortable with her .
Biden ’ s intent is to give America a third Obama term and she ’ s a strong choice for that .
Whitmer can pick a cabinet position .

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer very quietly flew to Delaware last Sunday to meet with Joe Biden. The natural conclusion is that she went to be interviewed in person for the job of vice-president. Frankly, Whitmer has dropped off my radar but now it strikes me that she may just be a dark horse in the race to be Biden’s running mate.
Whitmer’s trip to Delaware was conveniently leaked to the press by two anonymous blabbermouths, described as “two high-ranking Michigan Democrats who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.” Implied but unspoken is they were authorized to discuss the matter with the press. I don’t make the rules, it’s just how the game works. The governor has worked diligently to raise her profile nationally, taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to promote herself as a strong leader. It has worked because she ended up on lots of cable and network shows being interviewed as an up and coming Democrat woman leader.
Biden and Whitmer already have a friendship. He campaigned for her during her 2018 campaign in Michigan. She is in her first term as governor, having served in the Michigan House of Representatives and Michigan Senate before that. Biden is now in the phase of the selection process where he meets with potential running mates in person to interview them. Whitmer is believed to be the first to be interviewed.
Flight records show a chartered plane left Lansing’s Capital Region International Airport for Delaware Coastal Airport at 5:33 p.m. and returned at 11:16 p.m.
That Delaware airport is reported to be about 20 miles from Biden’s home. Both Team Biden and Team Whitmer declined to provide comments to reporters. Saturday morning as I write this, the FNC reporter covering Biden’s campaign says that Biden claims to have already made his choice. Contrary to the Associated Press report published today, NBC reported on Thursday that Biden was holding the last of his one-on-one interviews and Whitmer was still very much on his list. Who knows what to believe with Biden? Perhaps his staff has made his decision and told him who he picked. Biden is supposed to make his announcement during the coming week.
Democrats with knowledge of the process tell NBC News Whitmer did not just re-emerge as a potential vice presidential pick, but had long remained in the top tier for the only person with a vote in the process: Biden himself. Top labor leaders in Whitmer’s battleground state tell NBC News that the Biden campaign has reached out to the state chapters of the UAW, AFL-CIO and Teamsters to sound them out about Whitmer. That outreach began as early as January ahead of the Iowa caucuses, but intensified lately as the vetting process advanced. “I think what the national team recognizes is that it’s awfully hard for a Democrat to become president if they can’t carry Michigan,” said state Rep. Brian Elder, chair of the Michigan Legislative Labor Caucus.
To entertain the thought of a Whitmer pick, it could be looked at as a practical choice. She’s the governor of a battleground state that Biden needs to win the presidency. Trump’s victory in Michigan in the 2016 election was a squeaker. He won by 10,704 votes. In today’s Real Clear Politics average, Biden is up 7.5% over Trump in Michigan. There is plenty of time for that number to tighten up, which I think it will.
Whitmer is a governor which brings a more well-rounded skill set to the job. She’s run for elected office and won, which means she could put her experience to use on the national campaign trail. She would be someone that voters in middle America could relate to, which Biden needs. The swamp already has gone all-in for Biden, as have Democrats on both coasts. Biden needs help in the Rust Belt and the midwest, especially as Democrats realize Biden promises to bring back the policies from the Obama era that over-regulated businesses and shut down the energy sector at every opportunity. Obama’s record on job creation is one of stagnation and Americans being told to settle for less while Trump’s record, pre-pandemic, is one of explosive job creation and historic levels of employment in all categories.
Biden pledged to pick a woman as his vice-president. In today’s atmosphere, many people assume that he has to pick a Black woman, including me. Whitmer is White and I just don’t think that will fly in the days of the Black Lives Matter protests and riots. Joe Biden promised to nominate a Black woman for the next Supreme Court vacancy but who knows how long Ruth Bader Ginsburg will hold on? The vice-president pick is instant gratification for Black voters and White liberal social justice warriors. Whitmer has made attempts to appease the BLM movement and as recently as Wednesday, just three days after meeting with Biden, declared racism a public health crisis.
Whitmer has sought to address racism and racial inequity. In April, she created a task force to address the pandemic’s racial disparities and later proposed police reforms in the wake of George Floyd’s death. On Wednesday — days after visiting Biden — she declared racism a public health crisis, created an advisory council of Black leaders and required implicit bias training for all state employees.
Whitmer delivered the Democrats’ response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, which seems so long ago now. She has been in some dust-ups with President Trump over the pandemic outbreak and the federal response to it. Trump refers to her as “that woman in Michigan”. And, she is a co-chair of Biden’s campaign. We should know in a few days who Biden’s team picked for him. I still think the choice has been narrowed down to either Susan Rice or Kamala Harris. I tend to favor Rice of those two choices. She’s the one with a good working relationship with Biden and he feels comfortable with her. Biden’s intent is to give America a third Obama term and she’s a strong choice for that. Whitmer can pick a cabinet position.


hotair--2020-08-08--NPR: Brennan's not a target in Durham's probe of Crossfire Hurricane after all

Will the probe of Crossfire Hurricane turn out to be a bust ?
NBC News reported on Thursday that John Durham had requested an interview with former CIA Director John Brennan .
That looked like a sign that the US Attorney ’ s investigation of the FBI ’ s Operation Crossfire Hurricane had gone all the way to the top , and that the probe would soon be completed : The investigation ordered by Attorney General William Barr into how the CIA and the FBI looked into the Trump campaign ’ s connections to Russia ’ s 2016 election interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people familiar with it say .
One indication is that the prosecutor in charge , Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham , has asked to interview former CIA Director John Brennan , according to a person familiar with the request .
Brennan has agreed to be interviewed , and the details are being worked out , the person said .
… Brennan , a vocal critic of Trump and an NBC News analyst , has been the subject of intense scrutiny by Durham .
Brennan was director of the CIA from 2013 until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times reported in December that the prosecutor was reviewing Brennan ’ s emails , call logs and other records , which was confirmed to NBC News by a person familiar with the matter .
That sounded intriguing … but perhaps too good to be true .
An NPR report late yesterday that focused more on the potential for an “ October surprise ” from the Durham investigation also contained this little nugget ( via the Washington Examiner ) : Durham has been on the job for more than a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigation to believe he may be close to the end .
One such source told NPR that Durham has asked to interview former President Barack Obama ’ s CIA director , John Brennan , confirming a report by NBC News .
That source said both sides are trying to iron out details for the interview , which largely involves technical questions .
The source added that Brennan has been told he is not a target of prosecutors .
Emphasis mine .
Bear in mind that this is a term of art , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probe , and not a fixed label .
In any investigation , a person can start off as a witness , turn into a subject , and then become a target .
The process can work in the opposite direction , too ; this site gives a pretty good overview of the official Department of Justice definitions , while warning at the same time that they ’ re essentially meaningless .
At one time , Donald Trump was told he wasn ’ t a target in Operation Crossfire Hurricane , but he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became a target whether the FBI admitted it or not .
At this late date , however , Brennan ’ s status as a non-target is presumably more static , assuming this report is accurate , of course .
Brennan could always leap onto a table and yell , “ OF COURSE IT WAS ME ALL ALONG , YOU FOOLS !
!
” , which could tend to change one ’ s status in a federal investigation .
Short of that , and again assuming NPR ’ s source is correct , Durham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General William Barr has already said publicly that Durham ’ s not going after Barack Obama or Joe Biden , and NBC reported at the link above that James Clapper has been told that Durham ’ s not interested in interviewing him as part of this investigation .
Who does that leave , if this is true ?
Probably no one outside the FBI , but perhaps the top man in charge at that time might have reason to sweat .
Sally Yates accused James Comey of “ going rogue ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she defended the decision to investigate Flynn .
She also went after lower-echelon FBI figures for submitting false information on the Carter Page FISA warrants : In an exchange with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham during a hearing on the FBI ’ s “ Crossfire Hurricane ” investigation , Yates was asked whether she authorized the FBI ’ s January 24 , 2017 , interview of Flynn .
“ I didn ’ t authorize that interview because I wasn ’ t told about it in advance , ” Yates , who appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when she heard about the FBI ’ s interview with Flynn , “ I was upset that Director Comey didn ’ t coordinate this with us and acted unilaterally.
” Graham , a Republican from South Carolina , asked whether Comey went “ rogue ” with sending agents to speak with Flynn , and Yates responded , “ You could use that term , yes.
” … Yates told the Senate Judiciary Committee that had she known the warrant applications submitted to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court contained inaccurate information , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed it.
” “ I believe that the Department of Justice and the FBI have a duty of candor with the FISA court that was not met , ” she said .
One of the attorneys involved in that process , Kevin Clinesmith , already faces potential prosecution .
Inspector General Michael Horowitz made a criminal referral on Clinesmith for allegedly tampering with evidence in order to support the warrant application .
The question is whether Durham will find enough to charge others with crimes in the Crossfire Hurricane probe .
At this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only be focusing on lower-level figures in the scandal — perhaps as high as Comey , maybe more along the lines of Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe .
If so , that will disappoint many who suspected this went all the way to the Oval Office .
Even a Comey indictment wouldn ’ t be enough to prove a wide-ranging political conspiracy against Trump in the Obama administration , and that seems like a long shot in the Durham probe anyway .
However , if Durham feels compelled to write a report laying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indeed have more impact — but Barr has all but committed to sticking to indictments as the only public statements from the Durham probe .
Will he stick to that ?

Will the probe of Crossfire Hurricane turn out to be a bust? NBC News reported on Thursday that John Durham had requested an interview with former CIA Director John Brennan. That looked like a sign that the US Attorney’s investigation of the FBI’s Operation Crossfire Hurricane had gone all the way to the top, and that the probe would soon be completed:
The investigation ordered by Attorney General William Barr into how the CIA and the FBI looked into the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia’s 2016 election interference operation may be nearing a conclusion, people familiar with it say. One indication is that the prosecutor in charge, Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham, has asked to interview former CIA Director John Brennan, according to a person familiar with the request. Brennan has agreed to be interviewed, and the details are being worked out, the person said. … Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump and an NBC News analyst, has been the subject of intense scrutiny by Durham. Brennan was director of the CIA from 2013 until the day of Trump’s inauguration. The New York Times reported in December that the prosecutor was reviewing Brennan’s emails, call logs and other records, which was confirmed to NBC News by a person familiar with the matter.
That sounded intriguing … but perhaps too good to be true. An NPR report late yesterday that focused more on the potential for an “October surprise” from the Durham investigation also contained this little nugget (via the Washington Examiner):
Durham has been on the job for more than a year now, leading some lawyers familiar with the investigation to believe he may be close to the end. One such source told NPR that Durham has asked to interview former President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, confirming a report by NBC News. That source said both sides are trying to iron out details for the interview, which largely involves technical questions. The source added that Brennan has been told he is not a target of prosecutors.
Emphasis mine. Bear in mind that this is a term of art, something we learned again during the special-counsel probe, and not a fixed label. In any investigation, a person can start off as a witness, turn into a subject, and then become a target. The process can work in the opposite direction, too; this site gives a pretty good overview of the official Department of Justice definitions, while warning at the same time that they’re essentially meaningless. At one time, Donald Trump was told he wasn’t a target in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, but he was at least a subject, and eventually became a target whether the FBI admitted it or not.
At this late date, however, Brennan’s status as a non-target is presumably more static, assuming this report is accurate, of course. Brennan could always leap onto a table and yell, “OF COURSE IT WAS ME ALL ALONG, YOU FOOLS!!”, which could tend to change one’s status in a federal investigation. Short of that, and again assuming NPR’s source is correct, Durham’s not going after Brennan. Attorney General William Barr has already said publicly that Durham’s not going after Barack Obama or Joe Biden, and NBC reported at the link above that James Clapper has been told that Durham’s not interested in interviewing him as part of this investigation.
Who does that leave, if this is true? Probably no one outside the FBI, but perhaps the top man in charge at that time might have reason to sweat. Sally Yates accused James Comey of “going rogue” in his pursuit of Michael Flynn, although she defended the decision to investigate Flynn. She also went after lower-echelon FBI figures for submitting false information on the Carter Page FISA warrants:
In an exchange with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham during a hearing on the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, Yates was asked whether she authorized the FBI’s January 24, 2017, interview of Flynn. “I didn’t authorize that interview because I wasn’t told about it in advance,” Yates, who appeared remotely, told lawmakers. Yates said that when she heard about the FBI’s interview with Flynn, “I was upset that Director Comey didn’t coordinate this with us and acted unilaterally.” Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, asked whether Comey went “rogue” with sending agents to speak with Flynn, and Yates responded, “You could use that term, yes.” … Yates told the Senate Judiciary Committee that had she known the warrant applications submitted to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court contained inaccurate information, “I certainly wouldn’t have signed it.” “I believe that the Department of Justice and the FBI have a duty of candor with the FISA court that was not met,” she said.
One of the attorneys involved in that process, Kevin Clinesmith, already faces potential prosecution. Inspector General Michael Horowitz made a criminal referral on Clinesmith for allegedly tampering with evidence in order to support the warrant application. The question is whether Durham will find enough to charge others with crimes in the Crossfire Hurricane probe. At this point, it appears that Durham might only be focusing on lower-level figures in the scandal — perhaps as high as Comey, maybe more along the lines of Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe.
If so, that will disappoint many who suspected this went all the way to the Oval Office. Even a Comey indictment wouldn’t be enough to prove a wide-ranging political conspiracy against Trump in the Obama administration, and that seems like a long shot in the Durham probe anyway. However, if Durham feels compelled to write a report laying out a larger narrative, that may indeed have more impact — but Barr has all but committed to sticking to indictments as the only public statements from the Durham probe. Will he stick to that?


hotair--2020-08-08--Biden tells Fox News: Yeah, I've chosen my running mate

Given how he answered Peter Doocy ’ s follow-up question here , this looks like a case of him being flip , not seriously confirming that he ’ s made a choice .
It ’ d be odd , to put it mildly , if the first news outlet to confirm that the Democratic VP race is over was Fox News , as Biden was zipping by on a bike .
Even odder , in fact , considering that there ’ s some history between Biden and Doocy .
On the other hand , he ’ s supposed to announce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t decided on someone already , he must be close .
The newsiest part here may be the fact that a 77-year-old can ride a bike with a mask on and have no difficulty breathing .
Masks are safe !
His spokesman said afterward that he was joking : People sat up and paid attention to the clip anyway since it jibes with the rumors yesterday that he ’ d made his selection , which happened to coincide with news of Susan Rice offloading stock .
Rice did an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she ’ s worried about Republicans revisiting the misinformation she famously gave to the Sunday shows about the Benghazi attack back in 2012 , should she be chosen as VP .
She ’ s talking tough : Frankly , for the Republicans to be harping on Benghazi in 2020 , when under Donald Trump ’ s watch , three Americans were killed on a U.S. military base in Pensacola , Florida , last year in a terrorist attack inspired by al-Qaeda—what appears to be the first foreign-directed terrorist attack on U.S. soil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adequately vet the Saudi military personnel who are being trained on that base .
But no investigation , no outrage , not a boo out of congressional Republicans .
Four American servicemen were killed in a terrorist attack in Niger in West Africa on Donald Trump ’ s watch , and not a boo , not an investigation .
Not an expression of concern .
So this is all political distraction .
And in a year when over 160,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 because of this president ’ s ineptitude and incompetence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own political interests above the health and well-being and the economy of the United States and the ability to educate our kids … they ’ re going to talk about Benghazi ?
I say fine , let them .
Not all Republicans are sharpening their knives for her .
To the contrary : Karen has a post coming up about the fact that Gretchen Whitmer was interviewed by Biden for the VP slot last weekend , a minor surprise considering that his shortlist was thought to consist exclusively of black women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s seriously considering Whitmer , but… Right , neither Harris nor Rice nor Bass will unite black Democrats , but I think bypassing half a dozen black women to settle on a white one in the end would *alienate* some Democratic voters , whether black , progressive , or both .
Lefties are already writing pieces like this punishing Biden for his pledge early on that he ’ d choose a woman as his running mate .
If they ’ re willing to smack him for a gesture he made to promote women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d write if he snubbed multiple black candidates after endless reports about Harris , Rice , and Bass as the final three .
There is certainly representational value in electing more women in a country that has been disgracefully underrepresented by anyone other than white men , and that ’ s what Biden ’ s pledge was trying to address .
But the months that have passed , with no player yet named , have left only the hollowness of that value and … nothing else .
Biden may have intended this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility for women but wound up creating a pre-narrowed field , from which he , the benevolent corrector of representational deficiency ( who had just aggressively run against six women ) , would eventually pluck some lucky contestant .
He also ensured that no man could feel that he had been passed over for a woman and no woman could feel that she ’ d been selected as the right person for the job , merely as the right woman .
And oh , how the conversation about what it means to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the void created by the absence of a real live choice , has soured .
Whitmer got the courtesy of an interview because the state she governs is crucially important this fall .
Team Joe probably leaked the news themselves just to flatter Michigan voters .
It won ’ t be Whitmer .
Exit quotation from WaPo reporter Jose Del Real , making an astute point : “ This video is [ a ] sort of bizarre gift from Fox to the Biden campaign .
Looped video of Biden exercising outdoors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the exact opposite image the Trump campaign has tried to paint of an enfeebled elderly man locked in his basement .
”

Given how he answered Peter Doocy’s follow-up question here, this looks like a case of him being flip, not seriously confirming that he’s made a choice. It’d be odd, to put it mildly, if the first news outlet to confirm that the Democratic VP race is over was Fox News, as Biden was zipping by on a bike. Even odder, in fact, considering that there’s some history between Biden and Doocy.
On the other hand, he’s supposed to announce his pick this week. If he hasn’t decided on someone already, he must be close.
The newsiest part here may be the fact that a 77-year-old can ride a bike with a mask on and have no difficulty breathing. Masks are safe!
His spokesman said afterward that he was joking:
Folks, this is clearly a joke. When Vice President Biden has made a decision on who his running mate will be, he will let the American people know. And can confirm, it's not @pdoocy of @FoxNews. https://t.co/iMfqMGepTE — TJ Ducklo (@TDucklo) August 8, 2020
People sat up and paid attention to the clip anyway since it jibes with the rumors yesterday that he’d made his selection, which happened to coincide with news of Susan Rice offloading stock. Rice did an interview with The Atlantic yesterday afternoon and was asked if she’s worried about Republicans revisiting the misinformation she famously gave to the Sunday shows about the Benghazi attack back in 2012, should she be chosen as VP. She’s talking tough:
Frankly, for the Republicans to be harping on Benghazi in 2020, when under Donald Trump’s watch, three Americans were killed on a U.S. military base in Pensacola, Florida, last year in a terrorist attack inspired by al-Qaeda—what appears to be the first foreign-directed terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11—because the Defense Department failed to adequately vet the Saudi military personnel who are being trained on that base. But no investigation, no outrage, not a boo out of congressional Republicans. Four American servicemen were killed in a terrorist attack in Niger in West Africa on Donald Trump’s watch, and not a boo, not an investigation. Not an expression of concern. So this is all political distraction. And in a year when over 160,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 because of this president’s ineptitude and incompetence and disregard for human life, putting his own political interests above the health and well-being and the economy of the United States and the ability to educate our kids … they’re going to talk about Benghazi? I say fine, let them.
Not all Republicans are sharpening their knives for her. To the contrary:
I’ve been severe Susan Rice critic. I far prefer her to Harris. I don’t expect to agree with a Biden admin. And I deeply disagree with Rice on Obama agenda. But she’s a serious person, and I think she’ll be more open to traditional GOP thinking on protecting America. — Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) August 7, 2020
Karen has a post coming up about the fact that Gretchen Whitmer was interviewed by Biden for the VP slot last weekend, a minor surprise considering that his shortlist was thought to consist exclusively of black women. I don’t think he’s seriously considering Whitmer, but…
In other words, if Harris allies would not be very happy with the choice of Rice or Bass, and vice versa … well then, maybe you aren't sure you can make a choice that unites Black Democrats behind you anyway. And then you start considering Whitmer. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 8, 2020
Right, neither Harris nor Rice nor Bass will unite black Democrats, but I think bypassing half a dozen black women to settle on a white one in the end would *alienate* some Democratic voters, whether black, progressive, or both. Lefties are already writing pieces like this punishing Biden for his pledge early on that he’d choose a woman as his running mate. If they’re willing to smack him for a gesture he made to promote women within the party, imagine what they’d write if he snubbed multiple black candidates after endless reports about Harris, Rice, and Bass as the final three.
There is certainly representational value in electing more women in a country that has been disgracefully underrepresented by anyone other than white men, and that’s what Biden’s pledge was trying to address. But the months that have passed, with no player yet named, have left only the hollowness of that value and … nothing else. Biden may have intended this to be about an imagined expansion of possibility for women but wound up creating a pre-narrowed field, from which he, the benevolent corrector of representational deficiency (who had just aggressively run against six women), would eventually pluck some lucky contestant. He also ensured that no man could feel that he had been passed over for a woman and no woman could feel that she’d been selected as the right person for the job, merely as the right woman. And oh, how the conversation about what it means to be the right kind of woman, unfolding in the void created by the absence of a real live choice, has soured.
Whitmer got the courtesy of an interview because the state she governs is crucially important this fall. Team Joe probably leaked the news themselves just to flatter Michigan voters. It won’t be Whitmer.
Exit quotation from WaPo reporter Jose Del Real, making an astute point: “This video is [a] sort of bizarre gift from Fox to the Biden campaign. Looped video of Biden exercising outdoors, ably turning corners on his bike, is the exact opposite image the Trump campaign has tried to paint of an enfeebled elderly man locked in his basement.”


hotair--2020-08-08--Visits to nursing homes get the green light in Texas - with conditions

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission announced on Thursday that for the first time in five months , visitors will be allowed in Texas nursing homes and assisted living facilities .
That ’ s good news .
The bad news is that there is a lot of confusion about the announcement .
It may take a while to answer the questions put forth by the facilities .
By Friday , it became clear that the policy reversal brought confusion to many who are directed affected .
Visitors will be allowed on a limited basis only if the nursing home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will also accept visitors and the requirements for those facilities will be a little more lenient than the ones for nursing homes .
The rules put forward in the press release from the state agency had not been published for nursing home providers to see .
Visits will not start right away .
It will take some time to determine which facilities qualify and for provisions to be made .
At assisted-living facilities , some indoor visits will be permitted , provided there are plexiglass barriers , there are no active cases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are no confirmed cases among staff in the last two weeks .
Physical contact between residents and visitors will not be permitted , state officials said .
The restrictions are tighter on nursing facilities , which must test staff members weekly and can offer only outdoor visits .
“ This is a rapidly evolving situation and we are constantly assessing what actions are necessary to keep residents and staff safe in these facilities , ” said Phil Wilson , the acting executive commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission .
“ By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can more effectively prevent the spread of COVID-19 and help us achieve our shared goal of reuniting residents with their families and friends.
” With the spike in COVID-19 cases in Texas during June and July , a surge was seen in long term care facilities .
As of Thursday , 57 % of nursing homes still report at least one active case .
More than a third of Texas ’ deaths are from patients in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities .
Families and patient advocates have been asking for limited visitations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loved ones and friends who have been cut off from the outside world .
The elderly and most vulnerable to the coronavirus are slipping through the cracks , according to some Texas lawmakers .
“ Families are just desperate right now to be able to see their loved ones , ” Alexa Schoeman , deputy state ombudsman in HHSC ’ s office of the long-term care ombudsman , said in an interview last week .
Kevin Warren , president and CEO of the Texas Health Care Association , called Thursday ’ s announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview last week , he said reconnecting families with their loved ones was “ a priority ” and that “ it should be done as quickly as we can.
” Some Texas lawmakers had been agitating for a policy change for weeks .
Last month , state Rep. Scott Sanford , R-McKinney , and state Sen. Charles Perry , R-Lubbock , along with dozens of other signatories , asked state health officials to loosen restrictions on visitations for patients with memory difficulties and mental disabilities .
“ We will not stand to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” they wrote .
One problem with putting the change in policy into effect is that there is about a two week lag in data published by the state on coronavirus cases in individual facilities , and it only goes back to July 13 .
Using the current data , at least 550 of the state ’ s 1,223 licensed nursing facilities — or 45 percent — would be disqualified .
With the rule that all staff must be tested weekly , the shortage of tests comes into play .
The federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes but not all facilities in the state have received them yet .
Nursing homes need more clarity , according to those running them .
Even with the details that need to be worked out , though , it is still good news .
Any visitation is better than no visitation , said Patty Ducayet , the state ’ s long-term care ombudsman , who has repeatedly heard from family members that virtual visits fall short in meeting the needs of older residents and others who require a higher level of care .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules as of midday Friday raised concerns .
Among her questions : What happens if a facility meets the requirements but still refuses to allow visits or can not provide weekly testing ?
Will personal protective equipment be given for visitors ?
Will visitation ever be allowed at facilities with active COVID-19 cases ?
( She believes it should . )
Still , she said , “ This is something , and something is better than nothing.
” This is a first step , a step in the right direction for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also be noted that facilities who meet the requirements but are not comfortable with visitors do not have to allow visitation .
Nursing homes have to submit a form showing they meet the requirements .
Visits have to be scheduled in advance , residents have to wear a face mask if possible , and social distancing must be maintained .
No physical contact with the nursing home resident is allowed .
Assisted living facilities have a little more flexibility .
There is no requirement for weekly testing of staff and there is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a plexiglass barrier .
This gives hope to families worried about loved ones in these facilities .
Everyone can use that during these stressful times .

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission announced on Thursday that for the first time in five months, visitors will be allowed in Texas nursing homes and assisted living facilities. That’s good news. The bad news is that there is a lot of confusion about the announcement. It may take a while to answer the questions put forth by the facilities.
By Friday, it became clear that the policy reversal brought confusion to many who are directed affected. Visitors will be allowed on a limited basis only if the nursing home meets specific requirements. Assisted living facilities will also accept visitors and the requirements for those facilities will be a little more lenient than the ones for nursing homes. The rules put forward in the press release from the state agency had not been published for nursing home providers to see.
Visits will not start right away. It will take some time to determine which facilities qualify and for provisions to be made.
At assisted-living facilities, some indoor visits will be permitted, provided there are plexiglass barriers, there are no active cases of the novel coronavirus among residents and there are no confirmed cases among staff in the last two weeks. Physical contact between residents and visitors will not be permitted, state officials said. The restrictions are tighter on nursing facilities, which must test staff members weekly and can offer only outdoor visits. “This is a rapidly evolving situation and we are constantly assessing what actions are necessary to keep residents and staff safe in these facilities,” said Phil Wilson, the acting executive commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission. “By following these procedures and rules, facilities can more effectively prevent the spread of COVID-19 and help us achieve our shared goal of reuniting residents with their families and friends.”
With the spike in COVID-19 cases in Texas during June and July, a surge was seen in long term care facilities. As of Thursday, 57% of nursing homes still report at least one active case. More than a third of Texas’ deaths are from patients in nursing homes and assisted-living facilities. Families and patient advocates have been asking for limited visitations, though, in order to visit their loved ones and friends who have been cut off from the outside world. The elderly and most vulnerable to the coronavirus are slipping through the cracks, according to some Texas lawmakers.
“Families are just desperate right now to be able to see their loved ones,” Alexa Schoeman, deputy state ombudsman in HHSC’s office of the long-term care ombudsman, said in an interview last week. Kevin Warren, president and CEO of the Texas Health Care Association, called Thursday’s announcement “a great step forward.” In an interview last week, he said reconnecting families with their loved ones was “a priority” and that “it should be done as quickly as we can.” Some Texas lawmakers had been agitating for a policy change for weeks. Last month, state Rep. Scott Sanford, R-McKinney, and state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, along with dozens of other signatories, asked state health officials to loosen restrictions on visitations for patients with memory difficulties and mental disabilities. “We will not stand to let these Texans fall through the cracks,” they wrote.
One problem with putting the change in policy into effect is that there is about a two week lag in data published by the state on coronavirus cases in individual facilities, and it only goes back to July 13. Using the current data, at least 550 of the state’s 1,223 licensed nursing facilities — or 45 percent — would be disqualified. With the rule that all staff must be tested weekly, the shortage of tests comes into play. The federal government is sending testing devices to nursing homes but not all facilities in the state have received them yet. Nursing homes need more clarity, according to those running them. Even with the details that need to be worked out, though, it is still good news.
Any visitation is better than no visitation, said Patty Ducayet, the state’s long-term care ombudsman, who has repeatedly heard from family members that virtual visits fall short in meeting the needs of older residents and others who require a higher level of care. But she said the general outline of the rules as of midday Friday raised concerns. Among her questions: What happens if a facility meets the requirements but still refuses to allow visits or cannot provide weekly testing? Will personal protective equipment be given for visitors? Will visitation ever be allowed at facilities with active COVID-19 cases? (She believes it should.) Still, she said, “This is something, and something is better than nothing.”
This is a first step, a step in the right direction for the elderly and their families. It should also be noted that facilities who meet the requirements but are not comfortable with visitors do not have to allow visitation. Nursing homes have to submit a form showing they meet the requirements. Visits have to be scheduled in advance, residents have to wear a face mask if possible, and social distancing must be maintained. No physical contact with the nursing home resident is allowed.
Assisted living facilities have a little more flexibility. There is no requirement for weekly testing of staff and there is an option for visits to take place indoors with a plexiglass barrier.
This gives hope to families worried about loved ones in these facilities. Everyone can use that during these stressful times.


hotair--2020-08-08--Seriously? The NYC Molotov bombers were "young and idealistic lawyers?"

It ’ s now been more than two months since we learned the identities of the two New York City attorneys who blew up an NYPD vehicle with a Molotov cocktail on May 31st ( and were caught on camera doing it ) .
The details of their activities that evening were quickly ferreted out by investigators and they were arrested .
But that doesn ’ t mean that Colinford Mattis , 32 , and Urooj Rahman , 31 , don ’ t still have their cheerleaders in the press .
The pair are facing 45 years to life for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to view them as misunderstood activists , lashing out at an unfair system .
The first indication of this phenomenon that I noticed this week came from “ militant non-racialist lawyer Rochard Spoor on Twitter .
I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw that one .
“ Young and idealistic lawyers ?
” What Spoor was referring to was an article in New York Magazine by Lisa Miller .
In a long and carefully crafted think piece , Miller builds a case for seeing Rahman and Mattis as misunderstood heroes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their life stories , noting that both of them came from less than affluent backgrounds to obtain law degrees and good jobs in Gotham .
Then , dealing with the events of the night in question , Miller really pours on the sugar , describing how the police car they blew up had “ already been vandalized ” anyway , so it probably wasn ’ t such a big deal , right ?
And this “ lapse in judgment ” was actually admirable , with the punishment they are facing far exceeding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , she claims that the Bad Orange Man and the police do far worse .
( Emphasis added ) When a president and his advisers seem to regard the law as an obstacle course ; when an attorney general metes out favors , not justice ; and when immigrant children are held in cages and men are killed on video by police , some lawyers may want to embrace a more flexible definition of “ lawless.
” As recently as a few years ago , even a progressive-minded lawyer might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political protest as professionally unbecoming .
Today , some of Mattis and Rahman ’ s friends may concede in private that throwing a Molotov cocktail represents a lapse in judgment , but none are willing to discuss the degree to which their friends may have been ethically , professionally , morally , or legally out of bounds .
Instead , they emphasize that violence against government property , especially in the midst of political upheaval , is not the same as violence against a person ; that the prosecution of their friends for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vandalism is far more extreme than the crime itself ; that it amounts to a criminalization of dissent and reflects a broader right-wing crusade against people of color and the progressive left — and , as such , demonstrates precisely the horror of the system they were out in the streets that night to protest .
There is a version of the Rahman and Mattis story in which they are civil-rights heroes , even martyrs , instead of professionals who crossed a line .
It ’ s hard to know where to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were ) both officers of the court .
As such , they are held to a higher standard than most citizens in the first place .
But pretending that this was some sort of “ momentary ” lapse of judgment in the heat of a frenzy of anger at racial injustice is simply a false narrative .
No matter how challenging their early lives may have been or admirable some of their previous work was , this attack was no spur of the moment lapse .
Miller herself points out the same thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rahman gave an interview prior to the attack , saying “ This s*** won ’ t ever stop unless we f***ing take it all down , ” and “ This has got to stop , and the only way they hear us is through violence , through the means that they use.
” Other factors Miller conveniently ignores include the video footage ( and receipts ! )
of Mattis purchasing the materials needed to build the Molotovs .
Prior to the actual attack , the pair were seen attempting to distribute the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the street .
And they successfully destroyed a police cruiser , even if some other rioters had already broken the windows on it .
Nearly everyone has had some “ lapse in judgment ” they probably regret over the course of their lives .
You might raise your voice in anger at a friend or colleague in a fit of temper .
You may have been tempted to experiment with some recreational substances in violation of the law .
These things happen .
But spending several hours constructing firebombs , attempting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then blowing up an emergency response vehicle does not fall into that category .
There are special laws against such actions for a reason .
The fact that these two were officers of the court only compounds their level of responsibility rather than mitigating it .
They are facing a very severe penalty indeed , but they brought this on themselves .
Too many of our cities are falling under mob rule and being gutted by rioters .
Having attorneys abetting this destruction only hastens the decline we ’ re experiencing .

It’s now been more than two months since we learned the identities of the two New York City attorneys who blew up an NYPD vehicle with a Molotov cocktail on May 31st (and were caught on camera doing it). The details of their activities that evening were quickly ferreted out by investigators and they were arrested. But that doesn’t mean that Colinford Mattis, 32, and Urooj Rahman, 31, don’t still have their cheerleaders in the press. The pair are facing 45 years to life for the attack, but some observers seem to view them as misunderstood activists, lashing out at an unfair system. The first indication of this phenomenon that I noticed this week came from “militant non-racialist lawyer Rochard Spoor on Twitter.
A terribly sad story. Two young and idealistic lawyers, get wrapped up in the BLM protest movement. In a moment of madness they throw a Molotov cocktail into an abandoned police car and burn it. Now they face a minimum 35 years in a federal prison. https://t.co/o8aRqjOSwY — Richard Spoor (@Richard_Spoor) August 5, 2020
A terribly sad story. Two young and idealistic lawyers, get wrapped up in the BLM protest movement. In a moment of madness they throw a Molotov cocktail into an abandoned police car and burn it. Now they face a minimum 35 years in a federal prison.
I nearly spit out my coffee when I saw that one. “Young and idealistic lawyers?” What Spoor was referring to was an article in New York Magazine by Lisa Miller. In a long and carefully crafted think piece, Miller builds a case for seeing Rahman and Mattis as misunderstood heroes for the marginalized and downtrodden. She tells their life stories, noting that both of them came from less than affluent backgrounds to obtain law degrees and good jobs in Gotham.
Then, dealing with the events of the night in question, Miller really pours on the sugar, describing how the police car they blew up had “already been vandalized” anyway, so it probably wasn’t such a big deal, right? And this “lapse in judgment” was actually admirable, with the punishment they are facing far exceeding the seriousness of the firebombing. And, of course, she claims that the Bad Orange Man and the police do far worse. (Emphasis added)
When a president and his advisers seem to regard the law as an obstacle course; when an attorney general metes out favors, not justice; and when immigrant children are held in cages and men are killed on video by police, some lawyers may want to embrace a more flexible definition of “lawless.” As recently as a few years ago, even a progressive-minded lawyer might have regarded fervent, visible participation in a political protest as professionally unbecoming. Today, some of Mattis and Rahman’s friends may concede in private that throwing a Molotov cocktail represents a lapse in judgment, but none are willing to discuss the degree to which their friends may have been ethically, professionally, morally, or legally out of bounds. Instead, they emphasize that violence against government property, especially in the midst of political upheaval, is not the same as violence against a person; that the prosecution of their friends for an act of what amounted to political vandalism is far more extreme than the crime itself; that it amounts to a criminalization of dissent and reflects a broader right-wing crusade against people of color and the progressive left — and, as such, demonstrates precisely the horror of the system they were out in the streets that night to protest. There is a version of the Rahman and Mattis story in which they are civil-rights heroes, even martyrs, instead of professionals who crossed a line.
It’s hard to know where to begin. Rahman and Mattis are (or were) both officers of the court. As such, they are held to a higher standard than most citizens in the first place. But pretending that this was some sort of “momentary” lapse of judgment in the heat of a frenzy of anger at racial injustice is simply a false narrative. No matter how challenging their early lives may have been or admirable some of their previous work was, this attack was no spur of the moment lapse. Miller herself points out the same thing John Sexton covered back in early June. Rahman gave an interview prior to the attack, saying “This s*** won’t ever stop unless we f***ing take it all down,” and “This has got to stop, and the only way they hear us is through violence, through the means that they use.”
Other factors Miller conveniently ignores include the video footage (and receipts!) of Mattis purchasing the materials needed to build the Molotovs. Prior to the actual attack, the pair were seen attempting to distribute the extra firebombs they created to other rioters on the street. And they successfully destroyed a police cruiser, even if some other rioters had already broken the windows on it.
Nearly everyone has had some “lapse in judgment” they probably regret over the course of their lives. You might raise your voice in anger at a friend or colleague in a fit of temper. You may have been tempted to experiment with some recreational substances in violation of the law. These things happen. But spending several hours constructing firebombs, attempting to distribute them to an angry mob and then blowing up an emergency response vehicle does not fall into that category. There are special laws against such actions for a reason.
The fact that these two were officers of the court only compounds their level of responsibility rather than mitigating it. They are facing a very severe penalty indeed, but they brought this on themselves. Too many of our cities are falling under mob rule and being gutted by rioters. Having attorneys abetting this destruction only hastens the decline we’re experiencing.


hotair--2020-08-08--Whoa! Trump sanctions Carrie Lam, other Hong Kong officials

Looks like we ’ re done playing nice with the Chinese Communist Party , no matter how far its tentacles reach .
Now that China has cracked down on the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong , primarily through its control over the city ’ s government , the White House has taken the same measures there that it has against Beijing .
The Treasury Department announced personal sanctions against Chief Executive Carrie Lam , the police commissioner , the secretary for security , and others .
As you would expect , the Hong Kong officials impacted by this move were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) The U.S. on Friday imposed sanctions on Hong Kong officials , including the pro-China leader of the government , accusing them of roles in squashing freedom in the former British colony .
The Treasury Department announced sanctions on Carrie Lam , the leader of the government in Hong Kong , and other officials .
The sanctions are the latest in a string of actions the Trump administration has taken targeting China as tensions between the two nations rise over trade disputes and the coronavirus .
The sanctions were authorized by an executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to levy penalties against China for its efforts to curtail anti-government protesters in Hong Kong .
Not all of the sanctions will have any immediate impact on the targeted officials .
One of them responded to an AP request for comment by saying that he doesn ’ t have “ a penny of assets abroad.
” But he did offer to send Donald Trump one hundred dollars to freeze if he thought it would help .
( Hey… at least the guy has a sense of humor about it . )
Some analysts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump is taking a tough stance against the CCP to bolster his reelection chances , and there may be an element of truth to that .
The White House has been flexing its muscle in the South China Sea recently and also going after TikTok and WeChat .
But there ’ s also a lot more to the situation than that .
What we appear to be seeing here is a sea change in terms of America ’ s relationship with China , not Hong Kong .
The reason is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to under the One Nation , Two Systems agreement between China and Great Britain is essentially gone .
While the pro-democracy movement is still as active as it can be in the city under the circumstances , the government has completely ripped off the mask at this point .
Carrie Lam and her senior officials have long been the face of the CCP far more than any sort of representation of the will of the people of Hong Kong .
On the best of days , she was little more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sanctions offered even more proof that the days of semi-autonomous rule in Hong Kong are over .
That statement is little more than a case of parroting the party line coming out of the mainland .
All this talk of national security is simply a cover story for the fact that any thoughts of autonomy will not be tolerated and Hong Kong is being folded into the rest of the CCP ’ s web .
And the reference by Lam to how the crackdown in her city is also intended to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainlanders ” is quite telling as well .
Notice , she doesn ’ t refer to “ China ” as a separate entity anymore , but simply “ the mainland.
” The reality is that Xi Jinping has been calling the shots there for a long time , but now he doesn ’ t have to hide behind the curtain to do it .
And given that the west has zero intention of going to war with China over this , the game is pretty much over .
Hopefully , some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong and take up Great Britain on their offer of citizenship and residency before the doors slam closed entirely .

Looks like we’re done playing nice with the Chinese Communist Party, no matter how far its tentacles reach. Now that China has cracked down on the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, primarily through its control over the city’s government, the White House has taken the same measures there that it has against Beijing. The Treasury Department announced personal sanctions against Chief Executive Carrie Lam, the police commissioner, the secretary for security, and others. As you would expect, the Hong Kong officials impacted by this move were less than pleased. (Associated Press)
The U.S. on Friday imposed sanctions on Hong Kong officials, including the pro-China leader of the government, accusing them of roles in squashing freedom in the former British colony. The Treasury Department announced sanctions on Carrie Lam, the leader of the government in Hong Kong, and other officials. The sanctions are the latest in a string of actions the Trump administration has taken targeting China as tensions between the two nations rise over trade disputes and the coronavirus. The sanctions were authorized by an executive order that President Donald Trump signed recently to levy penalties against China for its efforts to curtail anti-government protesters in Hong Kong.
Not all of the sanctions will have any immediate impact on the targeted officials. One of them responded to an AP request for comment by saying that he doesn’t have “a penny of assets abroad.” But he did offer to send Donald Trump one hundred dollars to freeze if he thought it would help. (Hey… at least the guy has a sense of humor about it.)
Some analysts are taking this as a signal that President Trump is taking a tough stance against the CCP to bolster his reelection chances, and there may be an element of truth to that. The White House has been flexing its muscle in the South China Sea recently and also going after TikTok and WeChat.
But there’s also a lot more to the situation than that. What we appear to be seeing here is a sea change in terms of America’s relationship with China, not Hong Kong. The reason is that the “old Hong Kong” we were used to under the One Nation, Two Systems agreement between China and Great Britain is essentially gone. While the pro-democracy movement is still as active as it can be in the city under the circumstances, the government has completely ripped off the mask at this point. Carrie Lam and her senior officials have long been the face of the CCP far more than any sort of representation of the will of the people of Hong Kong. On the best of days, she was little more than a mouthpiece for Beijing.
Her response to the sanctions offered even more proof that the days of semi-autonomous rule in Hong Kong are over.
JUST IN: Chief Executive Carrie Lam on US sanction: "..we are discharging an honourable duty to safeguard national security, protecting the life and interests of not only the 7.5 million Hong Kong people but also the 1.4 billion Mainlanders. We will not be intimidated." pic.twitter.com/boAeaYagmS — Alvin Lum (@alvinllum) August 8, 2020
That statement is little more than a case of parroting the party line coming out of the mainland. All this talk of national security is simply a cover story for the fact that any thoughts of autonomy will not be tolerated and Hong Kong is being folded into the rest of the CCP’s web. And the reference by Lam to how the crackdown in her city is also intended to ensure the security of “the 1.4 billion mainlanders” is quite telling as well. Notice, she doesn’t refer to “China” as a separate entity anymore, but simply “the mainland.”
The reality is that Xi Jinping has been calling the shots there for a long time, but now he doesn’t have to hide behind the curtain to do it. And given that the west has zero intention of going to war with China over this, the game is pretty much over. Hopefully, some of the democracy activists can make it out of Hong Kong and take up Great Britain on their offer of citizenship and residency before the doors slam closed entirely.