hotair--2020-05-19--Turley: Sullivan's attempting to subject Flynn to "mob rule"; Powell files appeal

Has Judge Emmet Sullivan taken a strong stand against cronyism in the case of Michael Flynn , or transformed a courtroom into a forum for “ mob rule ” ?
On the Left , we have four attorneys for Lawfare , who plan to avail themselves of Sullivan ’ s invitation for amicus briefs to argue the former .
Taking the latter point of view , we have Jonathan Turley on the … er … Left as well .
Since we have previously featured Turley ’ s strong objections to Sullivan ’ s actions , let ’ s allow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening argument .
According to Lawfare ’ s quartet ( Andrew Crespo , Laura Londoño Pardo , Kristy Parker , Nathaniel Sobel ) , Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48 not only allows for judges to reject dismissal requests from prosecutions , the Supreme Court had cases like Flynn ’ s in mind when they promulgated it .
The rule exists to keep prosecutors from favoring politically connected defendants where enough evidence exists to take a case to trial , they argue : Historically , prosecutors had unfettered authority to dismiss criminal charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time and for any reason , or for no reason at all .
But that changed in late 1944 , when the Supreme Court adopted Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48 .
The modern rule , which has remained virtually the same since its inception , states that : “ The government may , with leave of court , dismiss an indictment , information , or complaint ” ( emphasis added ) .
This language expressly envisions a role for the court .
It is most commonly associated with the doctrine of prosecutorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by preventing the government from manipulating the timing of a case or forum shopping—that is , moving a case from court to court—by “ charging , dismissing , and recharging ” a case .
But that is not the only evil Rule 48 addresses .
As Thomas Frampton recently explained in the most thorough scholarly treatment of the rule ’ s history to date , Rule 48 ’ s principal object was not to protect “ individual defendants , but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Frampton writes , Rule 48 “ was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn.
” … Of course , prosecutors ’ motions to dismiss pending criminal charges can and often do serve laudable ends , including the protection of criminal defendants from flimsy charges or from punishments that may be unjust or too severe .
In recognition of that fact—and of longstanding separation of powers principles—courts have held that the government ’ s prosecutorial discretion to dismiss a case is necessarily broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare circumstances .
But as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit pointedly observed in its seminal decision in United States v. Ammidown , a judge reviewing a prosecutor ’ s motion to dismiss should not “ serve merely as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor ’ s decision.
” Rather , “ when the defendant concurs in the dismissal ” the trial judge retains the “ responsibility ” to determine whether the proposed dismissal “ adequately protects the public interest , ” and to refuse the prosecutor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the four attorneys do better in addressing precedent than others supporting Sullivan ’ s actions have done , but they only address one — Fokker Services .
They note that Fokker expressly referenced Ammidown and works within that precedent , and that Fokker dealt with pretrial issues rather than a case in which the defendant had pleaded guilty — twice .
In Ammidown , the court ruled that a judge suspecting something amiss with a prosecution withdrawal “ should not be content with a mere conclusory statement by the prosecutor that dismissal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , the prosecution in this case says something a bit different than this .
An independent investigation by a career US Attorney in the DoJ uncovered investigative and prosecutorial misconduct , including disclosure violations and plea deal aspects that were never disclosed to the court .
Furthermore , Crespo et al never address the more recent precedent of Sineneng-Smith , in which the Supreme Court held 9-0 that courts can ’ t resort to amici briefs and outside panels when it comes to criminal cases and issues not raised by either party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case presented by the parties , however , the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel , including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith : Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment .
In accord with the amici ’ s arguments , the Ninth Circuit held that §1324 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( iv ) is unconstitutionally overbroad .
Held : The Ninth Circuit panel ’ s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation .
Greenlaw v. United States , 554 U. S. 237 , 243 .
“ In both civil and criminal cases , .
.
.
we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.
” Id.
, at 243 .
That principle forecloses the controlling role the Ninth Circuit took on in this case .
The reason Crespo et al never addresses this precedent — established less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it completely defeats their argument .
If Sullivan wanted to reject the government ’ s motion , he probably has that theoretical authority under Rule 48 , but only under extraordinary circumstances , and without appointing special masters .
The form Sullivan adopted is precluded under Sineneng-Smith , and the substance is contradicted by the evidence of previous prosecutorial and investigative misconduct .
Besides , as Turley argues , Sullivan has gone even beyond that boundary .
He has proposed charging Flynn himself with a crime of perjury through the device of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action which amounts to “ gross judicial overreach ” on Sullivan ’ s part .
Adding amici briefs makes this resemble “ mob rule ” more than Article III judgment , Turley writes : Under Sullivan ’ s theory , any time a defendant seeks such a dismissal ( even with the support of the prosecutors ) he could face a judicially mandated perjury charge .
Faced with evidence of prosecutorial wrongdoing ( which often arises after a trial ) , defense counsel ( like myself ) would have to warn clients that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for another .
… Consider the scenario .
Sullivan knows that such a charge would not be prosecuted by the Justice Department .
However , Criminal Procedure Rule 42 states that such cases are to be prosecuted by the government , but “ if the government declines the request , the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.
” So what is Sullivan going to do ?
He can not force the Justice Department to prosecute a case that it considers to be unethical .
He would have to enlist his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispute with outside parties .
If Flynn is convicted , Sullivan will have to order the Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate someone who was convicted by judicial design .
Further , Turley argues , Sullivan ’ s not doing this out of concern over cronyism .
Sullivan ’ s trying to save face after embarrassing himself in earlier hearings in a case that should never have been brought in the first place : Ironically , Sullivan is largely responsible for the current posture of the case .
Flynn was supposed to be sentenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bizarre turn .
Using the flag in the courtroom as a prop , Sullivan incorrectly accused Flynn of being “ an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States .
Arguably , that undermines everything this flag over here stands for .
Arguably , you sold your country out.
” He then questioned whether Flynn should have been charged with treason .
Flynn faced a relatively minor single count of false statements with the likelihood of no jail time — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been charged with treason , subject to the death penalty .
That alone would probably serve for a reversal based on judicial animus , especially given the circumstances : prosecutors had noted their satisfaction with Flynn ’ s cooperation and had no objection to executing the sentencing portion of the deal at that time .
Sullivan bullied Flynn into a continuance instead .
After the DoJ sawed off the limb onto which Sullivan climbed , it certainly appears that the judge wants some like-minded legal scholars to break his fall and hoist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sullivan might find quite a few , too , unless a higher court puts an end to Sullivan ’ s circus soon .
Turley gets the best of this argument , and the court that just issued Sineneng-Smith is almost certain to concur — if it gets that far .
Addendum : Sidney Powell has filed for a writ of mandamus with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals , writes Red State ’ s Shipwreckedcrew : As anticipated , defense counsel Sidney Powell has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ District of Columbia Circuit .
… A “ petition for writ ” is a legal vehicle through which a party seeks to have a higher court direct that a lower court take specific action as set forth in the petition , on the basis that existing legal authority compels the lower court to act in a manner sought by the moving party , and the lower court has no discretion or authority to act in any other manner .
It seeks an order from the higher court “ mandating ” that the lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the petition .
The petition filed by Gen. Flynn ’ s counsel makes three specific requests for relief : 1 ) that the motion by the government to dismiss the prosecution of Gen. Flynn be granted ; 2 ) that the orders entered by Judge Sullivan allowing the submission of amicus briefs be vacated ; and 3 ) that the case be reassigned to a different judge in the District of Columbia District Court for any further proceedings in the case .
Be sure to read the whole thing .
Ship offers some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks she hit a home run overall .

Has Judge Emmet Sullivan taken a strong stand against cronyism in the case of Michael Flynn, or transformed a courtroom into a forum for “mob rule”? On the Left, we have four attorneys for Lawfare, who plan to avail themselves of Sullivan’s invitation for amicus briefs to argue the former. Taking the latter point of view, we have Jonathan Turley on the … er … Left as well.
Since we have previously featured Turley’s strong objections to Sullivan’s actions, let’s allow the plaintiff’s amici to give the opening argument. According to Lawfare’s quartet (Andrew Crespo, Laura Londoño Pardo, Kristy Parker, Nathaniel Sobel), Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48 not only allows for judges to reject dismissal requests from prosecutions, the Supreme Court had cases like Flynn’s in mind when they promulgated it. The rule exists to keep prosecutors from favoring politically connected defendants where enough evidence exists to take a case to trial, they argue:
Historically, prosecutors had unfettered authority to dismiss criminal charges on their own initiative, at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all. But that changed in late 1944, when the Supreme Court adopted Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48. The modern rule, which has remained virtually the same since its inception, states that: “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint” (emphasis added). This language expressly envisions a role for the court. It is most commonly associated with the doctrine of prosecutorial harassment, which protects defendants from abuse by preventing the government from manipulating the timing of a case or forum shopping—that is, moving a case from court to court—by “charging, dismissing, and recharging” a case. But that is not the only evil Rule 48 addresses. As Thomas Frampton recently explained in the most thorough scholarly treatment of the rule’s history to date, Rule 48’s principal object was not to protect “individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants.” In other words, Frampton writes, Rule 48 “was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn.” … Of course, prosecutors’ motions to dismiss pending criminal charges can and often do serve laudable ends, including the protection of criminal defendants from flimsy charges or from punishments that may be unjust or too severe. In recognition of that fact—and of longstanding separation of powers principles—courts have held that the government’s prosecutorial discretion to dismiss a case is necessarily broad, and should be disturbed only in rare circumstances. But as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pointedly observed in its seminal decision in United States v. Ammidown, a judge reviewing a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss should not “serve merely as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor’s decision.” Rather, “when the defendant concurs in the dismissal” the trial judge retains the “responsibility” to determine whether the proposed dismissal “adequately protects the public interest,” and to refuse the prosecutor’s request if it does not.
Interestingly, the four attorneys do better in addressing precedent than others supporting Sullivan’s actions have done, but they only address one — Fokker Services. They note that Fokker expressly referenced Ammidown and works within that precedent, and that Fokker dealt with pretrial issues rather than a case in which the defendant had pleaded guilty — twice. In Ammidown, the court ruled that a judge suspecting something amiss with a prosecution withdrawal “should not be content with a mere conclusory statement by the prosecutor that dismissal is in the public interest.”
Of course, the prosecution in this case says something a bit different than this. An independent investigation by a career US Attorney in the DoJ uncovered investigative and prosecutorial misconduct, including disclosure violations and plea deal aspects that were never disclosed to the court. Furthermore, Crespo et al never address the more recent precedent of Sineneng-Smith, in which the Supreme Court held 9-0 that courts can’t resort to amici briefs and outside panels when it comes to criminal cases and issues not raised by either party within them:
Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment. In accord with the amici’s arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad. Held: The Ninth Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion. The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243. That principle forecloses the controlling role the Ninth Circuit took on in this case.
The reason Crespo et al never addresses this precedent — established less than two weeks ago — is likely because it completely defeats their argument. If Sullivan wanted to reject the government’s motion, he probably has that theoretical authority under Rule 48, but only under extraordinary circumstances, and without appointing special masters. The form Sullivan adopted is precluded under Sineneng-Smith, and the substance is contradicted by the evidence of previous prosecutorial and investigative misconduct.
Besides, as Turley argues, Sullivan has gone even beyond that boundary. He has proposed charging Flynn himself with a crime of perjury through the device of his special master for the case, an action which amounts to “gross judicial overreach” on Sullivan’s part. Adding amici briefs makes this resemble “mob rule” more than Article III judgment, Turley writes:
Under Sullivan’s theory, any time a defendant seeks such a dismissal (even with the support of the prosecutors) he could face a judicially mandated perjury charge. Faced with evidence of prosecutorial wrongdoing (which often arises after a trial), defense counsel (like myself) would have to warn clients that the court might just swap one crime for another. … Consider the scenario. Sullivan knows that such a charge would not be prosecuted by the Justice Department. However, Criminal Procedure Rule 42 states that such cases are to be prosecuted by the government, but “if the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.” So what is Sullivan going to do? He cannot force the Justice Department to prosecute a case that it considers to be unethical. He would have to enlist his own outside prosecutor after creating his own dispute with outside parties. If Flynn is convicted, Sullivan will have to order the Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate someone who was convicted by judicial design.
Further, Turley argues, Sullivan’s not doing this out of concern over cronyism. Sullivan’s trying to save face after embarrassing himself in earlier hearings in a case that should never have been brought in the first place:
Ironically, Sullivan is largely responsible for the current posture of the case. Flynn was supposed to be sentenced in December 2018 before the hearing took a bizarre turn. Using the flag in the courtroom as a prop, Sullivan incorrectly accused Flynn of being “an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.” He then questioned whether Flynn should have been charged with treason. Flynn faced a relatively minor single count of false statements with the likelihood of no jail time — but Sullivan was suggesting that he could have been charged with treason, subject to the death penalty.
That alone would probably serve for a reversal based on judicial animus, especially given the circumstances: prosecutors had noted their satisfaction with Flynn’s cooperation and had no objection to executing the sentencing portion of the deal at that time. Sullivan bullied Flynn into a continuance instead. After the DoJ sawed off the limb onto which Sullivan climbed, it certainly appears that the judge wants some like-minded legal scholars to break his fall and hoist him back up onto another one.
Sullivan might find quite a few, too, unless a higher court puts an end to Sullivan’s circus soon. Turley gets the best of this argument, and the court that just issued Sineneng-Smith is almost certain to concur — if it gets that far.
Addendum: Sidney Powell has filed for a writ of mandamus with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, writes Red State’s Shipwreckedcrew:
As anticipated, defense counsel Sidney Powell has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. … A “petition for writ” is a legal vehicle through which a party seeks to have a higher court direct that a lower court take specific action as set forth in the petition, on the basis that existing legal authority compels the lower court to act in a manner sought by the moving party, and the lower court has no discretion or authority to act in any other manner. It seeks an order from the higher court “mandating” that the lower court take the specific action requested in the petition. The petition filed by Gen. Flynn’s counsel makes three specific requests for relief: 1) that the motion by the government to dismiss the prosecution of Gen. Flynn be granted; 2) that the orders entered by Judge Sullivan allowing the submission of amicus briefs be vacated; and 3) that the case be reassigned to a different judge in the District of Columbia District Court for any further proceedings in the case.
Be sure to read the whole thing. Ship offers some criticism of Powell’s arguments but thinks she hit a home run overall.


hotair--2020-05-19--Texas is restarting evictions. Is it too soon?

The title pretty much outlines the story .
Now that Texas is moving through the reopening process and people are going back to work , tenants are going to be expected to pay ( and in many cases catch up on ) their rent .
The question went before the state ’ s highest court already and allowing landlords to begin evicting delinquent tenants has been approved .
But questions remain as to whether this shouldn ’ t have been phased in a bit later in the process .
After all , not everyone is going to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent the moment they ’ re back on the job .
( Route Fifty ) Even though not all business activities have resumed in Texas , the state ’ s court system will press forward this week with eviction cases , which were put on hold during the pandemic .
The Texas Supreme Court last week ordered that eviction hearings can begin on Tuesday and eviction proceedings can commence next week , on May 26 .
Texas , like many states , paused eviction proceedings in an effort to prevent renters who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduced from becoming homeless .
Other states with eviction moratoriums that were set to expire in the past week have pushed the dates into June and July .
New York ’ s moratorium , which was set to expire in June , has already been extended into August .
On the other hand , some states , like Georgia and Louisiana , never put a statewide eviction moratorium in place .
As the linked report indicates , this isn ’ t a case where everyone who was behind on their rent is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
Many renters have already made arrangements with their landlords to spread out their rent repayments over time once they return to work .
Others were able to quickly file for federally enhanced unemployment benefits and began receiving checks , unlike the situation in Illinois .
( Texas has already processed nearly 2 million coronavirus-related unemployment claims . )
There are also plenty of exceptions in terms of which renters may be facing eviction .
Anyone renting federally owned or controlled housing will still be spared due to a federal moratorium that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Residents of some of Texas ’ largest cities , including both Houston and Dallas , have municipal moratoriums that run well into the summer .
But as I ’ ve noted here previously , most or all of that rent is going to have to be paid pack at some point , and probably sooner rather than later .
More than half of the rental units in the country are owned by private individuals or small companies .
Those landlords frequently have large mortgages that are due and they can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant percentage of their annual income .
If provisions aren ’ t made to ensure that renters catch up on their delinquent debt , we ’ re really just swapping one crisis for another .
Unfortunately , there will always be some people who fall through the cracks .
Not everyone is going back to work at once in Texas .
Businesses have to figure out how to operate with fewer people and new social distancing rules in most cases .
That means some workers will be slower to get back to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up getting hit with an eviction notice if they can ’ t pay .
This is one of those times when we ’ re just going to have to figure out how we can all work together and minimize the economic damage from this fiasco as much as possible .
But there were always going to be some casualties in the economic crash .
Just be thankful if you ’ re not one of them .

The title pretty much outlines the story. Now that Texas is moving through the reopening process and people are going back to work, tenants are going to be expected to pay (and in many cases catch up on) their rent. The question went before the state’s highest court already and allowing landlords to begin evicting delinquent tenants has been approved. But questions remain as to whether this shouldn’t have been phased in a bit later in the process. After all, not everyone is going to be able to come up with multiple months worth of rent the moment they’re back on the job. (Route Fifty)
Even though not all business activities have resumed in Texas, the state’s court system will press forward this week with eviction cases, which were put on hold during the pandemic. The Texas Supreme Court last week ordered that eviction hearings can begin on Tuesday and eviction proceedings can commence next week, on May 26. Texas, like many states, paused eviction proceedings in an effort to prevent renters who had lost their jobs or had their hours reduced from becoming homeless. Other states with eviction moratoriums that were set to expire in the past week have pushed the dates into June and July. New York’s moratorium, which was set to expire in June, has already been extended into August. On the other hand, some states, like Georgia and Louisiana, never put a statewide eviction moratorium in place.
As the linked report indicates, this isn’t a case where everyone who was behind on their rent is going to be out on the sidewalk next week. Many renters have already made arrangements with their landlords to spread out their rent repayments over time once they return to work. Others were able to quickly file for federally enhanced unemployment benefits and began receiving checks, unlike the situation in Illinois. (Texas has already processed nearly 2 million coronavirus-related unemployment claims.)
There are also plenty of exceptions in terms of which renters may be facing eviction. Anyone renting federally owned or controlled housing will still be spared due to a federal moratorium that is set to last until July 24th. Residents of some of Texas’ largest cities, including both Houston and Dallas, have municipal moratoriums that run well into the summer.
But as I’ve noted here previously, most or all of that rent is going to have to be paid pack at some point, and probably sooner rather than later. More than half of the rental units in the country are owned by private individuals or small companies. Those landlords frequently have large mortgages that are due and they can’t take the hit to simply lose a significant percentage of their annual income. If provisions aren’t made to ensure that renters catch up on their delinquent debt, we’re really just swapping one crisis for another.
Unfortunately, there will always be some people who fall through the cracks. Not everyone is going back to work at once in Texas. Businesses have to figure out how to operate with fewer people and new social distancing rules in most cases. That means some workers will be slower to get back to their normal income streams and they may wind up getting hit with an eviction notice if they can’t pay.
This is one of those times when we’re just going to have to figure out how we can all work together and minimize the economic damage from this fiasco as much as possible. But there were always going to be some casualties in the economic crash. Just be thankful if you’re not one of them.


hotair--2020-05-19--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: AG Matt Whitaker on Russia-collusion hoax; Andrew Malcolm

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
If the pandemic has changed everything else , Andrew wonders , why hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
We ’ ll look at the latest on the COVID-19 news , Donald Trump ’ s battles with the media , and the fight over ObamaGate .
And hydroxychloroquine , too !
• We ’ ll talk with former Attorney General Matthew Whitaker about his new book Above the Law : The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump , out today from Regnery ( a unit of our corporate parent Salem Media Group ) .
How did the intelligence and law enforcement organizations conspire to attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the mainstream media ?
Whitaker had a front-row seat .
• From Regnery ’ s description of the book : “ The Department of Justice had been steered off course by a Deep State made up of Washington insiders who saw themselves as above the law .
Recklessly inverting , bending , and breaking the law to achieve their own political goals , they relentlessly undermined the Constitution by flaunting the rightful authority of a President they despised .
[ Matthew ] Whitaker was an outsider with a desire to see justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straightforward new book , Above the Law , he provides a stunning account of what he found in the swamp that is Washington.
” The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. If the pandemic has changed everything else, Andrew wonders, why hasn’t it changed the 2020 presidential race? We’ll look at the latest on the COVID-19 news, Donald Trump’s battles with the media, and the fight over ObamaGate. And hydroxychloroquine, too!
We’ll talk with former Attorney General Matthew Whitaker about his new book Above the Law: The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump, out today from Regnery (a unit of our corporate parent Salem Media Group). How did the intelligence and law enforcement organizations conspire to attack Donald Trump, and how deeply complicit was the mainstream media? Whitaker had a front-row seat.
From Regnery’s description of the book: “The Department of Justice had been steered off course by a Deep State made up of Washington insiders who saw themselves as above the law. Recklessly inverting, bending, and breaking the law to achieve their own political goals, they relentlessly undermined the Constitution by flaunting the rightful authority of a President they despised. [Matthew] Whitaker was an outsider with a desire to see justice done and democracy work. In his straightforward new book, Above the Law, he provides a stunning account of what he found in the swamp that is Washington.”
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-05-19--Bloomberg: Don't look now, but China just locked down over 100 million in new COVID-19 outbreak

So much for China ’ s grand reopening .
A cluster of new COVID-19 cases in the city of Shulan — more than 2,000 kilometers from Wuhan — has prompted Beijing to order a lockdown of the province of Jilin , Bloomberg reported last night .
The lockdown began a few days ago but news of it has slowly emerged over the past day .
The move impacts than 100 million people in China , who now face new restrictions on movement and access to economic activity : Some 108 million people in China ’ s northeast region are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new and growing cluster of infections causes a backslide in the nation ’ s return to normal .
In an abrupt reversal of the re-opening taking place across the nation , cities in Jilin province have cut off trains and buses , shut schools and quarantined tens of thousands of people .
The strict measures have dismayed many residents who had thought the worst of the nation ’ s epidemic was over .
People “ are feeling more cautious again , ” said Fan Pai , who works at a trading company in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ province that ’ s also facing renewed restrictions .
“ Children playing outside are wearing masks again ” and health care workers are walking around in protective gear , she said .
“ It ’ s frustrating because you don ’ t know when it will end.
” The province of Jilin sits to the north of North Korea , while Wuhan is located far to the southwest .
Beijing sits nearly equally between the two points , roughly 1150 kilometers from both and on the same travel pathway .
That is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel at this late stage if China had the outbreak contained as much as they thought , and the capital ’ s location nearly equidistant between the two outbreaks raises questions about whether China ’ s luck in Beijing might run out .
That comes at an awkward time , too : Elsewhere in China , the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control said on Sunday that it was no longer necessary to wear masks outdoors .
The capital , which has reported no new infections for 30 days , is preparing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People ’ s Congress , a major gathering that had been postponed for more than two months .
The sheer scope of the lockdown makes it look like Beijing ’ s dealing with more than just three dozen cases in Shulan .
So do threats to punish people who spread “ rumours ” from Jilin , as Hong Kong ’ s South China Morning Post reports today : The authorities in a northeastern Chinese city hit by a fresh wave of Covid-19 cases have warned that people who violate quarantine rules will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , the police in Shulan , a city of 700,000 people in Jilin province , said those who failed to follow the stay-at-home orders or tried to hide respiratory illness-related symptoms would be subject to administrative or criminal sanctions .
Those who spread rumours or misinformation would be held responsible too , the statement said .
“ Rumours or misinformation , ” eh ?
What might that entail — information about case loads that contradict the 34 cases detected , as the official count stands at the moment ?
This seems quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silence doctors who attempted to warn about the pandemic when it began in Wuhan , several of whom disappeared for a while and at least one of whom died from COVID-19 .
Beijing ’ s actions against party leadership in the area also seems rather strong for such a limited outbreak : On Monday , government officials from Shulan , a city in the province , said it would impose its strictest restrictions yet to try to contain the outbreak , including closing off residential compounds with confirmed and suspected cases .
Officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each family to leave to buy essential supplies for two hours every two days , according to Bloomberg .
The highest-ranking Communist Party official in Shulan was removed along with five other government officials as a result of the new outbreak .
And the news from Wuhan isn ’ t exactly cheery either , although new cases there haven ’ t prompted the same kind of response : That ’ s another reason to think that the problem in Shulan and Jilin might be a lot bigger than Beijing wants anyone to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as is the National People ’ s Congress meeting .
If that gets postponed again , look out .

So much for China’s grand reopening. A cluster of new COVID-19 cases in the city of Shulan — more than 2,000 kilometers from Wuhan — has prompted Beijing to order a lockdown of the province of Jilin, Bloomberg reported last night. The lockdown began a few days ago but news of it has slowly emerged over the past day. The move impacts than 100 million people in China, who now face new restrictions on movement and access to economic activity:
Some 108 million people in China’s northeast region are being plunged back under lockdown conditions as a new and growing cluster of infections causes a backslide in the nation’s return to normal. In an abrupt reversal of the re-opening taking place across the nation, cities in Jilin province have cut off trains and buses, shut schools and quarantined tens of thousands of people. The strict measures have dismayed many residents who had thought the worst of the nation’s epidemic was over. People “are feeling more cautious again,” said Fan Pai, who works at a trading company in Shenyang, a city in nearby Liaoning province that’s also facing renewed restrictions. “Children playing outside are wearing masks again” and health care workers are walking around in protective gear, she said. “It’s frustrating because you don’t know when it will end.”
The province of Jilin sits to the north of North Korea, while Wuhan is located far to the southwest. Beijing sits nearly equally between the two points, roughly 1150 kilometers from both and on the same travel pathway. That is a very long distance for the virus to travel at this late stage if China had the outbreak contained as much as they thought, and the capital’s location nearly equidistant between the two outbreaks raises questions about whether China’s luck in Beijing might run out. That comes at an awkward time, too:
Elsewhere in China, the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control said on Sunday that it was no longer necessary to wear masks outdoors. The capital, which has reported no new infections for 30 days, is preparing for the annual session of the National People’s Congress, a major gathering that had been postponed for more than two months.
The sheer scope of the lockdown makes it look like Beijing’s dealing with more than just three dozen cases in Shulan. So do threats to punish people who spread “rumours” from Jilin, as Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post reports today:
The authorities in a northeastern Chinese city hit by a fresh wave of Covid-19 cases have warned that people who violate quarantine rules will be prosecuted. In a statement published on Tuesday, the police in Shulan, a city of 700,000 people in Jilin province, said those who failed to follow the stay-at-home orders or tried to hide respiratory illness-related symptoms would be subject to administrative or criminal sanctions. Those who spread rumours or misinformation would be held responsible too, the statement said.
“Rumours or misinformation,” eh? What might that entail — information about case loads that contradict the 34 cases detected, as the official count stands at the moment? This seems quite reminiscent of China’s attempts to silence doctors who attempted to warn about the pandemic when it began in Wuhan, several of whom disappeared for a while and at least one of whom died from COVID-19.
Beijing’s actions against party leadership in the area also seems rather strong for such a limited outbreak:
On Monday, government officials from Shulan, a city in the province, said it would impose its strictest restrictions yet to try to contain the outbreak, including closing off residential compounds with confirmed and suspected cases. Officials would also allow only one person from each family to leave to buy essential supplies for two hours every two days, according to Bloomberg. The highest-ranking Communist Party official in Shulan was removed along with five other government officials as a result of the new outbreak.
And the news from Wuhan isn’t exactly cheery either, although new cases there haven’t prompted the same kind of response:
Last week, Wuhan reported six new cases, breaking a 35-day streak of zero new daily cases. The government in the city has not reimposed a lockdown but is currently testing all 11 million residents.
That’s another reason to think that the problem in Shulan and Jilin might be a lot bigger than Beijing wants anyone to know. It’s worth watching, as is the National People’s Congress meeting. If that gets postponed again, look out.


hotair--2020-05-19--Hong Kong study: Surgical masks could reduce coronavirus transmission by as much as 75%

Andrew Cuomo ’ s taking a belated but well-deserved beating over his health department ’ s insane initial policy of returning infected nursing-home residents to their facilities , where they spread the disease , instead of quarantining them elsewhere .
That ’ s one of the first major recriminations for terrible decision-making by federal and state leaders early on that could have prevented many deaths in hindsight , but it won ’ t be the last .
Now that the smoke from the first wave has cleared and people are assessing how we might have done better , may I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the CDC and surgeon general to enthusiastically promote mask-wearing as another fatal error with momentous consequences ?
I mean , they didn ’ t just refuse to promote it .
They actively advised against it .
The excuse will be that the feds were worried about supply chains and wanted to make sure the public wasn ’ t hoarding masks that doctors and nurses needed .
But that point could have been communicated without misleading Americans about the potential efficacy of masks .
If the feds had told everyone on March 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nose and mouth with any breathable cloth you have on hand whenever you interact with people outside the home , ” what would the case load in the U.S. look like today ?
Coronavirus may have been novel but the practice of using masks to limit transmission of infectious diseases wasn ’ t .
Why didn ’ t they push harder for it ?
We ’ re about to embark on a real-time experiment on whether masks work as most of the country reopens and most people take to wearing masks when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a business owner reading this story about a new study from Hong Kong , no one would be allowed on my premises without covering up .
The study , which the Hong Kong team calls the first of its kind , used hamsters in two cages ; one group of hamsters infected with Covid-19 and the other healthy .
The researchers created three different scenarios : mask barriers placed just on cages with the infected subjects , masks covering the healthy subjects , and one with no mask barriers at all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particles to be transmitted between them .
With no mask barriers at all , two-thirds of the healthy hamsters — 66.7 % — were infected with the virus within a week , the researchers found .
When the mask was placed over the infected cage , however , that infection rate dropped to 16.7 % .
The infection rate went up to 33 % when the mask barrier was only used to cover the healthy hamsters ’ cage .
“ The findings implied to the world and the public is that the effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge , ” said a microbiologist who helped discover SARS in 2003 of the results .
There were two noteworthy takeaways .
First , it does seem to be true that masks do more to prevent you from infecting others than prevent you from being infected by others , which is what we ’ d expect .
A mask covering an infected person ’ s mouth is intercepting the entire load of virus-carrying droplets at a moment when they ’ re confined to a small space .
If instead there ’ s no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the air , it can spread out , float around , and potentially sneak into a second person ’ s nose or mouth even if they ’ re wearing a mask by slipping through small spaces between that person ’ s mask and skin .
Got ta stop transmission at the source .
And since asymptomatic people are the key vector for transmission , that means everyone needs to operate on the assumption that they ’ re infected .
Second , the Hong Kong researchers discovered that healthy hamsters who were infected despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonetheless “ had less of the virus in their bodies compared to those infected without the masks.
” That ’ s potentially important because scientists have speculated that the amount of the virus that enters your body may affect how severe your symptoms are .
In other words , wearing a mask may not keep you from getting infected — but it may keep you from dying .
Which is a pretty good reason to wear a mask .
In fact , here ’ s an arresting stat providing circumstantial evidence of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the body count .
Although New York and Hong Kong are both high-density major metropolises ( NYC has around a million more people than HK ) , New York has endured many thousands of COVID-19 deaths .
Hong Kong , where masks are ubiquitous , has endured four .
Not four thousand .
Four .
Which seems like the right note on which to remind you that a recent computer model assembled by academics showed that universal mask-wearing in the U.S. ( i.e .
more than 80 percent of the public wearing masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limiting deaths going forward than even an indefinite lockdown would .
We can potentially have our cake and eat it too , then .
End the lockdowns , reopen , get the economy going , and prevent a second wave .
All we need to do , perhaps , is practice basic smart social distancing — and wear masks .
…and also maybe start spraying everything down with that new “ specially formulated antimicrobial coating ” they ’ ve come up with in Arizona that kills coronavirus on contact for 90 days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that up .
Speaking of innovations , I ’ ll leave you with this .
I feel like there may be a design flaw here although I can ’ t put my finger on it .

Andrew Cuomo’s taking a belated but well-deserved beating over his health department’s insane initial policy of returning infected nursing-home residents to their facilities, where they spread the disease, instead of quarantining them elsewhere. That’s one of the first major recriminations for terrible decision-making by federal and state leaders early on that could have prevented many deaths in hindsight, but it won’t be the last.
Now that the smoke from the first wave has cleared and people are assessing how we might have done better, may I suggest the refusal in February and March by the CDC and surgeon general to enthusiastically promote mask-wearing as another fatal error with momentous consequences?
I mean, they didn’t just refuse to promote it. They actively advised against it.
https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160
The excuse will be that the feds were worried about supply chains and wanted to make sure the public wasn’t hoarding masks that doctors and nurses needed. But that point could have been communicated without misleading Americans about the potential efficacy of masks. If the feds had told everyone on March 1, “Urgent advisory: Cover your nose and mouth with any breathable cloth you have on hand whenever you interact with people outside the home,” what would the case load in the U.S. look like today?
Coronavirus may have been novel but the practice of using masks to limit transmission of infectious diseases wasn’t. Why didn’t they push harder for it?
We’re about to embark on a real-time experiment on whether masks work as most of the country reopens and most people take to wearing masks when they’re out shopping. If I were a business owner reading this story about a new study from Hong Kong, no one would be allowed on my premises without covering up.
The study, which the Hong Kong team calls the first of its kind, used hamsters in two cages; one group of hamsters infected with Covid-19 and the other healthy. The researchers created three different scenarios: mask barriers placed just on cages with the infected subjects, masks covering the healthy subjects, and one with no mask barriers at all, with a fan between the cages allowing particles to be transmitted between them. With no mask barriers at all, two-thirds of the healthy hamsters — 66.7% — were infected with the virus within a week, the researchers found. When the mask was placed over the infected cage, however, that infection rate dropped to 16.7%. The infection rate went up to 33% when the mask barrier was only used to cover the healthy hamsters’ cage.
“The findings implied to the world and the public is that the effectiveness of mask-wearing against the coronavirus pandemic is huge,” said a microbiologist who helped discover SARS in 2003 of the results. There were two noteworthy takeaways. First, it does seem to be true that masks do more to prevent you from infecting others than prevent you from being infected by others, which is what we’d expect. A mask covering an infected person’s mouth is intercepting the entire load of virus-carrying droplets at a moment when they’re confined to a small space. If instead there’s no mask and that spray is ejected into the air, it can spread out, float around, and potentially sneak into a second person’s nose or mouth even if they’re wearing a mask by slipping through small spaces between that person’s mask and skin. Gotta stop transmission at the source. And since asymptomatic people are the key vector for transmission, that means everyone needs to operate on the assumption that they’re infected.
Second, the Hong Kong researchers discovered that healthy hamsters who were infected despite having a mask barrier over their cages nonetheless “had less of the virus in their bodies compared to those infected without the masks.” That’s potentially important because scientists have speculated that the amount of the virus that enters your body may affect how severe your symptoms are. In other words, wearing a mask may not keep you from getting infected — but it may keep you from dying. Which is a pretty good reason to wear a mask.
In fact, here’s an arresting stat providing circumstantial evidence of how effective masks might be in holding down the body count. Although New York and Hong Kong are both high-density major metropolises (NYC has around a million more people than HK), New York has endured many thousands of COVID-19 deaths. Hong Kong, where masks are ubiquitous, has endured four. Not four thousand. Four. Which seems like the right note on which to remind you that a recent computer model assembled by academics showed that universal mask-wearing in the U.S. (i.e. more than 80 percent of the public wearing masks) would be far more effective in limiting deaths going forward than even an indefinite lockdown would.
We can potentially have our cake and eat it too, then. End the lockdowns, reopen, get the economy going, and prevent a second wave. All we need to do, perhaps, is practice basic smart social distancing — and wear masks.
…and also maybe start spraying everything down with that new “specially formulated antimicrobial coating” they’ve come up with in Arizona that kills coronavirus on contact for 90 days. Really! I’m not making that up.
Speaking of innovations, I’ll leave you with this. I feel like there may be a design flaw here although I can’t put my finger on it.


hotair--2020-05-19--Ben Sasse's commencement speech blasted ... by the press

Senator Ben Sasse was invited to deliver a commencement speech to the graduating class of Fremont High School in Fremont , Nebraska .
Sasse is a graduate of the high school .
Reactions to the speech and Sasse ’ s delivery of it by the press are over the top .
The commencement event was called “ 2020 Online Graduation Celebration ” and it was streamed on the city of Fremont ’ s YouTube page for all of their public schools on Saturday .
Senator Sasse ’ s address was reported to be the opening speech .
The media hated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the likes of CNN ’ s Chris Cillizza and Yahoo !
and even the editorial staff of the Omaha World-Herald , Senator Sasse is a racist tone-deaf idiot who can ’ t tell a joke .
You can watch the video HERE .
It goes for 50 minutes but Sasse is up first and his speech is 8 minutes long .
Take a look if you have time .
I laughed a couple of times and I groaned a bit but it was far from the worst speech I ’ ve ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strange and weird .
He listed some specific quotes that a CNN colleague pointed to on Twitter .
Mostly , Cillizza is particularly upset that Sasse poked fun at psychologists .
* “ There are a whole bunch of people who make a whole bunch of money by just trying to help other people forget high school .
They ’ re called psychologists .
In fact , 95 % of all gainfully employed psychologists — and I ’ m serious , there are dozens of them that are gainfully employed — their job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high school.
” * “ There will always be money to be made in psychology .
No , that ’ s a joke .
Do not .
If you ’ re headed to college , do not , do not major in psychology .
That part ’ s not a joke.
” Displaying a lack of humor , Cizzilla went on to criticize Sasse ’ s attempt at making jokes during the speech .
Ok .
The jokes weren ’ t stellar but obviously Sasse was trying to keep the tone of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our country is in a difficult place due to a public health crisis and an economic crisis just as they are entering a new adult stage in their lives .
He encouraged the grads and said they would help lead the country out of tough times with “ Nebraska grit ” .
A writer for Yahoo Life calls Sasse ’ s speech “ an unnecessarily racist speech ” because he blames China for the coronavirus pandemic and calls the Chinese leaders who were not transparent about the outbreak “ thugs ” .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more acceptable for Sasse to refer to them as a brutal dictator and his murdering minions ?
Sasse began his speech congratulating “ parents , teachers and coaches ” before stating how , because of the pandemic , there was no longer a difference between the titles .
“ If you ’ re a parent , you ’ re a teacher ; thanks a lot , China , ” he ends , immediately setting the tone for the rest of his time on camera .
Sasse continued blaming China for the pandemic through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in another anecdote how the class of 2020 will be reminiscing about their unique graduation at their high school reunion decades from now .
“ You going to say stuff at your high school reunion service ceremonies ‘ Remember that time that China started a big , global pandemic that created the worst public health crisis in over a century and brought the economy to its knees ?
’ ” While the senator seemed to try and raise spirits at the end of his speech , telling students how there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks to American pharmaceutical companies , he made China the punching bag one last time with the declaration , “ We ’ re going to have a serious reckoning with the thugs in China who let this mess spiral out of control by lying about it.
” Sasse offered a little jab at China for turning all parents into school teachers now due to school closures and rightly points to China as the source of the pandemic .
He said nothing wrong .
Liberal scolds are humorless .
The senator made cracks about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and made a couple of jokes about coaches – his father was a coach and school teacher .
The Omaha World-Herald editorial staff , like Cizzilla , is upset about the cracks about psychologists .
First , his mockery of psychologists — saying he was serious in telling students not to major in psychology — risks undercutting school counselors and their important contributions to Nebraska .
Those professionals are on the front lines in helping young people address mental health needs , and it is simply inappropriate for a leader to say anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or that denigrates the value of mental health professionals .
Only half of adolescents with depression are diagnosed before reaching adulthood , research shows , and suicide is the second-leading cause of death among Nebraska youths ages 15-19 .
The op-ed goes on to state that “ Fremont Public Schools had disavowed responsibility for Sasse ’ s remarks , and the Nebraska Counseling Association had issued a statement calling Sasse ’ s remarks “ tasteless and demeaning.
” And then it said that Sasse ’ s remarks were jumbled and not focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note the irony in criticizing a politician for not inspiring kids during graduation as I am old enough to remember Barack Obama missing an opportunity , too , the very same day last weekend .
Sasse spokesman James Wegmann criticized Nebraska Democrats for fundraising off Sasse ’ s speech .
Commencement speeches are difficult even for the most articulate speakers .
Most are nothing memorable .
Clearly Sasse was trying to strike a tone of light-hearted humor along with some words of encouragement .
It is an unprecedented time and virtual commencement is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A pre-recorded speech wasn ’ t going to come off as well as in person , especially the jokes .
Sasse wasn ’ t offensive .
The adults in the media who have an axe to grind against conservatives in public office are humorless scolds .
With the ugliness they sling on a regular basis , they are the last who should be criticizing something as harmless as this commencement address .

Senator Ben Sasse was invited to deliver a commencement speech to the graduating class of Fremont High School in Fremont, Nebraska. Sasse is a graduate of the high school. Reactions to the speech and Sasse’s delivery of it by the press are over the top.
The commencement event was called “2020 Online Graduation Celebration” and it was streamed on the city of Fremont’s YouTube page for all of their public schools on Saturday. Senator Sasse’s address was reported to be the opening speech. The media hated it. According to the opinions expressed by the likes of CNN’s Chris Cillizza and Yahoo! and even the editorial staff of the Omaha World-Herald, Senator Sasse is a racist tone-deaf idiot who can’t tell a joke.
You can watch the video HERE. It goes for 50 minutes but Sasse is up first and his speech is 8 minutes long. Take a look if you have time. I laughed a couple of times and I groaned a bit but it was far from the worst speech I’ve ever heard.
Chris Cillizza calls the speech strange and weird. He listed some specific quotes that a CNN colleague pointed to on Twitter. Mostly, Cillizza is particularly upset that Sasse poked fun at psychologists.
* “There are a whole bunch of people who make a whole bunch of money by just trying to help other people forget high school. They’re called psychologists. In fact, 95% of all gainfully employed psychologists — and I’m serious, there are dozens of them that are gainfully employed — their job is really just to help people forget high school.” * “There will always be money to be made in psychology. No, that’s a joke. Do not. If you’re headed to college, do not, do not major in psychology. That part’s not a joke.”
All kidding aside, Ben Sasse's dismissiveness about mental health and psychology is incredibly narrow-minded and just plain wrong. This kind of attitude is why talking about depression, anxiety and the rest is *STILL* stigmatized.https://t.co/zH8G4CFFzs — Chris Cillizza (@ChrisCillizza) May 18, 2020
Displaying a lack of humor, Cizzilla went on to criticize Sasse’s attempt at making jokes during the speech. Ok. The jokes weren’t stellar but obviously Sasse was trying to keep the tone of the speech light. He pointed out that our country is in a difficult place due to a public health crisis and an economic crisis just as they are entering a new adult stage in their lives. He encouraged the grads and said they would help lead the country out of tough times with “Nebraska grit”.
A writer for Yahoo Life calls Sasse’s speech “an unnecessarily racist speech” because he blames China for the coronavirus pandemic and calls the Chinese leaders who were not transparent about the outbreak “thugs”. How dare he. Would it have been more acceptable for Sasse to refer to them as a brutal dictator and his murdering minions?
Sasse began his speech congratulating “parents, teachers and coaches” before stating how, because of the pandemic, there was no longer a difference between the titles. “If you’re a parent, you’re a teacher; thanks a lot, China,” he ends, immediately setting the tone for the rest of his time on camera. Sasse continued blaming China for the pandemic through the remainder of his speech, stating in another anecdote how the class of 2020 will be reminiscing about their unique graduation at their high school reunion decades from now. “You going to say stuff at your high school reunion service ceremonies ‘Remember that time that China started a big, global pandemic that created the worst public health crisis in over a century and brought the economy to its knees?’” While the senator seemed to try and raise spirits at the end of his speech, telling students how there’s a cure for the coronavirus on the way thanks to American pharmaceutical companies, he made China the punching bag one last time with the declaration, “We’re going to have a serious reckoning with the thugs in China who let this mess spiral out of control by lying about it.”
Sasse offered a little jab at China for turning all parents into school teachers now due to school closures and rightly points to China as the source of the pandemic. He said nothing wrong. Liberal scolds are humorless.
The senator made cracks about the kids living in sweatpants at home and made a couple of jokes about coaches – his father was a coach and school teacher.
The Omaha World-Herald editorial staff , like Cizzilla, is upset about the cracks about psychologists.
First, his mockery of psychologists — saying he was serious in telling students not to major in psychology — risks undercutting school counselors and their important contributions to Nebraska. Those professionals are on the front lines in helping young people address mental health needs, and it is simply inappropriate for a leader to say anything that might discourage teens from seeking help or that denigrates the value of mental health professionals. Only half of adolescents with depression are diagnosed before reaching adulthood, research shows, and suicide is the second-leading cause of death among Nebraska youths ages 15-19.
The op-ed goes on to state that “Fremont Public Schools had disavowed responsibility for Sasse’s remarks, and the Nebraska Counseling Association had issued a statement calling Sasse’s remarks “tasteless and demeaning.” And then it said that Sasse’s remarks were jumbled and not focused on inspiring the graduates. I’ll note the irony in criticizing a politician for not inspiring kids during graduation as I am old enough to remember Barack Obama missing an opportunity, too, the very same day last weekend.
Sasse spokesman James Wegmann criticized Nebraska Democrats for fundraising off Sasse’s speech.
“Like he said in the video greeting, Ben’s proud of each of the graduates — and he believes their generation is tough enough to help lead us through the bumpy economic times ahead. … Ben’s said this for months, because it’s true: The Chinese Communist Party’s coronavirus coverup wasted time that could have contained the spread — those lies cost innocent lives in China and around the world. Pretending graduates are too fragile to hear the truth is silly.”
Commencement speeches are difficult even for the most articulate speakers. Most are nothing memorable. Clearly Sasse was trying to strike a tone of light-hearted humor along with some words of encouragement. It is an unprecedented time and virtual commencement is not something that previous graduating classes faced. A pre-recorded speech wasn’t going to come off as well as in person, especially the jokes. Sasse wasn’t offensive. The adults in the media who have an axe to grind against conservatives in public office are humorless scolds. With the ugliness they sling on a regular basis, they are the last who should be criticizing something as harmless as this commencement address.


hotair--2020-05-19--So who is tracking all of this contact tracing data?

The Associated Press has done some digging into a question that we addressed here previously regarding the mountains of data that state and municipal governments are collecting on people based on their COVID-19 status and their various contacts if they are infected .
Where is all of this data being stored and how and when is it being shared ?
It would be logical to assume that the various hospitals , doctors ’ offices and university medical centers might need it to help monitor the spread of the novel coronavirus and determine it ’ s lethality .
But those aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requesting and receiving it .
It turns out that law enforcement agencies around much of the country have taken an interest and are receiving these reams of data as well .
Public health officials in at least two-thirds of U.S. states are sharing the addresses of people who have the coronavirus with first responders .
Supporters say the measure is designed to protect those on the front line , but it ’ s sparked concerns of profiling in minority communities already mistrustful of law enforcement .
An Associated Press review of those states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share the names of everyone who tests positive .
Sharing the information does not violate medical privacy laws , under guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services .
Law enforcement officials say the information helps them take extra precautions to avoid contracting and spreading the coronavirus .
Saying that the information is being provided to “ first responders ” seems a bit misleading .
That could easily refer to ambulance drivers and paramedics .
I don ’ t think anyone would have a problem with them being alerted if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was infected so they could be sure to take extra precautions to protect themselves .
But when various law enforcement agencies are getting the information , the situation shifts a bit .
To be clear , if the people needing the information are cops who are out on the streets responding to calls , the same idea would apply .
Arresting a suspect who has contracted COVID-19 would require more precautions to keep the police safe .
But the information seems to be going further up the chain than that .
The addresses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ municipal law enforcement agencies in 35 states .
In ten of those states , the names are also provided .
While some of the usual civil rights groups are warning of this data being used in racial profiling , that ’ s really not my chief concern .
The bigger issue is how far and wide these growing databases are being shared on the fly .
When I wrote about this last week , I noted how incredibly useful a mountain of data like that could be to any number of groups and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a field day with such a treasure trove .
And in the corporate world , advertisers would no doubt pay a pretty penny for a list of that many Americans and who they came in contact with and how often .
And as we ’ ve already learned , if there ’ s a market for a massive collection of data , somebody generally finds a way to sell it .
Getting back to the racial profiling issue , there is a unique concern in the case of this particular data that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t matter if the police actually are tracking people based on their medical data and applying their findings in a racially imbalanced way .
All that ’ s needed in minority communities is the perception that they might be .
That could lead to people refusing to go get tested when they might otherwise have done so .
In any event , as I ’ ve said here before , we ’ re rushing into this brave new world of data compilation at lightning speed when we probably needed a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is rather poor at data security on the best of days as has been repeatedly demonstrated .
And building this system on the fly in a few weeks time just makes it sound like it ’ s ripe for the picking .

The Associated Press has done some digging into a question that we addressed here previously regarding the mountains of data that state and municipal governments are collecting on people based on their COVID-19 status and their various contacts if they are infected. Where is all of this data being stored and how and when is it being shared? It would be logical to assume that the various hospitals, doctors’ offices and university medical centers might need it to help monitor the spread of the novel coronavirus and determine it’s lethality. But those aren’t the only agencies who are requesting and receiving it. It turns out that law enforcement agencies around much of the country have taken an interest and are receiving these reams of data as well.
Public health officials in at least two-thirds of U.S. states are sharing the addresses of people who have the coronavirus with first responders. Supporters say the measure is designed to protect those on the front line, but it’s sparked concerns of profiling in minority communities already mistrustful of law enforcement. An Associated Press review of those states found that at least 10 states also share the names of everyone who tests positive. Sharing the information does not violate medical privacy laws, under guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Law enforcement officials say the information helps them take extra precautions to avoid contracting and spreading the coronavirus.
Saying that the information is being provided to “first responders” seems a bit misleading. That could easily refer to ambulance drivers and paramedics. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with them being alerted if a victim they were rushing to rescue was infected so they could be sure to take extra precautions to protect themselves. But when various law enforcement agencies are getting the information, the situation shifts a bit.
To be clear, if the people needing the information are cops who are out on the streets responding to calls, the same idea would apply. Arresting a suspect who has contracted COVID-19 would require more precautions to keep the police safe. But the information seems to be going further up the chain than that. The addresses of patients are provided to state and municipal law enforcement agencies in 35 states. In ten of those states, the names are also provided.
While some of the usual civil rights groups are warning of this data being used in racial profiling, that’s really not my chief concern. The bigger issue is how far and wide these growing databases are being shared on the fly. When I wrote about this last week, I noted how incredibly useful a mountain of data like that could be to any number of groups and individuals. Hackers and stalkers could have a field day with such a treasure trove. And in the corporate world, advertisers would no doubt pay a pretty penny for a list of that many Americans and who they came in contact with and how often. And as we’ve already learned, if there’s a market for a massive collection of data, somebody generally finds a way to sell it.
Getting back to the racial profiling issue, there is a unique concern in the case of this particular data that we should keep an eye on. It doesn’t matter if the police actually are tracking people based on their medical data and applying their findings in a racially imbalanced way. All that’s needed in minority communities is the perception that they might be. That could lead to people refusing to go get tested when they might otherwise have done so.
In any event, as I’ve said here before, we’re rushing into this brave new world of data compilation at lightning speed when we probably needed a lot more oversight and planning. The government is rather poor at data security on the best of days as has been repeatedly demonstrated. And building this system on the fly in a few weeks time just makes it sound like it’s ripe for the picking.


hotair--2020-05-19--Trump: I'm surprised Barr won't go after Obama and Biden

Jeff Sessions only wished he had it this good .
Had Donald Trump not discussed his new personal hydroxychloroquine regimen , his expression of implied disapproval over William Barr ’ s earlier comments might have made bigger headlines .
Instead , the media largely glossed over Trump ’ s reply to ABC ’ s Jonathan Karl , who asked Trump to respond to his attorney general ’ s declaration that the evidence in the John Durham probe didn ’ t indicate any basis for a criminal investigation into Barack Obama or Joe Biden .
“ I ’ m a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded , adding , “ I don ’ t know about being disappointed or not.
” If the shoe were on the other foot , Trump continued , “ I ’ d guarantee they ’ d be going after me.
” CNN has a good mashup of Barr ’ s reply at the earlier presser and Trump ’ s complete reply below : “ I think Obama and Biden knew about it .
They were participants , but , so I ’ m a little surprised by that statement , ” Trump told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Karl , saying he would need to take a closer look at Barr ’ s remarks , which he said he just recently learned about .
… “ I don ’ t know about being disappointed or not , ” Trump said .
“ But I have no doubt that they were involved in this hoax .
One of the worst things ever to befall this country , in terms of political scandal .
I have absolutely no doubt that Obama and Biden were involved and , as to whether or not it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be very serious .
Very , very serious .
It was a takedown of a president , regardless of me — It happened to be me .
And in my opinion , it was an illegal takedown.
” “ If it was me , I guarantee that they ’ d be going after me .
In his case , they ’ re not so — I think it ’ s just a continuation of a double standard .
I ’ m surprised by it , ” Trump said .
Trump also pointedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comments fairly , a point that ABC fails to report in its article .
Clearly Trump hadn ’ t heard much about Barr ’ s response to Pete Williams ’ question about “ ObamaGate , ” which is a little surprising itself .
The presser updated a story about what turned out to be a major al-Qaeda terrorist operation that targeted US military personnel , and the question went directly to ObamaGate , both topics that one would guess would prompt an extensive briefing of the president shortly afterward , even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watch the live event .
Karl hadn ’ t cast it in misleading terms , but he did leave out considerable context , as did the New York Times when it first reported Barr ’ s comments .
Both made Barr ’ s comments sound like a rebuke of Trump ’ s allegations , which was decidedly not the case .
Barr argued that abuses of power took place in Operation Crossfire Hurricane in intelligence , law enforcement , and prosecutorial efforts , essentially agreeing with Trump on that point .
Barr accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a false and utterly baseless Russia collusion narrative against the president.
” Barr ’ s point , however , was that not all abuses of power are in fact crimes , and anything outside of clear federal crimes is not within the Department of Justice ’ s authority to rectify .
Hence , Barr notes , the likelihood of Obama and Biden getting targeted in a criminal investigation is very low indeed — but that doesn ’ t mean everyone involved is off the hook , at least not yet .
Still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not going to like that nuance much , even if it does still support his overall argument .
It ’ s not the same kind of alleged betrayal that Trump claims Sessions committed by recusing himself from the FBI ’ s probe and allowing Rod Rosenstein to take over , but it ’ s not exactly linking arms with Trump either .
Perhaps when Trump gets briefed on Barr ’ s full remarks , he ’ ll feel more comfortable with Barr ’ s sensible approach .
Trump needs an AG that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI more than he needs a mouthpiece for a Mission : Impossible attempt to push a prosecution against Obama .
Will he recognize that , though , or will Trump start pressuring Barr the way he did Sessions ?

Jeff Sessions only wished he had it this good. Had Donald Trump not discussed his new personal hydroxychloroquine regimen, his expression of implied disapproval over William Barr’s earlier comments might have made bigger headlines. Instead, the media largely glossed over Trump’s reply to ABC’s Jonathan Karl, who asked Trump to respond to his attorney general’s declaration that the evidence in the John Durham probe didn’t indicate any basis for a criminal investigation into Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
“I’m a little surprised by that statement,” Trump responded, adding, “I don’t know about being disappointed or not.” If the shoe were on the other foot, Trump continued, “I’d guarantee they’d be going after me.” CNN has a good mashup of Barr’s reply at the earlier presser and Trump’s complete reply below:
“I think Obama and Biden knew about it. They were participants, but, so I’m a little surprised by that statement,” Trump told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl, saying he would need to take a closer look at Barr’s remarks, which he said he just recently learned about. … “I don’t know about being disappointed or not,” Trump said. “But I have no doubt that they were involved in this hoax. One of the worst things ever to befall this country, in terms of political scandal. I have absolutely no doubt that Obama and Biden were involved and, as to whether or not it was criminal, I would think it would be very serious. Very, very serious. It was a takedown of a president, regardless of me — It happened to be me. And in my opinion, it was an illegal takedown.” Trump called the move a “double standard.” “If it was me, I guarantee that they’d be going after me. In his case, they’re not so — I think it’s just a continuation of a double standard. I’m surprised by it,” Trump said.
Trump also pointedly questioned whether Karl had characterized Barr’s comments fairly, a point that ABC fails to report in its article. Clearly Trump hadn’t heard much about Barr’s response to Pete Williams’ question about “ObamaGate,” which is a little surprising itself. The presser updated a story about what turned out to be a major al-Qaeda terrorist operation that targeted US military personnel, and the question went directly to ObamaGate, both topics that one would guess would prompt an extensive briefing of the president shortly afterward, even if the president himself was too busy to watch the live event.
Karl hadn’t cast it in misleading terms, but he did leave out considerable context, as did the New York Times when it first reported Barr’s comments. Both made Barr’s comments sound like a rebuke of Trump’s allegations, which was decidedly not the case. Barr argued that abuses of power took place in Operation Crossfire Hurricane in intelligence, law enforcement, and prosecutorial efforts, essentially agreeing with Trump on that point. Barr accused some within that project of “advancing a false and utterly baseless Russia collusion narrative against the president.” Barr’s point, however, was that not all abuses of power are in fact crimes, and anything outside of clear federal crimes is not within the Department of Justice’s authority to rectify. Hence, Barr notes, the likelihood of Obama and Biden getting targeted in a criminal investigation is very low indeed — but that doesn’t mean everyone involved is off the hook, at least not yet.
Still, one has to imagine that Trump’s not going to like that nuance much, even if it does still support his overall argument. It’s not the same kind of alleged betrayal that Trump claims Sessions committed by recusing himself from the FBI’s probe and allowing Rod Rosenstein to take over, but it’s not exactly linking arms with Trump either. Perhaps when Trump gets briefed on Barr’s full remarks, he’ll feel more comfortable with Barr’s sensible approach. Trump needs an AG that can credibly clean up the DoJ and FBI more than he needs a mouthpiece for a Mission:Impossible attempt to push a prosecution against Obama. Will he recognize that, though, or will Trump start pressuring Barr the way he did Sessions?


hotair--2020-05-19--Pelosi: I would prefer that our morbidly obese president not risk his health by taking hydroxychloro

Pelosi: I would prefer that our morbidly obese president not risk his health by taking hydroxychloroquine

C ’ mon , he ’ s not morbidly obese .
Future VP and savior of the republic Stacey Abrams is morbidly obese .
What stands out about this insult is how Trumpy it is .
Not in the sense that it ’ s nasty and gratuitous , although it is , but in the way that Trump sometimes phrases his nastier comments in ways that allow him a bit of barely plausible deniability later about what he meant .
I ’ m thinking of when Mitt Romney was in isolation due to possible exposure to coronavirus in March and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Gee , that ’ s too bad ” ) , then denied that he was being sarcastic when reporters asked him about it .
Pelosi ’ s going to do the same thing when she ’ s asked about this .
“ I wasn ’ t mocking his appearance , I was expressing earnest concern about his health.
” I ’ ll give her this , she knows how to get under his skin .
Wounding his vanity is going to bug him like few other things will .
I hope she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
Trump ’ s White House doctor issued this curious letter last night after the president admitted to taking hydroxychloroquine confirming … well , confirming not much , really .
Anti-Trumpers on social media have cast a skeptical eye on its slippery language .
He never specifically says that Trump is taking the drug .
He never specifically says that he prescribed the drug .
All he ’ ll admit is that they discussed it and agreed that there ’ s more upside to taking it than downside .
Hmmmm .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I still believe what I said yesterday .
Considering that the timeline Trump gave for taking it ( he ’ s been on it for a week and a half , he claimed ) matches up with when his White House valet tested positive for the virus , he probably is taking it as a hoped-for prophylaxis .
Skeptics who think he ’ d never put his own health at risk by taking an unproved treatment with potential side effects need to explain why he would say that he ’ s been on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of since March , when he first started talking it up in briefings .
He could have said , “ I ’ ve been on it for two months and look at me , symptom-free while staffers keep getting infected !
” Why didn ’ t he ?
Now , whether it ’ s the White House doctor who prescribed it to him or some quack he enlisted to prescribe it because the White House doctor refused is a separate question .
But if the White House doctor is willing to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than downside ” point , why wouldn ’ t he prescribe it ?
Why , a presidential physician who does what Trump wants and tells the public what Trump wants it to hear might just end up as a congressman .
In any case , POTUS should probably double up on the recommended dose today .
A buffet lunch during a pandemic , huh ?
Via Newsbusters , here ’ s Joe Scarborough citing Trump ’ s germaphobia as evidence that he ’ d never risk his health by taking an unproved treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I don ’ t know .
The germaphobia may explain why he *would* take it .
Given his not-quite-morbid obesity , he clearly doesn ’ t follow optimal health practices in all things .
Also , someone should let Joe know that it ’ s , ahhhh , not true that hydroxychloroquine “ will kill you , ” as he insists repeatedly here .
In some people it can cause scary side effects like arrhythmia but it ’ s been approved for decades to treat malaria and inflammatory illnesses .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it , I think — it ’ s already on the shelf at drug stores and therefore , if it works , it can begin to turn the tide of the epidemic immediately .
By insisting that it “ will kill you , ” Scarborough ’ s pushing his own brand of medical misinformation .

C’mon, he’s not morbidly obese. Future VP and savior of the republic Stacey Abrams is morbidly obese.
Trump is … husky, let’s say. “Big-boned.”
What stands out about this insult is how Trumpy it is. Not in the sense that it’s nasty and gratuitous, although it is, but in the way that Trump sometimes phrases his nastier comments in ways that allow him a bit of barely plausible deniability later about what he meant. I’m thinking of when Mitt Romney was in isolation due to possible exposure to coronavirus in March and Trump replied with obviously sarcastic concern (“Gee, that’s too bad”), then denied that he was being sarcastic when reporters asked him about it. Pelosi’s going to do the same thing when she’s asked about this. “I wasn’t mocking his appearance, I was expressing earnest concern about his health.”
I’ll give her this, she knows how to get under his skin. Wounding his vanity is going to bug him like few other things will.
I hope she’s ready for the botox jokes on Twitter.
Trump’s White House doctor issued this curious letter last night after the president admitted to taking hydroxychloroquine confirming … well, confirming not much, really. Anti-Trumpers on social media have cast a skeptical eye on its slippery language.
He never specifically says that Trump is taking the drug. He never specifically says that he prescribed the drug. All he’ll admit is that they discussed it and agreed that there’s more upside to taking it than downside. Hmmmm.
The White House was more specific:
POTUS spoxwoman @Alyssafarah confirms yes POTUS was prescribed and yes POTUS has been taking hydorxychloroquine. — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) May 19, 2020
I still believe what I said yesterday. Considering that the timeline Trump gave for taking it (he’s been on it for a week and a half, he claimed) matches up with when his White House valet tested positive for the virus, he probably is taking it as a hoped-for prophylaxis. Skeptics who think he’d never put his own health at risk by taking an unproved treatment with potential side effects need to explain why he would say that he’s been on it for only 10 days or so instead of since March, when he first started talking it up in briefings. He could have said, “I’ve been on it for two months and look at me, symptom-free while staffers keep getting infected!” Why didn’t he?
Now, whether it’s the White House doctor who prescribed it to him or some quack he enlisted to prescribe it because the White House doctor refused is a separate question. But if the White House doctor is willing to back Trump up on the “more upside than downside” point, why wouldn’t he prescribe it? Why, a presidential physician who does what Trump wants and tells the public what Trump wants it to hear might just end up as a congressman.
In any case, POTUS should probably double up on the recommended dose today. A buffet lunch during a pandemic, huh?
The notice that went out to Senate Republican offices about the lunch with Trump notes that the “buffet will open early at noon.” — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) May 19, 2020
Via Newsbusters, here’s Joe Scarborough citing Trump’s germaphobia as evidence that he’d never risk his health by taking an unproved treatment with potentially serious side effects. Eh, I don’t know. The germaphobia may explain why he *would* take it. Given his not-quite-morbid obesity, he clearly doesn’t follow optimal health practices in all things. Also, someone should let Joe know that it’s, ahhhh, not true that hydroxychloroquine “will kill you,” as he insists repeatedly here. In some people it can cause scary side effects like arrhythmia but it’s been approved for decades to treat malaria and inflammatory illnesses. That’s the whole reason Trump got obsessed with it, I think — it’s already on the shelf at drug stores and therefore, if it works, it can begin to turn the tide of the epidemic immediately. By insisting that it “will kill you,” Scarborough’s pushing his own brand of medical misinformation.


hotair--2020-05-19--So New York just basically invited me to commit voter fraud

A pair of letters arrived at our house yesterday for my wife and I .
They were identical in appearance and they came from the county Board of Elections .
Inside we found an application for an absentee ballot and a letter from the BoE .
This seemed rather odd since neither of us had applied for an absentee ballot , nor have we ever done so in the roughly quarter of a century that we ’ ve lived at this address .
We always vote in person .
The reason soon became clear .
New York State is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 23rd , but because of the pandemic , they will only have a limited number of polling places open .
With that in mind , they are offering us the chance to mail in our ballots instead of having to mix it up with the crowds at our normal polling place .
Fair enough , I suppose .
You can see a copy of the letter here , but allow me to transcribe the introduction .
( Emphasis in original ) Our records indicate that you are registered in a party which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 23 , 2020 .
All voters are allowed to vote by absentee ballot for this Primary Election .
Enclosed is an absentee ballot request form which is being sent pursuant to Executive Order 202.23 issued on April 24 , 2020 .
———- Sounds normal enough so far , right ?
Except there ’ s one problem .
While it may come as a surprise to some of you ( though I know I ’ ve mentioned it in the past ) , I ’ m not a member of the Republican Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than fifteen years .
Nor am I a Democrat .
I ’ m a member of the Conservative Party of New York State ( CPNYS ) .
It was formed in 1962 to act as a check on the New York GOP , which frequently skews far too much in the liberal direction if you don ’ t keep tabs on them .
But the most important thing to know about the CPNYS is that we don ’ t hold primary elections .
Candidates for the Conservative Party line on the ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members with input from party members .
New York has closed primaries , so it is illegal for me to go and vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries .
And yet the BoE just sent me a form basically daring me to try it .
Of course , the BoE might simply say that it couldn ’ t happen .
If I tried to send in the ballot they would be able to see that I ’ m not enrolled in either party and toss the vote , possibly charging me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Okay…if you say so .
But how would you determine that… by checking your records ?
Would those be the same records that told you that I ’ m “ registered in a party which is having a Primary Election on Tuesday , June 23 , 2020 ?
” I ’ m half tempted to send in the application just as an experiment to see if I could get away with it .
Of course , now that I ’ ve published this on our web site , they ’ d probably want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I really don ’ t feel like taking a felony rap at this stage in my life just to prove a point .
Oh , and there ’ s one other significant issue with this letter and the attached ballot application .
The first field to fill in on the application requires you to give a reason “ in good faith ” as to why you need an absentee ballot .
You have to provide a valid reason and they offer you five possible choices .
These involve being out of town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent disability , being a caregiver of a disabled person , being a resident of a VA hospital or being in prison .
Let ’ s return to the next instruction I received in that letter .
———- “ For concerns regarding COVID-19 and Social Distancing , please select the “ Temporary Illness ” option on the application as the reason for requesting an absentee ballot.
” ———- Neither my wife nor myself currently suffer from COVID-19 nor do we believe that we ’ ve ever been exposed to it thus far .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Nor are we suffering from any other notable medical issues at present .
But this letter just instructed us to check a box saying we have a temporary illness or physical disability .
And on the back of that form , the first sentence in the “ Instructions ” section includes the following : “ It is a felony to make a false statement in an application for an absentee ballot , to attempt to cast an illegal ballot , or to help anyone to cast an illegal ballot.
” And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a false statement right a the top of the form and send it in .
Look… I ’ m sure nobody is going to be prosecuted for this , but one thing seems clear .
These letters were obviously mailed out to pretty much everyone , dead or alive , whose name shows up somewhere on the voter rolls .
And they clearly don ’ t have it broken down by party .
The idea that nobody who isn ’ t enrolled would try to obtain a ballot and send it in seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious that they don ’ t have a way to quickly or efficiently check all of the returned forms to ensure that everyone is enrolled as a member of the party holding the primary and following the rules .

A pair of letters arrived at our house yesterday for my wife and I. They were identical in appearance and they came from the county Board of Elections. Inside we found an application for an absentee ballot and a letter from the BoE. This seemed rather odd since neither of us had applied for an absentee ballot, nor have we ever done so in the roughly quarter of a century that we’ve lived at this address. We always vote in person.
The reason soon became clear. New York State is going ahead with its primary election on June 23rd, but because of the pandemic, they will only have a limited number of polling places open. With that in mind, they are offering us the chance to mail in our ballots instead of having to mix it up with the crowds at our normal polling place. Fair enough, I suppose. You can see a copy of the letter here, but allow me to transcribe the introduction. (Emphasis in original)
———-
Dear Voter,
Our records indicate that you are registered in a party which is having a Primary Election on Tuesday, June 23, 2020. All voters are allowed to vote by absentee ballot for this Primary Election. Enclosed is an absentee ballot request form which is being sent pursuant to Executive Order 202.23 issued on April 24, 2020.
———-
Sounds normal enough so far, right? Except there’s one problem. While it may come as a surprise to some of you (though I know I’ve mentioned it in the past), I’m not a member of the Republican Party and I haven’t been for more than fifteen years. Nor am I a Democrat. I’m a member of the Conservative Party of New York State (CPNYS). It was formed in 1962 to act as a check on the New York GOP, which frequently skews far too much in the liberal direction if you don’t keep tabs on them.
But the most important thing to know about the CPNYS is that we don’t hold primary elections. Candidates for the Conservative Party line on the ballot are selected at a convention by committee members with input from party members. New York has closed primaries, so it is illegal for me to go and vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. And yet the BoE just sent me a form basically daring me to try it.
Of course, the BoE might simply say that it couldn’t happen. If I tried to send in the ballot they would be able to see that I’m not enrolled in either party and toss the vote, possibly charging me with a crime in the process. Okay…if you say so. But how would you determine that… by checking your records? Would those be the same records that told you that I’m “registered in a party which is having a Primary Election on Tuesday, June 23, 2020?”
I’m half tempted to send in the application just as an experiment to see if I could get away with it. Of course, now that I’ve published this on our web site, they’d probably want to make an example out of me and I really don’t feel like taking a felony rap at this stage in my life just to prove a point.
Oh, and there’s one other significant issue with this letter and the attached ballot application. The first field to fill in on the application requires you to give a reason “in good faith” as to why you need an absentee ballot. You have to provide a valid reason and they offer you five possible choices. These involve being out of town on election day, temporary illness, permanent disability, being a caregiver of a disabled person, being a resident of a VA hospital or being in prison. Let’s return to the next instruction I received in that letter.
———-
“For concerns regarding COVID-19 and Social Distancing, please select the “Temporary Illness” option on the application as the reason for requesting an absentee ballot.”
———-
Neither my wife nor myself currently suffer from COVID-19 nor do we believe that we’ve ever been exposed to it thus far. (Thank God for small favors.) Nor are we suffering from any other notable medical issues at present. But this letter just instructed us to check a box saying we have a temporary illness or physical disability. And on the back of that form, the first sentence in the “Instructions” section includes the following: “It is a felony to make a false statement in an application for an absentee ballot, to attempt to cast an illegal ballot, or to help anyone to cast an illegal ballot.”
And yet the BoE is inviting me to make a false statement right a the top of the form and send it in. Look… I’m sure nobody is going to be prosecuted for this, but one thing seems clear. These letters were obviously mailed out to pretty much everyone, dead or alive, whose name shows up somewhere on the voter rolls. And they clearly don’t have it broken down by party. The idea that nobody who isn’t enrolled would try to obtain a ballot and send it in seems ludicrous. And it’s pretty obvious that they don’t have a way to quickly or efficiently check all of the returned forms to ensure that everyone is enrolled as a member of the party holding the primary and following the rules.