hotair--2020-06-15--Clyburn: Come on, "nobody is going to defund the police"; Omar: That's "ludicrous"

Get ready for a big civil war within the Democratic Party — perhaps almost literally .
“ Nobody is going to defund the police , ” Clyburn told CNN ’ s Jake Tapper on yesterday ’ s State of the Union .
In fact , it will take more resources to “ restructure ” and “ reimagine ” policing over the next few years , Clyburn said , echoing Joe Biden ’ s call for additional resources to transform American policing : TAPPER : I want to ask you about the defund the police movement , which is an issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive movement right now .
Some organizers on the left say that the only way to reduce police violence and police brutality is to slash police budgets , cut the number of officers .
One activist , Mariame Kaba , wrote in “ The New York Times ” this week — quote — “ Yes , we mean literally abolish .
The police efforts to solve police violence through liberal reforms like these have failed for nearly a century .
Enough .
We can ’ t reform the police .
Why on earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work now ?
” — unquote .
What is your message to her ?
What is your message to those in your caucus , the Black Congress , such as Congresswoman Ilhan Omar , who we ’ re talking with shortly , who is also saying defund the police ?
CLYBURN : I would simply say , as I have always said , nobody is going to defund the police .
We can restructure the police forces , restructure , reimagine policing .
That is what we are going to do .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police have a role to play .
What we have got to do is make sure that their role is one that meets the times , one that responds to these communities that they operate in .
I didn ’ t grow up in fear of police , even in a segregated environment .
We never feared the police .
But , all of a sudden now , I do fear the police .
The young blacks fear the police.Why ?
Because we have built in a system that ’ s responding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Education and everything that comes with it .
When I was growing up , we didn ’ t have black police .
And I remember when the first black policeman — remember his name to this day , two of them .
One name was Gilliard ( ph ) .
One name was China ( ph ) .
The fact of the matter is , this is a structure that has been developed that we have got to deconstruct .
So , I wouldn ’ t say defund .
Deconstruct our policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ nobody is going to defund the police , ” although progressive activists sure are giving it the ol ’ college try in Minneapolis .
The city council finally recognized that they didn ’ t have the authority to disband the police , so they will put an amendment to the city charter on the ballot to give them that option .
The rest of the country , however , has little appetite for warlord rule in “ autonomous zones , ” something Rep. James Clyburn ( D-SC ) recognizes even though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t .
Speaking of which , one Minneapolis progressive came on State of the Union after Clyburn to give a rebuttal .
It would be “ ludicrous ” to give police even more money after all of the street action to demand their elimination , Rep. Ilhan Omar told Tapper .
At least she manages to get her civics correct , however : TAPPER : So , there are a lot of Democrats , as you know , who disagree with what you ’ re talking about .
I just spoke with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has come out in opposition to the defund movement .
He ’ s talked about the need to reform .
But he said defunding could — quote — “ hijack the movement.
” In addition , Joe Biden has said he does not support defunding the police .
And , in fact , he ’ s proposing $ 300 million more for community policing .
What ’ s your response ?
OMAR : Well , it sounds ludicrous to me to have people pour out into the streets asking for the system to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , in order for that transformation to happen , we ’ re just going to give more money to the system , without really doing any kind of systematic change .
If you had a company that wasn ’ t producing , you wouldn ’ t just pour money , more money , into it , so that it would produce .
You would step back and say , what — let ’ s look at what works , what doesn ’ t work , and how do we move forward ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who really are questioning and talking about this movement , they ’ re not paying attention to what the people are asking for .
And , to me , we ’ re — this is not for members of Congress .
This isn ’ t for the president .
This is a municipality issue .
This is a state level issue .
And so I happen to represent a city that is eager and ready to take on this call and deliver .
At least that much we can agree on .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ s been running her city for the last several decades ?
Who ’ s been running the state for at least a decade ?
When we talk about a “ company that isn ’ t producing , ” that also applies to the DFL and the progressives that have had full rein over the Minneapolis Police Department for our lifetimes .
And not just in Minneapolis , but also in every major American city , which Democrats have run since the last major era of social unrest .
Rather than defunding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defund and dismantle Democratic control of the urban areas .
They aren ’ t producing , as Omar herself says , and progressives have created nothing but blight and unaccountability from their era of control .
Allowing them to continue in power is — dare we say ?
— “ ludicrous .
”

Get ready for a big civil war within the Democratic Party — perhaps almost literally. “Nobody is going to defund the police,” Clyburn told CNN’s Jake Tapper on yesterday’s State of the Union. In fact, it will take more resources to “restructure” and “reimagine” policing over the next few years, Clyburn said, echoing Joe Biden’s call for additional resources to transform American policing:
TAPPER: I want to ask you about the defund the police movement, which is an issue in the Democratic Party, in the progressive movement right now. Some organizers on the left say that the only way to reduce police violence and police brutality is to slash police budgets, cut the number of officers. One activist, Mariame Kaba, wrote in “The New York Times” this week — quote — “Yes, we mean literally abolish. The police efforts to solve police violence through liberal reforms like these have failed for nearly a century. Enough. We can’t reform the police. Why on earth would we think the same reforms would work now?” — unquote. What is your message to her? What is your message to those in your caucus, the Black Congress, such as Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who we’re talking with shortly, who is also saying defund the police? CLYBURN: I would simply say, as I have always said, nobody is going to defund the police. We can restructure the police forces, restructure, reimagine policing. That is what we are going to do. The fact of the matter is, the police have a role to play. What we have got to do is make sure that their role is one that meets the times, one that responds to these communities that they operate in. I didn’t grow up in fear of police, even in a segregated environment. We never feared the police. But, all of a sudden now, I do fear the police. The young blacks fear the police.Why? Because we have built in a system that’s responding, once again, to Brown v. Board of Education and everything that comes with it. When I was growing up, we didn’t have black police. And I remember when the first black policeman — remember his name to this day, two of them. One name was Gilliard (ph). One name was China (ph). The fact of the matter is, this is a structure that has been developed that we have got to deconstruct. So, I wouldn’t say defund. Deconstruct our policing.
It’s probably true that “nobody is going to defund the police,” although progressive activists sure are giving it the ol’ college try in Minneapolis. The city council finally recognized that they didn’t have the authority to disband the police, so they will put an amendment to the city charter on the ballot to give them that option. The rest of the country, however, has little appetite for warlord rule in “autonomous zones,” something Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) recognizes even though the left wing of the Democratic Party doesn’t.
Speaking of which, one Minneapolis progressive came on State of the Union after Clyburn to give a rebuttal. It would be “ludicrous” to give police even more money after all of the street action to demand their elimination, Rep. Ilhan Omar told Tapper. At least she manages to get her civics correct, however:
TAPPER: So, there are a lot of Democrats, as you know, who disagree with what you’re talking about. I just spoke with House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, who has come out in opposition to the defund movement. He’s talked about the need to reform. But he said defunding could — quote — “hijack the movement.” In addition, Joe Biden has said he does not support defunding the police. And, in fact, he’s proposing $300 million more for community policing. What’s your response? OMAR: Well, it sounds ludicrous to me to have people pour out into the streets asking for the system to be transformed, and for us to say, in order for that transformation to happen, we’re just going to give more money to the system, without really doing any kind of systematic change. If you had a company that wasn’t producing, you wouldn’t just pour money, more money, into it, so that it would produce. You would step back and say, what — let’s look at what works, what doesn’t work, and how do we move forward? And so I think, for people who really are questioning and talking about this movement, they’re not paying attention to what the people are asking for. And, to me, we’re — this is not for members of Congress. This isn’t for the president. This is a municipality issue. This is a state level issue. And so I happen to represent a city that is eager and ready to take on this call and deliver.
At least that much we can agree on. Now Omar just needs to answer this: who’s been running her city for the last several decades? Who’s been running the state for at least a decade? When we talk about a “company that isn’t producing,” that also applies to the DFL and the progressives that have had full rein over the Minneapolis Police Department for our lifetimes. And not just in Minneapolis, but also in every major American city, which Democrats have run since the last major era of social unrest.
Rather than defunding and dismantling the police, voters should defund and dismantle Democratic control of the urban areas. They aren’t producing, as Omar herself says, and progressives have created nothing but blight and unaccountability from their era of control. Allowing them to continue in power is — dare we say? — “ludicrous.”


hotair--2020-06-15--The official response to the shooting of Rayshard Brooks should alarm everyone

By this time , you ’ ve probably already seen the video of an Atlanta police officer shooting and killing Rayshard Brooks in the parking lot of a local Wendy ’ s restaurant on Friday night .
( You can view the video at this link from NBC News . )
The shooting looks to me as if it should have been entirely preventable , as I ’ ll discuss below , but the official response to it has also been troubling , though for different reasons .
Not even a day later , the officer who shot Brooks had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resigned .
Saturday night , rioters burned the Wendy ’ s restaurant to the ground .
And then , not even two full days later , authorities ruled the shooting to be a homicide .
Authorities in Georgia ruled Sunday that the fatal police shooting of Rayshard Brooks outside an Atlanta Wendy ’ s was a homicide .
Brooks , 27 , died after he was shot twice in the back on June 12 , the Fulton County Medical Examiner ’ s Office said in a statement .
Brooks was shot last Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police officers in the parking lot of the fast-food restaurant .
Police had been summoned there on a report of a man sleeping in his car in the drive-through .
The speed at which events are proceeding in this case is not some sign of the wheels of justice moving quickly to right a wrong .
Or at least not yet .
Allow me to explain before anyone breaks out the pitchforks and torches .
I ’ ve watched the video of the shooting several times now and it ’ s not unreasonable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t immediately be lumped into the same category as the death of George Floyd or even Ahmaud Arbery .
Clearly a number of things went wrong and fault for that lies at least in part on the shoulders of the two responding officers .
There is simply no way that the response to a report of an allegedly drunk person falling asleep in their car in the drive-through of a restaurant should end with a suspect dead on the parking lot pavement .
But with that said , the interactions between Brooks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout much of the encounter .
After awakening the suspect , the normal questions were followed by a field sobriety test .
When Brooks failed the test , the officers moved to take him into custody .
That ’ s when everything went wrong .
Obviously , Brooks was wrong to suddenly bolt out of their grasp and make a run for it when all he was likely looking at was a couple of hours in the drunk tank and the probable loss of his license for six months .
( We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anything additionally incriminating at the scene . )
But it was the fact that Brooks was able to break free that establishes what the police did incorrectly .
They should have had him under better physical control to prevent that .
The next few seconds of the encounter – which would prove to be the final seconds of Brooks ’ life – were when things became a lot more complicated .
Seizing a stun gun from one of the cops was an inexcusable escalation of hostilities on the suspect ’ s part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weapon at one of the cops upped the ante even further .
That ’ s always going to provoke a response from police officers .
Now , it ’ s perfectly valid to ask whether discharging a weapon into the back of a fleeing suspect carrying a non-lethal ( and at that point , expended ) weapon was an appropriate use of lethal force , particularly in the middle of a public parking lot .
I believe it ’ s certainly possible that a jury might be convinced that the decision was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something , whether it ’ s murder , manslaughter or something else .
But my point here is that this wasn ’ t such a clear-cut case that the officer should be fired before any sort of thorough investigation could be begun .
And declaring the shooting to be a homicide in equally rapid fashion only serves to poison any such investigation .
What we ’ re seeing here is the Atlanta Police Department and the municipal government reacting in panic .
The ongoing protests , riots and unrest obviously have them on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same in Atlanta .
The fact that the restaurant was burning down in less than 24 hours likely only increased those fears .
But the ability of the city ’ s law enforcement agencies to remain functional is completely undermined if everyone believes that they can be cowed into any particular decision at the hands of mob rule .
While it ’ s always frustrating for the families of any deceased victim to have to wait for the process to play out and justice to be served , we have these processes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedure in a case like this would have been to place the officer on paid leave while a full investigation was conducted .
If prosecutors determined that there was sufficient evidence to support an arrest and prosecution ( which there clearly could be ) the officer could then be dismissed .
The Police Chief ’ s resignation was also far too rapid unless it could be quickly established that the officers had insufficient training leading to the situation getting out of hand so rapidly .
What we saw in this case over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throwing a scalp to the mob in the hopes that it would appease them .
And that ’ s a terrible precedent to set because now it will be assumed that riots produce results and they ’ ll probably never end .
A formal , transparent investigation could have led to justice for Rayshard Brooks , but at this point , we still don ’ t know definitively what that justice would or should look like .

By this time, you’ve probably already seen the video of an Atlanta police officer shooting and killing Rayshard Brooks in the parking lot of a local Wendy’s restaurant on Friday night. (You can view the video at this link from NBC News.) The shooting looks to me as if it should have been entirely preventable, as I’ll discuss below, but the official response to it has also been troubling, though for different reasons. Not even a day later, the officer who shot Brooks had been fired and the Police Chief had resigned. Saturday night, rioters burned the Wendy’s restaurant to the ground. And then, not even two full days later, authorities ruled the shooting to be a homicide.
Authorities in Georgia ruled Sunday that the fatal police shooting of Rayshard Brooks outside an Atlanta Wendy’s was a homicide. Brooks, 27, died after he was shot twice in the back on June 12, the Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Office said in a statement. Brooks was shot last Friday night after a confrontation with two Atlanta police officers in the parking lot of the fast-food restaurant. Police had been summoned there on a report of a man sleeping in his car in the drive-through.
The speed at which events are proceeding in this case is not some sign of the wheels of justice moving quickly to right a wrong. Or at least not yet. Allow me to explain before anyone breaks out the pitchforks and torches.
I’ve watched the video of the shooting several times now and it’s not unreasonable to say that this incident shouldn’t immediately be lumped into the same category as the death of George Floyd or even Ahmaud Arbery. Clearly a number of things went wrong and fault for that lies at least in part on the shoulders of the two responding officers. There is simply no way that the response to a report of an allegedly drunk person falling asleep in their car in the drive-through of a restaurant should end with a suspect dead on the parking lot pavement.
But with that said, the interactions between Brooks and the police actually looked almost boringly normal throughout much of the encounter. After awakening the suspect, the normal questions were followed by a field sobriety test. When Brooks failed the test, the officers moved to take him into custody. That’s when everything went wrong. Obviously, Brooks was wrong to suddenly bolt out of their grasp and make a run for it when all he was likely looking at was a couple of hours in the drunk tank and the probable loss of his license for six months. (We’ve heard no other reports thus far of anything additionally incriminating at the scene.)
But it was the fact that Brooks was able to break free that establishes what the police did incorrectly. They should have had him under better physical control to prevent that. The next few seconds of the encounter – which would prove to be the final seconds of Brooks’ life – were when things became a lot more complicated. Seizing a stun gun from one of the cops was an inexcusable escalation of hostilities on the suspect’s part. Turning as he ran to fire the weapon at one of the cops upped the ante even further. That’s always going to provoke a response from police officers.
Now, it’s perfectly valid to ask whether discharging a weapon into the back of a fleeing suspect carrying a non-lethal (and at that point, expended) weapon was an appropriate use of lethal force, particularly in the middle of a public parking lot. I believe it’s certainly possible that a jury might be convinced that the decision was wrong and the officer is guilty of something, whether it’s murder, manslaughter or something else. But my point here is that this wasn’t such a clear-cut case that the officer should be fired before any sort of thorough investigation could be begun. And declaring the shooting to be a homicide in equally rapid fashion only serves to poison any such investigation.
What we’re seeing here is the Atlanta Police Department and the municipal government reacting in panic. The ongoing protests, riots and unrest obviously have them on edge and worried about more of the same in Atlanta. The fact that the restaurant was burning down in less than 24 hours likely only increased those fears. But the ability of the city’s law enforcement agencies to remain functional is completely undermined if everyone believes that they can be cowed into any particular decision at the hands of mob rule.
While it’s always frustrating for the families of any deceased victim to have to wait for the process to play out and justice to be served, we have these processes in place for a reason. The normal procedure in a case like this would have been to place the officer on paid leave while a full investigation was conducted. If prosecutors determined that there was sufficient evidence to support an arrest and prosecution (which there clearly could be) the officer could then be dismissed. The Police Chief’s resignation was also far too rapid unless it could be quickly established that the officers had insufficient training leading to the situation getting out of hand so rapidly.
What we saw in this case over the weekend was law enforcement and municipal leadership throwing a scalp to the mob in the hopes that it would appease them. And that’s a terrible precedent to set because now it will be assumed that riots produce results and they’ll probably never end. A formal, transparent investigation could have led to justice for Rayshard Brooks, but at this point, we still don’t know definitively what that justice would or should look like.


hotair--2020-06-15--Breaking: Whelan gets 16 years for espionage in Russia

“ This is slimy , greasy , rubbish Russian politics — nothing more , nothing less , ” Paul Whelan declared in a Moscow courtroom .
It might be more like Let ’ s Make a Deal , as NBC ’ s Keir Simmons reports for Today .
Whelan got 16 years hard labor today for supposedly holding a thumb drive with classified material on it , but the entire caper either paints Whelan as the world ’ s worst spy — or Moscow desperate to trade Whelan for someone the US presently holds .
The Russian Foreign Office even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list for the Americans : Apprently , the first rule of Moscow Vacation Club is never take a flash drive from an acquaintance .
Whelan insists he got set up by an acquaintance who gave him a thumb drive of what Whelan thought were “ holiday photos.
” The former Marine and now security chief for an auto-parts supplier had his hotel room raided shortly thereafter by the FSB , and the Russian government claims the thumb drive had classified material on it .
If Whelan really was conducting espionage , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sloppiest spies ever to have kept that in his possession .
Instead , Whelan insists that the Russian government set him up for the sole purpose of “ taking political hostages ” to force the US to release Russian prisoners .
The lack of subtlety in the Foreign Office ’ s very public suggestions of which prisoners it might swap for Whelan certainly makes Whelan ’ s suspicions look a lot more credible .
Whelan ’ s attorney Vladimir Zherebenkov told reporters that he ’ d heard a couple of names more sotto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pilot who was arrested in 2010 for conspiracy to smuggle cocaine into the United States , and Viktor Bout , a gun runner who inspired the 2005 Hollywood film “ Lord of War , ” are the names he has heard the Kremlin wants in a trade for Whelan ’ s release .
… In July , Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov suggested the United States should “ free Yaroshenko ; swap him for an American or Americans who are serving their sentence here , ” according to the Interfax news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia would be willing to release Whelan and told Russian state news agency RIA Novosti at the time it would not be right to include Whelan in a swap since he had not yet been tried .
The Russians solved that problem rather neatly , didn ’ t they ?
This might be complicated by Whelan ’ s citizenship status .
He ’ s presently a citizen of the US , but also the UK , Ireland , and Canada , which is just one of the curiosities of this case .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that , which country has to make the trade ?
The Russians clearly want the prisoners held in the US , but it ’ s not necessarily incumbent on the US to do so .
Another complication might be Whelan ’ s Marine career , which did not end well ; he got a bad-conduct discharge in 2008 for “ several charges related to larceny , ” according to records reviewed by the Washington Post .
That might make his current position as a corporate security director a little curious too , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Whelan operating as a US spy , too .
That kind of track record isn ’ t a good signal for espionage recruitment , at least not by one ’ s own side .
The US might also wonder whether they want to incentivize Vladimir Putin ’ s hostage-taking , too .
It looks like they grabbed Whelan for his value in a swap , not for any real espionage threat .
Back in the Cold War days , that would have been met by having the US arrest a valuable Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously captured prisoner , as a warning .
That might not be a bad strategy now , too , lest Putin start a wholesale hostaging industry to conduct a weird sort of Dunkirk from American prisons .
At any rate , it ’ s a situation worth watching for its geopolitical consequences .
The US ambassador to Russia warned Moscow of that issue this morning : That ’ s a warning .
Will Putin listen to it ?

“This is slimy, greasy, rubbish Russian politics — nothing more, nothing less,” Paul Whelan declared in a Moscow courtroom. It might be more like Let’s Make a Deal, as NBC’s Keir Simmons reports for Today. Whelan got 16 years hard labor today for supposedly holding a thumb drive with classified material on it, but the entire caper either paints Whelan as the world’s worst spy — or Moscow desperate to trade Whelan for someone the US presently holds.
The Russian Foreign Office even has a couple of names on a list for the Americans:
Breaking this morning: An American was sentenced to 16 years in a Russian prison after a court in Moscow found him guilty of spying. @keirsimmons has the latest. pic.twitter.com/howvLAuCMu — TODAY (@TODAYshow) June 15, 2020
Apprently, the first rule of Moscow Vacation Club is never take a flash drive from an acquaintance. Whelan insists he got set up by an acquaintance who gave him a thumb drive of what Whelan thought were “holiday photos.” The former Marine and now security chief for an auto-parts supplier had his hotel room raided shortly thereafter by the FSB, and the Russian government claims the thumb drive had classified material on it.
If Whelan really was conducting espionage, he’d have to be one of the sloppiest spies ever to have kept that in his possession. Instead, Whelan insists that the Russian government set him up for the sole purpose of “taking political hostages” to force the US to release Russian prisoners. The lack of subtlety in the Foreign Office’s very public suggestions of which prisoners it might swap for Whelan certainly makes Whelan’s suspicions look a lot more credible. Whelan’s attorney Vladimir Zherebenkov told reporters that he’d heard a couple of names more sotto voce:
Zherebenkov said Konstantin Yaroshenko, a pilot who was arrested in 2010 for conspiracy to smuggle cocaine into the United States, and Viktor Bout, a gun runner who inspired the 2005 Hollywood film “Lord of War,” are the names he has heard the Kremlin wants in a trade for Whelan’s release. … In July, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov suggested the United States should “free Yaroshenko; swap him for an American or Americans who are serving their sentence here,” according to the Interfax news agency. Ryabkov stopped short of saying Russia would be willing to release Whelan and told Russian state news agency RIA Novosti at the time it would not be right to include Whelan in a swap since he had not yet been tried.
The Russians solved that problem rather neatly, didn’t they?
This might be complicated by Whelan’s citizenship status. He’s presently a citizen of the US, but also the UK, Ireland, and Canada, which is just one of the curiosities of this case. Why did Whelan hold four citizenships? And with that, which country has to make the trade? The Russians clearly want the prisoners held in the US, but it’s not necessarily incumbent on the US to do so. Another complication might be Whelan’s Marine career, which did not end well; he got a bad-conduct discharge in 2008 for “several charges related to larceny,” according to records reviewed by the Washington Post. That might make his current position as a corporate security director a little curious too, but it might also solidify any skepticism about Whelan operating as a US spy, too. That kind of track record isn’t a good signal for espionage recruitment, at least not by one’s own side.
The US might also wonder whether they want to incentivize Vladimir Putin’s hostage-taking, too. It looks like they grabbed Whelan for his value in a swap, not for any real espionage threat. Back in the Cold War days, that would have been met by having the US arrest a valuable Russian asset in retaliation rather than exchanging a previously captured prisoner, as a warning. That might not be a bad strategy now, too, lest Putin start a wholesale hostaging industry to conduct a weird sort of Dunkirk from American prisons.
At any rate, it’s a situation worth watching for its geopolitical consequences. The US ambassador to Russia warned Moscow of that issue this morning:
Speaking on the courthouse steps after the verdict, U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan described the case as “a mockery of justice.” “Is this an impediment? Absolutely,” Sullivan said of the relationship between Moscow and Washington, referencing current affairs as at a “low ebb.”
That’s a warning. Will Putin listen to it?


hotair--2020-06-15--Conviction of Philippine journalist is sadly unsurprising

One story from the other side of the world has managed to bubble to the surface in America ’ s media over the endless noise that swamps the daily news cycle .
It normally wouldn ’ t qualify as being more than a local news item were it not for the fact that it involves a journalist potentially being sent to jail , so other reporters from around the world need to pump up the volume in solidarity .
The tale takes place in the Philippines and centers on Maria Ressa , the editor of online news outlet Rappler and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pair were found guilty of libel for publishing an article claiming that a wealthy businessman was involved in corruption , drug dealing , human trafficking and murder .
Ressa faces up to six years in prison if she doesn ’ t prevail on appeal .
But as I ’ ll address below , this shouldn ’ t come as a surprise to anyone because she was facing a rigged system and a very corrupt government .
( Associated Press ) An award-winning journalist critical of the Philippine president was convicted of libel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called a major blow to press freedom in an Asian bastion of democracy .
The Manila court found Maria Ressa , her online news site Rappler Inc. and former reporter Reynaldo Santos Jr. guilty of libeling a wealthy businessman .
The Rappler ’ s story on May 29 , 2012 , cited an unspecified intelligence report linking him to a murder , drug dealing , human trafficking and smuggling .
The site ’ s lawyers disputed any malice and said the time limit for filing the libel complaint had passed .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that Rappler is wrong , ” Ressa said in a news conference after the decision was handed down .
Her voice cracking , she appealed to journalists and Filipinos to continue fighting for their rights “ and hold power to account .
I have no idea how much validity there was in the intelligence report that Rappler used as a source for the story or how guilty businessman Wilfredo Keng may have been , but this entire situation is simply beyond bizarre .
First of all , the article was published in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keng didn ’ t even file a suit over it until 2017 , well after Ressa had made a name for herself as an outspoken critic of the current Duterte administration .
There ’ s supposed to be a one-year statute of limitations for libel claims in the Philippines , but the courts seemed to conveniently find a way around that .
As I already said , none of this comes as much of a surprise to me .
I spent a few brief periods of time living in the Philippines back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serving in the Navy .
I even managed to lean to speak some basic Tagalog by the time I left for good , though today I don ’ t think I remember enough of it to even order a beer .
I can tell you from personal experience that the country the Associated Press describes as “ an Asian bastion of democracy ” has been incredibly corrupt since the beginning of the Third Republic , shortly after World War 2 .
I was there during the regime of Ferdinand Marcos and can personally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yours truly ) and local citizens were regularly shaken down for “ fines ” by both civilian police and military patrols .
Every business owner I ever spoke to said that they had to make protection payments to local law enforcement and government officials , and the corruption ran all the way up the line .
The same woes have eventually come to plague virtually every administration from that period up to the present .
The United States tended to turn a blind eye to all of the rot at the core of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they were an important ally and the host of one of our largest military bases in that part of the Pacific .
But crime and abuse were always rampant there and I don ’ t believe they ’ ve ever had an election in the modern era that hasn ’ t been decried by international observers as being “ flawed ” at best or “ rigged ” if we ’ re being honest .
Their courts , unfortunately , aren ’ t much better , being filled with judges who are selected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have money ( like Wilfredo Keng ) you can “ purchase ” plenty of justice for yourself .
But I suspect that this was a case where Keng was just being used as a convenient vehicle to rid the President of a noisy critic .
Yes , the Philippines is “ technically ” a democracy because they hold elections and have all of the usual offices and trappings we associate with a democratic form of government .
But democracy is only a thin veneer over the ugly reality .
I realize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rodrigo Duterte and the two speak highly of each other , but that doesn ’ t change the underbelly of their system .
Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos are almost certainly going to wind up behind bars and they ’ ll be lucky if that ’ s the worst that happens to them , frankly .

One story from the other side of the world has managed to bubble to the surface in America’s media over the endless noise that swamps the daily news cycle. It normally wouldn’t qualify as being more than a local news item were it not for the fact that it involves a journalist potentially being sent to jail, so other reporters from around the world need to pump up the volume in solidarity. The tale takes place in the Philippines and centers on Maria Ressa, the editor of online news outlet Rappler and one of her former reporters. The pair were found guilty of libel for publishing an article claiming that a wealthy businessman was involved in corruption, drug dealing, human trafficking and murder. Ressa faces up to six years in prison if she doesn’t prevail on appeal. But as I’ll address below, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone because she was facing a rigged system and a very corrupt government. (Associated Press)
An award-winning journalist critical of the Philippine president was convicted of libel and sentenced to jail Monday in a decision called a major blow to press freedom in an Asian bastion of democracy. The Manila court found Maria Ressa, her online news site Rappler Inc. and former reporter Reynaldo Santos Jr. guilty of libeling a wealthy businessman. The Rappler’s story on May 29, 2012, cited an unspecified intelligence report linking him to a murder, drug dealing, human trafficking and smuggling. The site’s lawyers disputed any malice and said the time limit for filing the libel complaint had passed. “The decision for me is devastating because it says that Rappler is wrong,” Ressa said in a news conference after the decision was handed down. Her voice cracking, she appealed to journalists and Filipinos to continue fighting for their rights “and hold power to account.
I have no idea how much validity there was in the intelligence report that Rappler used as a source for the story or how guilty businessman Wilfredo Keng may have been, but this entire situation is simply beyond bizarre. First of all, the article was published in 2012, nearly a decade ago. Keng didn’t even file a suit over it until 2017, well after Ressa had made a name for herself as an outspoken critic of the current Duterte administration. There’s supposed to be a one-year statute of limitations for libel claims in the Philippines, but the courts seemed to conveniently find a way around that.
As I already said, none of this comes as much of a surprise to me. I spent a few brief periods of time living in the Philippines back in the late 70s and early 80s while serving in the Navy. I even managed to lean to speak some basic Tagalog by the time I left for good, though today I don’t think I remember enough of it to even order a beer. I can tell you from personal experience that the country the Associated Press describes as “an Asian bastion of democracy” has been incredibly corrupt since the beginning of the Third Republic, shortly after World War 2.
I was there during the regime of Ferdinand Marcos and can personally testify that both visiting sailors (including yours truly) and local citizens were regularly shaken down for “fines” by both civilian police and military patrols. Every business owner I ever spoke to said that they had to make protection payments to local law enforcement and government officials, and the corruption ran all the way up the line. The same woes have eventually come to plague virtually every administration from that period up to the present.
The United States tended to turn a blind eye to all of the rot at the core of the Philippines government back in the day because they were an important ally and the host of one of our largest military bases in that part of the Pacific. But crime and abuse were always rampant there and I don’t believe they’ve ever had an election in the modern era that hasn’t been decried by international observers as being “flawed” at best or “rigged” if we’re being honest. Their courts, unfortunately, aren’t much better, being filled with judges who are selected by the aforementioned corrupt officials. If you have money (like Wilfredo Keng) you can “purchase” plenty of justice for yourself. But I suspect that this was a case where Keng was just being used as a convenient vehicle to rid the President of a noisy critic.
Yes, the Philippines is “technically” a democracy because they hold elections and have all of the usual offices and trappings we associate with a democratic form of government. But democracy is only a thin veneer over the ugly reality. I realize that President Trump is a big fan of Rodrigo Duterte and the two speak highly of each other, but that doesn’t change the underbelly of their system. Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos are almost certainly going to wind up behind bars and they’ll be lucky if that’s the worst that happens to them, frankly.


hotair--2020-06-15--Panic in Beverly Hills: Emergency order bans protests in residential areas

File this one under karma , baby .
The rich and famous are all about protesting and declaring themselves down with the struggle until protesters forget their place and invade residential areas of Beverly Hills .
Then the masks drop .
It ’ s the ultimate Not In My Back Yard ( NIMBY ) – the City of Beverly Hills issued an emergency order Saturday night that bans public gatherings of more than 10 people in residential areas between 9 PM and 8 AM .
What brought this on ?
Well , it seems a group calling themselves “ Occupy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their posh neighborhood on June 12 between the hours of 10 PM until 1 AM .
The group used bullhorns and “ amplified music ” .
The residents want their tranquility back .
The emergency order remains in effect until further notice .
Silent gatherings are allowed , but anything other than a candlelight vigil or a private event can result in arrests .
This follows other protests in the Los Angeles area and the looting that often broke out , including on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills on May 30 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hills had enacted an earlier curfew than the rest of Los Angeles .
The hypocrisy is par for the course these days .
Take , for example , pop star Ariana Grande .
She posted on social media about protesting on May 31 in L.A. and in Beverly Hills and voiced her disappointment that the press wasn ’ t covering the story enough for her virtue-signaling ego .
The point is that the protests she attended are ones that she calls peaceful .
Even she , though , admits those protests were loud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happens with many of those passionate protests , though , right ?
Agitators infiltrate and the next thing you know , Gucci and Dior are being looted on Rodeo Drive .
As a preemptive measure , Rodeo Drive was shut down to traffic to help prevent the possibility of violence and looting taking place in the luxury shopping area located nearby in Beverly Hills .
However , protesters were still able to make their way inside on foot .
Videos shared on social media showed protesters chanting , “ No Justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rich ” and “ Hands Up , Don ’ t Shoot.
” Following the outbreak of violence , Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced that he would be implementing a curfew on Saturday afternoon .
He tweeted , “ We will always protect free speech and Angelenos ’ right to live without fear of violence or vandalism .
To increase safety for demonstrators , law enforcement , and all citizens of Los Angeles , we are putting a curfew in place from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. ” However , before the curfew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hills turned violent .
Just before 7 p.m. local time , the Gucci store on Rodeo Drive was looted .
High-end stores up and down the street were vandalized .
So , no doubt that when a group calling themselves “ Occupy ” , ( how very 2010 of them ) shows up and gets loud until the wee hours of the morning , the owners of those big mansions and pricey properties got concerned that their property could be next for looters and bad actors .
I can ’ t imagine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own in issuing an emergency order after the protest on June 12 .
Homeowners surely called city officials and demanded the local governing body do something .
Can ’ t we all just get along ?
Jeremy Meeks , a 36-year-old model , brought along his 11-year-old son and documented their marching through Beverly Hills on Instagram .
Jeremy documented his time at protests in Beverly Hills on Instagram and shared footage of him and his son passionately chanting , ‘ Black Lives Matter here ’ , as they made their way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video : ‘ No justice , no peace.
’ Jeremy has been attending organised protests over the last few days over in LA and had shared a video of him addressing some of the rioting and looting that has also been going on .
He said : ‘ I ’ m seeing so many videos of white rioters kicking up so much dust .
Listen , I ’ m not gon na sit and act like we ’ re not kicking up dust .
‘ We are pissed and frustrated and kicking s*** @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling you right now , little white kids , they ’ re looting just as much as we are .
And we ’ re gon na get the blame , not them .
It ’ s the way of the world.
’ Hmm .
“ Kicking s*** up ” doesn ’ t sound so peaceful , does it ?
Sleep tight , Beverly Hills homeowners .
I ’ m sure that paper the director of emergency services signed will protect you from the angry mob when it comes for your neighborhood .

File this one under karma, baby. The rich and famous are all about protesting and declaring themselves down with the struggle until protesters forget their place and invade residential areas of Beverly Hills. Then the masks drop.
It’s the ultimate Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) – the City of Beverly Hills issued an emergency order Saturday night that bans public gatherings of more than 10 people in residential areas between 9 PM and 8 AM. What brought this on? Well, it seems a group calling themselves “Occupy” disrupted the beauty sleep of locals in their posh neighborhood on June 12 between the hours of 10 PM until 1 AM. The group used bullhorns and “amplified music”. The residents want their tranquility back. The emergency order remains in effect until further notice.
To preserve the peace and tranquility of residential neighborhoods, effective tonight and until further notice, no more than 10 people shall gather in an assembly in a public right of way in a residential area between the hours of 9 p.m. – 8 a.m. More: https://t.co/EVjLWqWgE5 — CityofBeverlyHills (@CityofBevHills) June 14, 2020
Silent gatherings are allowed, but anything other than a candlelight vigil or a private event can result in arrests.
This follows other protests in the Los Angeles area and the looting that often broke out, including on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills on May 30. At that time the City of Beverly Hills had enacted an earlier curfew than the rest of Los Angeles. The hypocrisy is par for the course these days. Take, for example, pop star Ariana Grande. She posted on social media about protesting on May 31 in L.A. and in Beverly Hills and voiced her disappointment that the press wasn’t covering the story enough for her virtue-signaling ego.
Ariana protested in Los Angeles on May 31 and shared her experience on Twitter writing, “Hours and miles of peaceful protesting yesterday that got little to no coverage. All throughout Beverly Hills and West Hollywood we chanted, people beeped and cheered along. We were passionate, we were loud, we were loving. Cover this too please.”
hours and miles of peaceful protesting yesterday that got little to no coverage.
all throughout beverly hills and west hollywood we chanted, people beeped and cheered along.
we were passionate, we were loud, we were loving.
cover this too please. #BLACKLIVESMATTER https://t.co/vD90CEtF94 pic.twitter.com/GZ6uKDfPM7 — Ariana Grande (@ArianaGrande) May 31, 2020
Ariana Grande is one of the biggest artists in the world. Not only did she use her platform to express her anger and pain towards what’s going on she also participated in the streets with the rest of the protesters 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 pic.twitter.com/XWgayEgfTV — anth (@anthspears) May 31, 2020
The point is that the protests she attended are ones that she calls peaceful. Even she, though, admits those protests were loud and “passionate”. We know what happens with many of those passionate protests, though, right? Agitators infiltrate and the next thing you know, Gucci and Dior are being looted on Rodeo Drive.
As a preemptive measure, Rodeo Drive was shut down to traffic to help prevent the possibility of violence and looting taking place in the luxury shopping area located nearby in Beverly Hills. However, protesters were still able to make their way inside on foot. Videos shared on social media showed protesters chanting, “No Justice, No Peace,” “Eat the Rich” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.” Following the outbreak of violence, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced that he would be implementing a curfew on Saturday afternoon. He tweeted, “We will always protect free speech and Angelenos’ right to live without fear of violence or vandalism. To increase safety for demonstrators, law enforcement, and all citizens of Los Angeles, we are putting a curfew in place from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m.” However, before the curfew kicked in, the rally in Beverly Hills turned violent. Just before 7 p.m. local time, the Gucci store on Rodeo Drive was looted. High-end stores up and down the street were vandalized.
BREAKING: Large group of protrsters just returned to Rodeo Drive. I just saw these two masked white guys deflate the tires on several police vehicles, then the female in all black pulled a metal tool from her coat and tried to do the same. @FOXLA pic.twitter.com/zSsoOiU25J — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) May 31, 2020
Looting on Rodeo Drive now too. Gucci broken into. pic.twitter.com/1qbHnkfqA3 — Perez (@ThePerezHilton) May 31, 2020
So, no doubt that when a group calling themselves “Occupy”, (how very 2010 of them) shows up and gets loud until the wee hours of the morning, the owners of those big mansions and pricey properties got concerned that their property could be next for looters and bad actors. I can’t imagine that the City of Beverly Hills acted on its own in issuing an emergency order after the protest on June 12. Homeowners surely called city officials and demanded the local governing body do something. Can’t we all just get along?
Jeremy Meeks, a 36-year-old model, brought along his 11-year-old son and documented their marching through Beverly Hills on Instagram.
Jeremy documented his time at protests in Beverly Hills on Instagram and shared footage of him and his son passionately chanting, ‘Black Lives Matter here’, as they made their way through the streets. He captioned his video: ‘No justice, no peace.’ Jeremy has been attending organised protests over the last few days over in LA and had shared a video of him addressing some of the rioting and looting that has also been going on. He said: ‘I’m seeing so many videos of white rioters kicking up so much dust. Listen, I’m not gonna sit and act like we’re not kicking up dust. ‘We are pissed and frustrated and kicking s*** up.’ ‘But I’m telling you right now, little white kids, they’re looting just as much as we are. And we’re gonna get the blame, not them. It’s the way of the world.’
Hmm. “Kicking s*** up” doesn’t sound so peaceful, does it? Sleep tight, Beverly Hills homeowners. I’m sure that paper the director of emergency services signed will protect you from the angry mob when it comes for your neighborhood.


hotair--2020-06-15--Five risks to consider before venturing out during the pandemic

The coronavirus pandemic is still with us but slowly the lives of many people are beginning to move to a new post-lockdown normal .
As we begin to venture out , there is a list of five risks to consider in your decision-making process .
Is an activity or visit to a public area worth the risk of potential exposure to the coronavirus ?
The five risks , according to scientists are proximity to people ; the likelihood others will practice safe behavior ; indoors or out ; exposure time , and personal health risks .
The list comes from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by MLive in Michigan .
I know , I read that and thought , a survey of only four people ?
Nonetheless , the list makes sense and can serve as a common sense guide for those of us who are feeling completely let down by public health experts and the medical community .
While they all bounce from recommendation to recommendation from day to day , seemingly whichever way the wind blows , these constants remain when considering the risk of exposure to the virus .
Instead of public officials dictating where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , each of us has to make personal decisions about our own safety .
We all know the basics – wear a mask , social distance in public places , and handwashing .
The list that ranks different activities is helpful in going forward .
Should you worry about a trip to the grocery store ?
How about getting a drink with a friend in your neighborhood bar ?
Outdoor activities are safest , generally speaking .
Not the mass protests and riots that we ’ ve witnessed in recent days , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk in the park .
Walking by someone on a trail is less a risk than going to watch a game indoors .
The point is , we aren ’ t going to stay home forever , our lives will continue on and for now , it is best to go to places where compliance with safety precautions will be practiced .
Some environments are tougher than others , when it comes to enforcing precautions .
So places where compliance is most likely are a lower risk than places where people don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People must also consider their own personal risk level , such as if they have health risks that make them more susceptible to COVID-19 .
“ Until we have a vaccine , we are going to have to move forward with risk reduction strategies , ” Sims said .
“ Because you can ’ t keep the economy on hold forever , you can ’ t keep peoples ’ lives on hold forever.
” The places/activities involving groups of people are ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 .
The highest-ranking of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t appear on the list , though .
Perhaps the caveat that if everyone is taking precautions , the risk is greatly reduced comes into consideration .
So , a large concert or a bar could be ranked a 10 but move down to a 9 on the risk scale if some precautions are being made .
A game of tennis outdoors with one other person who is not infected is ranked as the safest of activities , a 1 .
“ After a couple of drinks , they ’ re starting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Nasir Husain said .
“ And that ’ s when the trouble starts.
” The tennis court is one of the easiest places to ace the COVID-avoidance game — as long as your partner doesn ’ t have the disease .
The activity is one of two ranked a reassuring 1 by the doctors .
Navigating restaurants isn ’ t as simple as hitting the tennis court .
Takeout , patio seating and dining in all bear risks .
The latter is the most dangerous — a 6 .
Here are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk assessment : sports stadiums , gyms , amusement parks , churches , and buffets are an 8 .
Public pools are a 7 .
Movie theaters , hair salons , and barbershops are a 6 .
Planes , beaches , bowling alleys , and backyard BBQs are a 5 .
Busy city sidewalks and dentist offices are a 4 .
Libraries/museums , grocery stores , hotels , and golf courses are a 3 .
Pumping gas , walking/running and biking a 2 .
And , the safest of activities are , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tennis which are ranked at 1 .
Why is a backyard barbeque ranked higher than a busy city sidewalk , though ?
Both are outdoors and I would assume that social distancing would be much more manageable in someone ’ s backyard than on a public sidewalk in a large city .
Not all of the list makes sense to me .
One of the doctors wanted to give bars a 10 ranking which makes more sense to me , too .
People can ’ t wear a mask when drinking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bars are more tightly packed in by patrons than restaurants .
The risk of swimming in a public pool ( a 7 ) is not completely clear , either .
“ We don ’ t have good data to show how the virus would behave in a pool , ” Husain said .
“ Pool water does have chlorine in it , but I don ’ t think it ’ s high enough to be very effective in completely reducing risk to zero.
” Outdoor playgrounds for children are ranked at 6 because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they cough and sneeze on surfaces .
It just seems to me that a pool with chlorine would be less risky than kids playing on a playground , not more .
While experts argue over whether or not some states are experiencing a second wave of the coronavirus outbreak , which I don ’ t think they are , the basics on disinfecting surfaces and our hands hold .
As noted above , I have some questions about some of the rankings but generally speaking , it ’ s a pretty good list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get used to weighing the pros and cons of getting out and about , at least until the virus outbreak subsides or a vaccine is on the market .

The coronavirus pandemic is still with us but slowly the lives of many people are beginning to move to a new post-lockdown normal. As we begin to venture out, there is a list of five risks to consider in your decision-making process. Is an activity or visit to a public area worth the risk of potential exposure to the coronavirus?
The five risks, according to scientists are proximity to people; the likelihood others will practice safe behavior; indoors or out; exposure time, and personal health risks. The list comes from a survey of four public health experts by MLive in Michigan. I know, I read that and thought, a survey of only four people? Nonetheless, the list makes sense and can serve as a common sense guide for those of us who are feeling completely let down by public health experts and the medical community. While they all bounce from recommendation to recommendation from day to day, seemingly whichever way the wind blows, these constants remain when considering the risk of exposure to the virus.
Instead of public officials dictating where we can and cannot go now, each of us has to make personal decisions about our own safety. We all know the basics – wear a mask, social distance in public places, and handwashing. The list that ranks different activities is helpful in going forward. Should you worry about a trip to the grocery store? How about getting a drink with a friend in your neighborhood bar?
Outdoor activities are safest, generally speaking. Not the mass protests and riots that we’ve witnessed in recent days, but activities like a tennis game or a walk in the park. Walking by someone on a trail is less a risk than going to watch a game indoors. The point is, we aren’t going to stay home forever, our lives will continue on and for now, it is best to go to places where compliance with safety precautions will be practiced.
Some environments are tougher than others, when it comes to enforcing precautions. So places where compliance is most likely are a lower risk than places where people don’t have to follow the guidelines. People must also consider their own personal risk level, such as if they have health risks that make them more susceptible to COVID-19. “Until we have a vaccine, we are going to have to move forward with risk reduction strategies,” Sims said. “Because you can’t keep the economy on hold forever, you can’t keep peoples’ lives on hold forever.”
The places/activities involving groups of people are ranked on a scale of 1 to 10. The highest-ranking of risk, a 10, doesn’t appear on the list, though. Perhaps the caveat that if everyone is taking precautions, the risk is greatly reduced comes into consideration. So, a large concert or a bar could be ranked a 10 but move down to a 9 on the risk scale if some precautions are being made. A game of tennis outdoors with one other person who is not infected is ranked as the safest of activities, a 1.
“After a couple of drinks, they’re starting to feel a little more invincible,” Dr. Nasir Husain said. “And that’s when the trouble starts.” The tennis court is one of the easiest places to ace the COVID-avoidance game — as long as your partner doesn’t have the disease. The activity is one of two ranked a reassuring 1 by the doctors. Navigating restaurants isn’t as simple as hitting the tennis court. Takeout, patio seating and dining in all bear risks. The latter is the most dangerous — a 6.
Here are more examples of the guidance put forth on risk assessment: sports stadiums, gyms, amusement parks, churches, and buffets are an 8. Public pools are a 7. Movie theaters, hair salons, and barbershops are a 6. Planes, beaches, bowling alleys, and backyard BBQs are a 5. Busy city sidewalks and dentist offices are a 4. Libraries/museums, grocery stores, hotels, and golf courses are a 3. Pumping gas, walking/running and biking a 2. And, the safest of activities are, according to this list, restaurant takeout, and tennis which are ranked at 1.
Why is a backyard barbeque ranked higher than a busy city sidewalk, though? Both are outdoors and I would assume that social distancing would be much more manageable in someone’s backyard than on a public sidewalk in a large city. Not all of the list makes sense to me. One of the doctors wanted to give bars a 10 ranking which makes more sense to me, too. People can’t wear a mask when drinking, they mingle with other patrons, and bars are more tightly packed in by patrons than restaurants.
The risk of swimming in a public pool (a 7) is not completely clear, either. “We don’t have good data to show how the virus would behave in a pool,” Husain said. “Pool water does have chlorine in it, but I don’t think it’s high enough to be very effective in completely reducing risk to zero.” Outdoor playgrounds for children are ranked at 6 because kids don’t social distance and they cough and sneeze on surfaces. It just seems to me that a pool with chlorine would be less risky than kids playing on a playground, not more.
While experts argue over whether or not some states are experiencing a second wave of the coronavirus outbreak, which I don’t think they are, the basics on disinfecting surfaces and our hands hold.
Use disinfecting wipes or disinfecting spray cleaners on frequently-touched surfaces in your home (door handles, faucets, countertops) and carry hand sanitizer with you when you go into places like stores.
As noted above, I have some questions about some of the rankings but generally speaking, it’s a pretty good list to go by. We just have to get used to weighing the pros and cons of getting out and about, at least until the virus outbreak subsides or a vaccine is on the market.


hotair--2020-06-16--DOJ sues John Bolton for breach of contract over his book -- but won't try to stop it from being pub

DOJ sues John Bolton for breach of contract over his book -- but won't try to stop it from being published, probably

I ’ m sure ideally they ’ d want to block publication and spare the president from embarrassing revelations from a former aide with just a few months to go before the election .
But courts don ’ t like prior restraint .
A judge isn ’ t going to let the White House sit on Bolton ’ s manuscript forever under the pretext of vetting it to make sure that it doesn ’ t include classified information , especially when the electoral motive for slow-walking it is so obvious .
So instead of seeking an injunction to halt publication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight on more favorable terrain : They ’ re seeking to take the profits from Bolton ’ s book on grounds that he violated his agreement with the government that he wouldn ’ t publish anything about his time as National Security Advisor until the pre-publication natsec review process was completed .
It hasn ’ t been completed in this case , so they want him to pay up .
And , depending upon what ’ s in the book , they might just seek criminal charges against him .
Whether that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate question .
I ’ m sure Trump would relish watching Bolton lose his payday from writing the book and would relish even more seeing him hauled into court with prison time on the line .
But unless the DOJ files for a TRO soon — the book ’ s scheduled to be published seven days from now — it ’ s going to come out and do whatever political damage Bolton is prepared to do .
And thanks to today ’ s court filing , it ’ ll enjoy even more hype @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise .
You know what happens when you tell the public that something ’ s too dangerous for them to read//watch/listen to : The suit , filed in Washington , DC , federal court , alleges that Bolton ’ s 500-plus page manuscript was “ rife with classified information , ” and prosecutors say that Bolton backed out of an ongoing White House vetting process for the book that he ’ d been obligated to do as a result of agreements he ’ d signed .
“ ( Bolton ) struck a bargain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his employment in one of the most sensitive and important national security positions in the United States Government and now wants to renege on that bargain by unilaterally deciding that the prepublication review process is complete and deciding for himself whether classified information should be made public , ” prosecutors write… Bolton ’ s book has already shipped to warehouses ahead of its scheduled release .
He has taped an interview with ABC slated to air Sunday .
And a source close to him says he is intent on publishing the book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deal with any ramifications from the administration in the aftermath , not before .
Interestingly , the complaint does request that the court stop publication of the book in its prayer for relief .
But the court won ’ t hustle to consider that unless the DOJ files for a temporary restraining order and time ’ s a-wasting for them to do that with the national release just seven days away .
Here ’ s the key bit : Despite the language there about not releasing the book and asking the publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the manuscript that might already be in the possession of third parties ( i.e .
Amazon warehouses ) , Bolton ’ s publisher , Simon & Schuster , isn ’ t a named defendant in the suit .
Only Bolton is .
That ’ s another sign that the DOJ recognizes that a legal effort to block publication would run into “ Pentagon Papers ” problems and ultimately fail , turning Bolton into a free-speech martyr in the process .
Bolton ’ s lawyer published an op-ed in the WSJ last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , not two , not three , but four rounds of pre-publication natsec review with the National Security Council ’ s senior official for that function , Ellen Knight .
On April 27 , after the fourth round , Knight told Bolton , “ that ’ s the last edit I really have to provide for you.
” Was that the end of the process ?
Here ’ s what Bolton ’ s lawyer , Chuck Cooper , says happened next : Cooper notes various media reports about irregularities in the review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pat Cipollone reportedly having been briefed on the manuscript during the impeachment trial .
He also points to regulations that guide the process , which prohibit unnecessary delays “ to prevent embarrassment to a person ” and the exclusion of “ information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.
” He thinks the White House is trying to bog down the vetting in hopes of delaying publication of the book until after the election , when it ’ ll no longer be able to hurt Trump politically , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it .
Interestingly , the DOJ complaint confirms that Knight signed off on Bolton ’ s book : “ On or around April 27 , 2020 , Ms. Knight had completed her review and was of the judgment that the manuscript draft did not contain classified information .
Ms. Knight informed NSC Legal of the status of the review.
” So why didn ’ t they give Bolton the green light to publish ?
The complaint claims that Michael Ellis , the NSC ’ s senior director for intelligence , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Based on Mr. Ellis ’ s position as Senior Director for Intelligence Programs , he routinely receives extremely sensitive intelligence reports and analysis that most members of the NSC staff , including Ms. Knight do not , ” the DOJ explains .
It would be … strange if Bolton and his lawyer weren ’ t informed up front that Knight ’ s review wouldn ’ t be the only review of the manuscript .
Maybe they were informed and Cooper conveniently left that detail out ?
Or maybe Cooper ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the book for political reasons and Ellis ’ s review is the pretext .
In any case , why wouldn ’ t the White House formally inform Bolton soon after May 7 that a second review had begun .
Or did they ?
Either way , at some point between May 7 and now , Bolton and Simon & Schuster concluded that the review process was over and sent the book for printing .
The DOJ saw a news report on June 7 that the book was now set to come out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal advisor promptly contacted Bolton ’ s lawyer the next day to warn him not to do that , to no avail .
Now here we are .
Who wins ?
According to Mark Zaid , a lawyer well-known for representing whistleblowers against the government , this one ’ s a slam dunk — for the DOJ .
“ This is a routine civil action for breach of contract for ( Bolton ) violating his non-disclosure agreement , which his own lawyer has admitted he did , ” Zaid said .
“ Absent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared to take out his check book and may never see a dime in profit .
The lawsuit also asserts Bolton has released classified information which potentially subjects him to criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.
” … “ Bolton is in serious trouble with at least a breach of contract , which is literally a hands down winner for the government , ” Zaid said .
“ Bolton has an obligation before publication to receive approval from the government — a lack of approval breaches his contractual obligation and that has nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one word of classified information in the book.
” If the review process wasn ’ t over , the review process wasn ’ t over .
Bolton and Cooper are presumably going to argue that the government breached the contract first by failing to vet his manuscript in good faith , pointing to the evidence that they were slowing down the review to protect Trump from “ embarrassment.
” Lawyer Brad Moss has an answer to that , though : Why didn ’ t Bolton sue after he started getting radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the status of his manuscript ?
Zaid noted elsewhere that he always inserts a clause in book deals that gives the author ultimate control over whether to publish or not .
If Bolton ’ s contract with Simon & Schuster doesn ’ t have that clause then Bolton is at S & S ’ s mercy .
He might ask them to hold the book back because he ’ s afraid to go to prison — and they might blow him off because they ’ ve got a moneymaker in their hands .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton and Cooper didn ’ t foresee this outcome when they decided to move ahead with printing the book .
They must have priced in this risk and chosen to move forward anyway .
Here ’ s Trump yesterday suggesting that all conversations between him and his advisors are “ highly classified , ” which is not true .
If that ’ s the standard Ellis is using in reviewing the book then it ’ ll only strengthen Bolton ’ s case that the long review process is dilatory and abusive .

I’m sure ideally they’d want to block publication and spare the president from embarrassing revelations from a former aide with just a few months to go before the election. But courts don’t like prior restraint. A judge isn’t going to let the White House sit on Bolton’s manuscript forever under the pretext of vetting it to make sure that it doesn’t include classified information, especially when the electoral motive for slow-walking it is so obvious. So instead of seeking an injunction to halt publication, the DOJ’s going to fight on more favorable terrain: They’re seeking to take the profits from Bolton’s book on grounds that he violated his agreement with the government that he wouldn’t publish anything about his time as National Security Advisor until the pre-publication natsec review process was completed. It hasn’t been completed in this case, so they want him to pay up.
And, depending upon what’s in the book, they might just seek criminal charges against him.
Whether that’s satisfactory to the president is a separate question. I’m sure Trump would relish watching Bolton lose his payday from writing the book and would relish even more seeing him hauled into court with prison time on the line. But unless the DOJ files for a TRO soon — the book’s scheduled to be published seven days from now — it’s going to come out and do whatever political damage Bolton is prepared to do. And thanks to today’s court filing, it’ll enjoy even more hype when it arrives than it would have otherwise. You know what happens when you tell the public that something’s too dangerous for them to read//watch/listen to:
Details from CNN:
The suit, filed in Washington, DC, federal court, alleges that Bolton’s 500-plus page manuscript was “rife with classified information,” and prosecutors say that Bolton backed out of an ongoing White House vetting process for the book that he’d been obligated to do as a result of agreements he’d signed. “(Bolton) struck a bargain with the United States as a condition of his employment in one of the most sensitive and important national security positions in the United States Government and now wants to renege on that bargain by unilaterally deciding that the prepublication review process is complete and deciding for himself whether classified information should be made public,” prosecutors write… Bolton’s book has already shipped to warehouses ahead of its scheduled release. He has taped an interview with ABC slated to air Sunday. And a source close to him says he is intent on publishing the book as scheduled Tuesday, meaning he expects to deal with any ramifications from the administration in the aftermath, not before.
Interestingly, the complaint does request that the court stop publication of the book in its prayer for relief. But the court won’t hustle to consider that unless the DOJ files for a temporary restraining order and time’s a-wasting for them to do that with the national release just seven days away. Here’s the key bit:
Despite the language there about not releasing the book and asking the publisher to retrieve and dispose of any copies of the manuscript that might already be in the possession of third parties (i.e. Amazon warehouses), Bolton’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, isn’t a named defendant in the suit. Only Bolton is. That’s another sign that the DOJ recognizes that a legal effort to block publication would run into “Pentagon Papers” problems and ultimately fail, turning Bolton into a free-speech martyr in the process.
Bolton’s lawyer published an op-ed in the WSJ last week alleging that he dutifully complied with not one, not two, not three, but four rounds of pre-publication natsec review with the National Security Council’s senior official for that function, Ellen Knight. On April 27, after the fourth round, Knight told Bolton, “that’s the last edit I really have to provide for you.” Was that the end of the process? Here’s what Bolton’s lawyer, Chuck Cooper, says happened next:
Yet when Mr. Bolton asked when he would receive the letter confirming the book was cleared, Ms. Knight cryptically replied that her “interaction” with unnamed others in the White House about the book had “been very delicate” and that there were “some internal process considerations to work through.” She thought the letter might be ready that afternoon but would “know more by the end of the day.” Six weeks later, Mr. Bolton has yet to receive a clearance letter. He hasn’t heard from Ms. Knight since May 7.
Cooper notes various media reports about irregularities in the review process, such as White House counsel Pat Cipollone reportedly having been briefed on the manuscript during the impeachment trial. He also points to regulations that guide the process, which prohibit unnecessary delays “to prevent embarrassment to a person” and the exclusion of “information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.” He thinks the White House is trying to bog down the vetting in hopes of delaying publication of the book until after the election, when it’ll no longer be able to hurt Trump politically, and that they’re breaking the rules to do it.
Interestingly, the DOJ complaint confirms that Knight signed off on Bolton’s book: “On or around April 27, 2020, Ms. Knight had completed her review and was of the judgment that the manuscript draft did not contain classified information. Ms. Knight informed NSC Legal of the status of the review.” So why didn’t they give Bolton the green light to publish? The complaint claims that Michael Ellis, the NSC’s senior director for intelligence, then began a second review of the manuscript. “Based on Mr. Ellis’s position as Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, he routinely receives extremely sensitive intelligence reports and analysis that most members of the NSC staff, including Ms. Knight do not,” the DOJ explains. It would be … strange if Bolton and his lawyer weren’t informed up front that Knight’s review wouldn’t be the only review of the manuscript. Maybe they were informed and Cooper conveniently left that detail out? Or maybe Cooper’s right that the White House is slow-walking the book for political reasons and Ellis’s review is the pretext.
In any case, why wouldn’t the White House formally inform Bolton soon after May 7 that a second review had begun. Or did they?
Either way, at some point between May 7 and now, Bolton and Simon & Schuster concluded that the review process was over and sent the book for printing. The DOJ saw a news report on June 7 that the book was now set to come out on June 23; the NSC’s legal advisor promptly contacted Bolton’s lawyer the next day to warn him not to do that, to no avail. Now here we are. Who wins? According to Mark Zaid, a lawyer well-known for representing whistleblowers against the government, this one’s a slam dunk — for the DOJ.
“This is a routine civil action for breach of contract for (Bolton) violating his non-disclosure agreement, which his own lawyer has admitted he did,” Zaid said. “Absent something extraordinary happening, Bolton should be prepared to take out his check book and may never see a dime in profit. The lawsuit also asserts Bolton has released classified information which potentially subjects him to criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act.”… “Bolton is in serious trouble with at least a breach of contract, which is literally a hands down winner for the government,” Zaid said. “Bolton has an obligation before publication to receive approval from the government — a lack of approval breaches his contractual obligation and that has nothing to do with whether or not there’s one word of classified information in the book.”
If the review process wasn’t over, the review process wasn’t over. Bolton and Cooper are presumably going to argue that the government breached the contract first by failing to vet his manuscript in good faith, pointing to the evidence that they were slowing down the review to protect Trump from “embarrassment.” Lawyer Brad Moss has an answer to that, though:
I'm seeing some people questioning if Bolton can argue bad faith in the NSC prepublication process because the first reviewer internally signed off on the revised manuscript, but then a supplemental review disagreed. Short answer? Not at this point. He should have sued. — Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) June 16, 2020
Why didn’t Bolton sue after he started getting radio silence from Knight and the NSC about the status of his manuscript?
Zaid noted elsewhere that he always inserts a clause in book deals that gives the author ultimate control over whether to publish or not. If Bolton’s contract with Simon & Schuster doesn’t have that clause then Bolton is at S&S’s mercy. He might ask them to hold the book back because he’s afraid to go to prison — and they might blow him off because they’ve got a moneymaker in their hands. Although it’s hard to believe Bolton and Cooper didn’t foresee this outcome when they decided to move ahead with printing the book. They must have priced in this risk and chosen to move forward anyway.
Here’s Trump yesterday suggesting that all conversations between him and his advisors are “highly classified,” which is not true. If that’s the standard Ellis is using in reviewing the book then it’ll only strengthen Bolton’s case that the long review process is dilatory and abusive.


hotair--2020-06-16--Goodell: Won't someone *please* sign Kaepernick?

A comeback for Colin Kaepernick … or CYA from the NFL ?
“ We should have listened to our players earlier , ” NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told ESPN ’ s Mike Greenberg last night , perhaps especially the one that made the biggest splash .
In the most direct comments on the years-long standoff between the league and its most high-profile exile , Goodell held out an olive branch , offering him a “ role ” in the league ’ s new efforts on social justice , but he also “ encourage [ s ] ” teams to consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would certainly make the NFL and Goodell look better with a significant segment of its audience .
Is that what Kaepernick really wants , though ?
“ Well , listen , if he wants to resume his career in the NFL , then obviously it ’ s gon na take a team to make that decision , ” Goodell said .
“ But I welcome that , support a club making that decision and encourage them to do that .
“ If his efforts are not on the field but continuing to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that table and to help us , guide us , help us make better decisions about the kinds of things that need to be done in the communities .
We have invited him in before , and we want to make sure that everybody ’ s welcome at that table and trying to help us deal with some very complex , difficult issues that have been around for a long time .
“ But I hope we ’ re at a point now where everybody ’ s committed to making long-term , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do is just get out of the way .
He tried to stage a PR campaign last year to get Kaepernick signed that turned into an utter disaster over Goodell ’ s high-handedness .
Kaepernick didn ’ t cooperate much either , but after being given an ultimatum on the parameters of the exhibition and no negotiating room over the waivers involved , it ’ s not tough to see why .
The legalities are out of the way now , at least .
Goodell negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t need to make goodwill gestures to Kaepernick to woo players any more .
The league settled the collusion lawsuit with Kaepernick and Eric Reid over a year ago .
The only things keeping Kaepernick on the sideline are worries over his age and training , and of course the headache of having him on a roster .
Kaepernick doesn ’ t want to just sign a contract — he wants a real shot at being the starting QB , and his presence would almost certainly start a QB controversy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
Still , his stats look good compared to the backups playing now .
His lifetime quarterback rating of 87.8 would have put him mid-range among starters last season , and way above the bench-riders .
His final season rating of 90.7 in 2016 put him ahead of names like Tom Brady , Mitch Trubisky , and Philip Rivers in 2019 .
Even his worst full-season rating as a starter ( 78.5 ) was comparable to the seasons Andy Dalton and Baker Mayfield had last year , although that ’ s hardly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether taking three seasons off has eroded his skills , or whether it has made him fresher and given him more potential years at the end of his career .
Teams will have to decide whether he ’ s worth the headache , of course , but at this point Kaepernick ’ s headache comes with a side benefit of credibility , too .
The team that signs him can market that as outreach and real commitment to social-justice issues that the league is now scrambling to embrace .
The headache cost is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all the unrest this year , kneeling probably won ’ t carry the same level of offense and negativity as it did in years past .
Kaepernick ’ s return will close up a wound with one part of the league ’ s audience while the riots more or less cauterize it with the rest .
But again … is that what Kaepernick wants ?
Or does he prefer his status as an exile/martyr for the cause ?
This is probably the last year he has that option , because it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a three-year hiatus at 32 .
Another lost season and Kaepernick probably won ’ t have many options left .

A comeback for Colin Kaepernick … or CYA from the NFL? “We should have listened to our players earlier,” NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told ESPN’s Mike Greenberg last night, perhaps especially the one that made the biggest splash. In the most direct comments on the years-long standoff between the league and its most high-profile exile, Goodell held out an olive branch, offering him a “role” in the league’s new efforts on social justice, but he also “encourage[s]” teams to consider signing Kaepernick to a contract.
That would certainly make the NFL and Goodell look better with a significant segment of its audience. Is that what Kaepernick really wants, though?
“Well, listen, if he wants to resume his career in the NFL, then obviously it’s gonna take a team to make that decision,” Goodell said. “But I welcome that, support a club making that decision and encourage them to do that. “If his efforts are not on the field but continuing to work in this space, we welcome him to that table and to help us, guide us, help us make better decisions about the kinds of things that need to be done in the communities. We have invited him in before, and we want to make sure that everybody’s welcome at that table and trying to help us deal with some very complex, difficult issues that have been around for a long time. “But I hope we’re at a point now where everybody’s committed to making long-term, sustainable change.”
One thing Goodell could do is just get out of the way. He tried to stage a PR campaign last year to get Kaepernick signed that turned into an utter disaster over Goodell’s high-handedness. Kaepernick didn’t cooperate much either, but after being given an ultimatum on the parameters of the exhibition and no negotiating room over the waivers involved, it’s not tough to see why.
The legalities are out of the way now, at least. Goodell negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement with the players’ association, which means he doesn’t need to make goodwill gestures to Kaepernick to woo players any more. The league settled the collusion lawsuit with Kaepernick and Eric Reid over a year ago. The only things keeping Kaepernick on the sideline are worries over his age and training, and of course the headache of having him on a roster. Kaepernick doesn’t want to just sign a contract — he wants a real shot at being the starting QB, and his presence would almost certainly start a QB controversy in the media no matter what team signed him.
Still, his stats look good compared to the backups playing now. His lifetime quarterback rating of 87.8 would have put him mid-range among starters last season, and way above the bench-riders. His final season rating of 90.7 in 2016 put him ahead of names like Tom Brady, Mitch Trubisky, and Philip Rivers in 2019. Even his worst full-season rating as a starter (78.5) was comparable to the seasons Andy Dalton and Baker Mayfield had last year, although that’s hardly a recommendation. The question will be whether taking three seasons off has eroded his skills, or whether it has made him fresher and given him more potential years at the end of his career.
Teams will have to decide whether he’s worth the headache, of course, but at this point Kaepernick’s headache comes with a side benefit of credibility, too. The team that signs him can market that as outreach and real commitment to social-justice issues that the league is now scrambling to embrace. The headache cost is probably a lot less, too; after all the unrest this year, kneeling probably won’t carry the same level of offense and negativity as it did in years past. Kaepernick’s return will close up a wound with one part of the league’s audience while the riots more or less cauterize it with the rest.
But again … is that what Kaepernick wants? Or does he prefer his status as an exile/martyr for the cause? This is probably the last year he has that option, because it’s tough enough to come back after a three-year hiatus at 32. Another lost season and Kaepernick probably won’t have many options left.