hotair--2020-05-01--Chris Wallace: Let's face it, Tara Reade's case is a lot stronger than Christine Blasey Ford's was

Yup .
Reade has what Blasey Ford did not , a friend who says she told her about the details of the alleged assault within a few years after it happened .
If Reade is lying , it ’ s a lie she ’ s been sitting on for 25 years .
One that ’ s curiously consistent in its particulars between now and then .
Trump said Biden ’ s accuser , Tara Reade is “ far more convincing ” than Christine Blasey Ford , who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of assult during his Senate confirmation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Trump added in an interview Friday on the Dan Bongino Show , a podcast hosted by one of his supporters… Trump expressed some sympathy for Biden , noting that he has faced accusations of sexual misconduct from nearly a dozen women .
He has denied all of the allegations against him .
He directed his former fixer Michael Cohen to pay off two women who alleged he had affairs with them before the 2016 election .
“ I guess in a way you could say I ’ m sticking up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his most extensive comments yet on Reade ’ s accusation .
Is Trump hinting that he has reason to believe there are more accusers waiting in the wings ?
I think he ’ s just analogizing based on his own experience .
Kirsten Powers has a column out today reassuring liberal feminists that it ’ s A-OK to vote for Biden even if he ’ s guilty ( “ Trump far outstrips him in the sexual assault accusation department ” ) and insisting that only a select few Democrats demanded that Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ford ’ s accusation .
What they wanted , supposedly , was an investigation .
Is that right ?
Did we hallucinate the cries to “ Believe All Women ” ?
Democrats didn ’ t want an investigation .
They asked for an investigation because Kavanaugh was hanging by a thread and there was at least a chance it would turn up something truly incriminating that would finish him off .
The pause in the confirmation process while an investigation played out also would have created a window for other potential accusers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in case any were out there .
The FBI did end up doing some interviews with the relevant players in Blasey Ford ’ s story and what they produced was so unconvincing that not even the retiring anti-Trumper Jeff Flake could be persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh because of it .
If Democrats were sincerely interested in an investigation , the lack of damaging material in the FBI report and the he said/she said nature of Kavanaugh ’ s and Blasey Ford ’ s testimony should have led them to grudgingly shift away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t recall a single liberal of any prominence who did .
The “ investigation ” demands were just a fig leaf so that they could claim they cared about due process even though their minds were made up .
It ’ s only a job interview , they insisted .
Remember ?
It was much more than that , though ; Kavanaugh ’ s reputation was on the line .
But if the job-interview standard is what Democrats want , they ’ re free to withdraw their offer to Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and offer it to Bernie Sanders instead .
The sad case of Jennifer Granholm shows how dishonest Democrats are being about this .
Here she is today : “ Move on.
” And here she was two years ago : A few days before she sent that tweet Granholm had called for an investigation into the matter — and yet here she was , three days later , insisting that she believed Blasey Ford .
How come ?
If this was all about getting to the truth of what happened , why leap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth ?
And why not demand an investigation of the Joe Biden/Tara Reade now , if investigations are so important ?
Why does she want to “ move on ” ?
There was no amount of investigation in the Kavanaugh matter that would have satisfied the left unless it led to the outcome they desired .
Blasey Ford asked them to go all-in on a story of attempted rape that lacked a date , a location , and any contemporaneous corroboration , the details of which even her close friends couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially unconfirmable — and when liberals couldn ’ t get out of that box they resorted to insisting that the matter simply hadn ’ t been looked into sufficiently .
They would have held the nomination up forever to pursue it , hoping against hope that Trump would grow impatient and withdraw it instead .
Even by the standards of Supreme Court politics , it ’ s one of the most cynical things we ’ ll ever see .
The bill has now come due .
Exit quotation from former Obama spokesman Jen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is buying into GOP point that there is a double standard with Dr. Ford .
Kavanaugh hid behind GOP trying to silence her , @ JoeBiden just did an interview and has ordered all records released.
” Um , what records , Jen ?
The ones at the National Archives aren ’ t under his control .
The ones that are , at the University of Delaware , are still locked up nice and tight .

Yup. Reade has what Blasey Ford did not, a friend who says she told her about the details of the alleged assault within a few years after it happened. If Reade is lying, it’s a lie she’s been sitting on for 25 years. One that’s curiously consistent in its particulars between now and then.
The president agrees with Wallace’s assessment:
Trump said Biden’s accuser, Tara Reade is “far more convincing” than Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of assult during his Senate confirmation. Biden “could have others come out,” Trump added in an interview Friday on the Dan Bongino Show, a podcast hosted by one of his supporters… Trump expressed some sympathy for Biden, noting that he has faced accusations of sexual misconduct from nearly a dozen women. He has denied all of the allegations against him. He directed his former fixer Michael Cohen to pay off two women who alleged he had affairs with them before the 2016 election. “I guess in a way you could say I’m sticking up for him,” Trump said of Biden in his most extensive comments yet on Reade’s accusation.
Is Trump hinting that he has reason to believe there are more accusers waiting in the wings? I think he’s just analogizing based on his own experience.
Kirsten Powers has a column out today reassuring liberal feminists that it’s A-OK to vote for Biden even if he’s guilty (“Trump far outstrips him in the sexual assault accusation department”) and insisting that only a select few Democrats demanded that Kavanaugh’s nomination be withdrawn after Blasey Ford’s accusation. What they wanted, supposedly, was an investigation.
Is that right? Did we hallucinate the cries to “Believe All Women”?
Democrats didn’t want an investigation. They asked for an investigation because Kavanaugh was hanging by a thread and there was at least a chance it would turn up something truly incriminating that would finish him off. The pause in the confirmation process while an investigation played out also would have created a window for other potential accusers to come forward and pile on, just in case any were out there. The FBI did end up doing some interviews with the relevant players in Blasey Ford’s story and what they produced was so unconvincing that not even the retiring anti-Trumper Jeff Flake could be persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh because of it. If Democrats were sincerely interested in an investigation, the lack of damaging material in the FBI report and the he said/she said nature of Kavanaugh’s and Blasey Ford’s testimony should have led them to grudgingly shift away from demanding he be disqualified. I can’t recall a single liberal of any prominence who did. The “investigation” demands were just a fig leaf so that they could claim they cared about due process even though their minds were made up.
It’s only a job interview, they insisted. Remember? It was much more than that, though; Kavanaugh’s reputation was on the line. But if the job-interview standard is what Democrats want, they’re free to withdraw their offer to Joe Biden of the job as party presidential nominee and offer it to Bernie Sanders instead.
The sad case of Jennifer Granholm shows how dishonest Democrats are being about this. Here she is today:
I believe @JoeBiden. Anyone who knows him knows this allegation is antithetical to his character, to the culture in his office, to his soul. He has never been that kind of guy. Ever.
The story has been heard and vetted. No staffer remembers it. No complaint found. Move on. — Jennifer Granholm (@JenGranholm) May 1, 2020
“Move on.” And here she was two years ago:
#IBelieveChristineBlaseyFord "If a quick vote was ever tenable, Ford's emotional and credible-sounding testimony, along with new allegations against Kavanaugh in the past few days, make it politically indefensible." — USA Todayhttps://t.co/unnc831yu0 #KavanaughHearings — Jennifer Granholm (@JenGranholm) September 28, 2018
A few days before she sent that tweet Granholm had called for an investigation into the matter — and yet here she was, three days later, insisting that she believed Blasey Ford. How come? If this was all about getting to the truth of what happened, why leap to the conclusion that her testimony was the truth?
And why not demand an investigation of the Joe Biden/Tara Reade now, if investigations are so important? Why does she want to “move on”?
There was no amount of investigation in the Kavanaugh matter that would have satisfied the left unless it led to the outcome they desired. Blasey Ford asked them to go all-in on a story of attempted rape that lacked a date, a location, and any contemporaneous corroboration, the details of which even her close friends couldn’t recall — a story that was essentially unconfirmable — and when liberals couldn’t get out of that box they resorted to insisting that the matter simply hadn’t been looked into sufficiently. They would have held the nomination up forever to pursue it, hoping against hope that Trump would grow impatient and withdraw it instead. Even by the standards of Supreme Court politics, it’s one of the most cynical things we’ll ever see. The bill has now come due.
Exit quotation from former Obama spokesman Jen Psaki: “stop just stop anyone who is buying into GOP point that there is a double standard with Dr. Ford. Kavanaugh hid behind GOP trying to silence her, @JoeBiden just did an interview and has ordered all records released.” Um, what records, Jen? The ones at the National Archives aren’t under his control. The ones that are, at the University of Delaware, are still locked up nice and tight.


hotair--2020-05-01--Pandemic experts predict coronavirus will continue to spread for another 18-24 months

How long will it take to reach herd immunity to the coronavirus ?
A group of experts from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy ( CIDRAP ) has taken a look back at other pandemics over the past 300 years and concluded COVID-19 will probably be around for 18-24 more months .
“ I have said for a long time that when you are trying to understand how infectious disease is going to unfold , you should rely on history as well as models , ” Lipsitch told CNN .
For instance , pandemic infections don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like seasonal flu does.
, he said .
Covid-19 is most comparable to a pandemic strain of influenza , they said .
“ Because of a longer incubation period , more asymptomatic spread , and a higher R0 , COVID-19 appears to spread more easily than flu , ” they wrote in the report .
R0 is the average number of other people infected by each patient .
“ A higher R0 means more people will need to get infected and become immune before the pandemic can end , ” they add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu pandemics , this outbreak will likely last 18 to 24 months.
” The full report goes into more detail about the comparison between the coronavirus and the flu .
It argues that while COVID-19 shares similarities with flu pandemics it is actually worse in several regards .
It takes longer to incubate which means people are more likely to have it and not know it .
It seems to have a higher rate of asymptomatic infections .
The report cites research that an average of around 16 % of flu cases on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the figure is currently estimated at 25 percent and could actually be higher .
Again this means a lot more people who have the virus but don ’ t know it ( and therefore spread it unknowingly ) .
Third , unlike some viruses the coronavirus is infectious for up to two days before people have symptoms .
So even people who eventually realize they are sick will have likely spread the virus before they were aware of it .
I previously wrote about a study that suggested the peak of infectiousness for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptoms .
All of these factors make the R0 higher than for other viruses .
The report suggests the bottom line is that we may need to get to the point where 60-70 % of the population has had the virus before the spread is truly limited .
And getting to that point is what they predict will take two years : Key points from observing the epidemiology of past influenza pandemics that may provide insight into the COVID-19 pandemic include the following .
First , the length of the pandemic will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herd immunity gradually develops in the human population .
This will take time , since limited serosurveillance data available to date suggest that a relatively small fraction of the population has been infected and infection rates likely vary substantially by geographic area .
Given the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 , 60 % to 70 % of the population may need to be immune to reach a critical threshold of herd immunity to halt the pandemic ( Kwok 2020 ) .
The report actually spells out three different scenarios for how the spread of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point we reach herd immunity .
Here ’ s a graphic showing the three possibilities : They refer to scenario 1 as “ repetitive smaller waves ” which could require mitigation efforts to be reinstituted as the waves begin to peak at various times around the country .
This is similar to the prediction of a Harvard study published earlier this month .
Scenario 2 is the most worrisome of the three because it suggests the second wave this winter could be much worse than the first .
The report points to three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1918 where the second wave was larger than the first .
And scenario 3 is the least worrisome , though it still involves a lot more deaths over the next 18-24 months .
In this scenario the initial outbreak is followed by a “ slow burn ” in which this drags on but does not require further mitigation efforts such as shutting down businesses .
Of course the main point here is that there is probably no scenario where this is over in a couple of months .
It will continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunity or until we have a vaccine to speed up herd immunity .
But even if scenarios 1 or 2 turn out to be more accurate , the size of those peaks will still depend on mitigation efforts .
So wearing masks and social distancing could still make things less bad than they might otherwise be .
The authors of the report suggest authorities plan for the worst case ( scenario 2 ) and get ready to resume tough measures if it looks like the fall/winter is going to be worse than what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s a pretty depressing view of the near future .
I ’ m still hoping that Oxford or one of the other teams racing to create a vaccine will be successful and that by this winter we ’ ll be able to create our own immunity .

How long will it take to reach herd immunity to the coronavirus? A group of experts from the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) has taken a look back at other pandemics over the past 300 years and concluded COVID-19 will probably be around for 18-24 more months.
“I have said for a long time that when you are trying to understand how infectious disease is going to unfold, you should rely on history as well as models,” Lipsitch told CNN. For instance, pandemic infections don’t tend to die down in the summer, like seasonal flu does., he said. Covid-19 is most comparable to a pandemic strain of influenza, they said. “Because of a longer incubation period, more asymptomatic spread, and a higher R0, COVID-19 appears to spread more easily than flu,” they wrote in the report. R0 is the average number of other people infected by each patient. “A higher R0 means more people will need to get infected and become immune before the pandemic can end,” they add. “Based on the most recent flu pandemics, this outbreak will likely last 18 to 24 months.”
The full report goes into more detail about the comparison between the coronavirus and the flu. It argues that while COVID-19 shares similarities with flu pandemics it is actually worse in several regards. It takes longer to incubate which means people are more likely to have it and not know it. It seems to have a higher rate of asymptomatic infections. The report cites research that an average of around 16% of flu cases on average are asymptomatic but for the coronavirus the figure is currently estimated at 25 percent and could actually be higher. Again this means a lot more people who have the virus but don’t know it (and therefore spread it unknowingly). Third, unlike some viruses the coronavirus is infectious for up to two days before people have symptoms. So even people who eventually realize they are sick will have likely spread the virus before they were aware of it. I previously wrote about a study that suggested the peak of infectiousness for the coronavirus is slightly before the first symptoms.
All of these factors make the R0 higher than for other viruses. The report suggests the bottom line is that we may need to get to the point where 60-70% of the population has had the virus before the spread is truly limited. And getting to that point is what they predict will take two years:
Key points from observing the epidemiology of past influenza pandemics that may provide insight into the COVID-19 pandemic include the following. First, the length of the pandemic will likely be 18 to 24 months, as herd immunity gradually develops in the human population. This will take time, since limited serosurveillance data available to date suggest that a relatively small fraction of the population has been infected and infection rates likely vary substantially by geographic area. Given the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, 60% to 70% of the population may need to be immune to reach a critical threshold of herd immunity to halt the pandemic (Kwok 2020).
The report actually spells out three different scenarios for how the spread of the virus could go between now and the point we reach herd immunity. Here’s a graphic showing the three possibilities:
They refer to scenario 1 as “repetitive smaller waves” which could require mitigation efforts to be reinstituted as the waves begin to peak at various times around the country. This is similar to the prediction of a Harvard study published earlier this month.
Scenario 2 is the most worrisome of the three because it suggests the second wave this winter could be much worse than the first. The report points to three previous pandemics, including the flu outbreak in 1918 where the second wave was larger than the first.
And scenario 3 is the least worrisome, though it still involves a lot more deaths over the next 18-24 months. In this scenario the initial outbreak is followed by a “slow burn” in which this drags on but does not require further mitigation efforts such as shutting down businesses.
Of course the main point here is that there is probably no scenario where this is over in a couple of months. It will continue to be with us until we reach herd immunity or until we have a vaccine to speed up herd immunity. But even if scenarios 1 or 2 turn out to be more accurate, the size of those peaks will still depend on mitigation efforts. So wearing masks and social distancing could still make things less bad than they might otherwise be.
The authors of the report suggest authorities plan for the worst case (scenario 2) and get ready to resume tough measures if it looks like the fall/winter is going to be worse than what we’ve already seen.
Overall, it’s a pretty depressing view of the near future. I’m still hoping that Oxford or one of the other teams racing to create a vaccine will be successful and that by this winter we’ll be able to create our own immunity.


hotair--2020-05-01--WaPo: Say, why *doesn't* Biden open his records -- to people outside his own campaign, that is? <spa

WaPo: Say, why *doesn't* Biden open his records -- to people outside his own campaign, that is? Update: Remember the Kavanaugh high-school yearbook?

A darned good question , as I wrote earlier , and not just in the context of Tara Reade ’ s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden .
Washington Post reporter and columnist Karen Tumulty wrote within minutes of Biden ’ s Morning Joe interview that his explanation for keeping his archives off-limits didn ’ t “ adequately address the “ why ” ” of his refusal , specifically to to resolve this standoff .
Even if the records don ’ t contain Reade ’ s formal complaint , Tumulty argues , they may contain other information pertinent to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the more perplexing : the way Biden dodged co-host Mika Brzezinski ’ s repeated questions about the records of his Senate years that are under seal at the University of Delaware .
Why , she asked him again and again , does he not open those archives to scrutiny ?
Biden didn ’ t adequately address the “ why.
” He simply kept repeating that those files do not contain personnel records .
We are expected to take his word for that .
There is a good chance that Biden is telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , those boxes of material might hold many other items that could be relevant : memos from staff members that mention Reade or her allegation , schedules that convey a sense of how much contact he had with Reade .
The materials might include documents that speak to the general culture in the office .
There might be … Well , we just don ’ t know what might be there , because Biden won ’ t let anyone see them .
Well , it ’ s not that he won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Business Insider reported last night that Biden ’ s campaign accessed the records and did a significant search through them , perhaps as recently as a few weeks ago .
That ’ s behind a paywall , but Fox News picked up the report this morning : Joe ’ s Biden ’ s campaign dispatched operatives to the University of Delaware ’ s library in the past year to rifle through his secretive Senate records there , Business Insider reported Thursday — raising the possibility they accessed documents related to Tara Reade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her when she worked for him in 1993 .
… Biden campaign officials “ rifled through ” the documents on “ at least one occasion , ” Business Insider reported , citing a statement from University spokeswoman Andrea Boyle Tippett .
The campaign ’ s visit to the library came some point after Biden announced his presidential campaign in April 2019 — but before “ mid-March ” 2020 , when the library closed due to the coronavirus .
No one from the Biden team has visited since the closure , Tippett claimed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other women went public with sexual-harassment claims in April 2019 , immediately after Biden ’ s entry into the race .
That certainly might have been the impetus for a records search — or perhaps a record purge — even before Reade ’ s allegation got more specific and serious .
This review , at the very least , makes Biden ’ s insistence that no one can access the University of Delaware archives for some structural reason a clear and obvious lie .
By the way , Biden was also at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a complaint like Reade ’ s .
Not only does the Office of Fair Employment Practices not retain their records in the National Archive , Business Insider ’ s Nicole Einbinder reports , the OFEP process at that time was so cumbersome that a complaint from Reade might never have made it into their records in the first place .
We won ’ t know that until , er … sometime in 2043 : Reade has other reasons to look into Biden ’ s files , Einbinder points out : For that reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the records calls into serious question his denial of any possibility that the files contain no information relating to Reade .
Tumulty concludes that “ Biden ’ s intransigence ” on this point is becoming “ untenable ” : It should be untenable in the course of a political campaign anyway , as I argued earlier .
Democrats have gone to court to seize Donald Trump ’ s private business and financial records , specifically and explicitly as “ campaign fodder , ” arguing that American voters have a right to see them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s work in public office , for which American voters paid and provided Biden with authority to conduct .
Refusing to make those records public while demanding Trump ’ s private records is the worst kind of hypocrisy — screaming about transparency while keeping government operation secret .
Kudos to Tumulty and the Washington Post for raising the acute issue with the archives , but let ’ s hope they pick up on this larger hypocrisy as well .
Update : Speaking of hypocrisy , this is a solid bulls-eye for Dana Perino @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video of this , but the Trumps might be ahead of me on this one…

A darned good question, as I wrote earlier, and not just in the context of Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden. Washington Post reporter and columnist Karen Tumulty wrote within minutes of Biden’s Morning Joe interview that his explanation for keeping his archives off-limits didn’t “adequately address the “why”” of his refusal, specifically to to resolve this standoff. Even if the records don’t contain Reade’s formal complaint, Tumulty argues, they may contain other information pertinent to her allegation:
But that makes one thing all the more perplexing: the way Biden dodged co-host Mika Brzezinski’s repeated questions about the records of his Senate years that are under seal at the University of Delaware. Why, she asked him again and again, does he not open those archives to scrutiny? Biden didn’t adequately address the “why.” He simply kept repeating that those files do not contain personnel records. We are expected to take his word for that. There is a good chance that Biden is telling the truth. But even if he is, those boxes of material might hold many other items that could be relevant: memos from staff members that mention Reade or her allegation, schedules that convey a sense of how much contact he had with Reade. The materials might include documents that speak to the general culture in the office. There might be … Well, we just don’t know what might be there, because Biden won’t let anyone see them.
Well, it’s not that he won’t let “anyone” see them. Business Insider reported last night that Biden’s campaign accessed the records and did a significant search through them, perhaps as recently as a few weeks ago. That’s behind a paywall, but Fox News picked up the report this morning:
Joe’s Biden’s campaign dispatched operatives to the University of Delaware’s library in the past year to rifle through his secretive Senate records there, Business Insider reported Thursday — raising the possibility they accessed documents related to Tara Reade’s accusation that he sexually assaulted her when she worked for him in 1993. … Biden campaign officials “rifled through” the documents on “at least one occasion,” Business Insider reported, citing a statement from University spokeswoman Andrea Boyle Tippett. The campaign’s visit to the library came some point after Biden announced his presidential campaign in April 2019 — but before “mid-March” 2020, when the library closed due to the coronavirus. No one from the Biden team has visited since the closure, Tippett claimed.
Bear in mind that Reade and seven other women went public with sexual-harassment claims in April 2019, immediately after Biden’s entry into the race. That certainly might have been the impetus for a records search — or perhaps a record purge — even before Reade’s allegation got more specific and serious. This review, at the very least, makes Biden’s insistence that no one can access the University of Delaware archives for some structural reason a clear and obvious lie.
By the way, Biden was also at the very least wrong about where to find a complaint like Reade’s. Not only does the Office of Fair Employment Practices not retain their records in the National Archive, Business Insider’s Nicole Einbinder reports, the OFEP process at that time was so cumbersome that a complaint from Reade might never have made it into their records in the first place. We won’t know that until, er … sometime in 2043:
Instead, a Senate Historical Office staffer said the Fair Employment Practices records are governed by a Senate resolution mandating that "records containing personal privacy, information closed by statute, and records of executive nomination are closed for 50 years." pic.twitter.com/xUVyfnQP2H — Nicole Einbinder (@NicoleEinbinder) May 1, 2020
According to congressional testimony from 1995, 479 people contacted the office between 1992 and 1995 seeking assistance. Of those, only 102 entered the office's five-step "dispute resolution" process, which included a formal complaint and hearing. — Nicole Einbinder (@NicoleEinbinder) May 1, 2020
Reade has other reasons to look into Biden’s files, Einbinder points out:
It's also important to note that Reade isn't just looking for the complaint. She has other reasons for wanting the University of Delaware to unseal the records: pic.twitter.com/FUXdj3tUU2 — Nicole Einbinder (@NicoleEinbinder) May 1, 2020
For that reason, Biden’s refusal to open the records calls into serious question his denial of any possibility that the files contain no information relating to Reade. Tumulty concludes that “Biden’s intransigence” on this point is becoming “untenable”:
Biden’s intransigence on the question of his Senate records is becoming increasingly untenable. He deserves the presumption of innocence. His archive may indeed include nothing that is relevant. But the best way to remove a shadow of doubt is to open a window and let the light in.
It should be untenable in the course of a political campaign anyway, as I argued earlier. Democrats have gone to court to seize Donald Trump’s private business and financial records, specifically and explicitly as “campaign fodder,” arguing that American voters have a right to see them. These records relate to Biden’s work in public office, for which American voters paid and provided Biden with authority to conduct. Refusing to make those records public while demanding Trump’s private records is the worst kind of hypocrisy — screaming about transparency while keeping government operation secret.
Kudos to Tumulty and the Washington Post for raising the acute issue with the archives, but let’s hope they pick up on this larger hypocrisy as well.
Update: Speaking of hypocrisy, this is a solid bulls-eye for Dana Perino:
.@DanaPerino right now pointing out: if Democrats thought Kavanaugh's high school yearbook was relevant, hard to argue Biden's Delaware documents aren't — Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) May 1, 2020
I’ll try to grab the video of this, but the Trumps might be ahead of me on this one…


hotair--2020-05-01--Coming soon from the Trump campaign: Red MAGA face masks

So says the Wall Street Journal .
I wonder how they ’ ll be branded .
“ Trump 2020 ” ?
“ Make America Great Again ” ?
Or “ Keep America Great ” ?
Either way , there ’ s serious backfire potential .
Trump-branded pandemic paraphernalia will be exploited by Biden and the Democrats as symbols of what national “ greatness ” under Trump looks like in practice .
I ’ m glad the campaign ’ s doing it , though .
Anything that mainstreams mask-wearing is a good thing .
If the price of getting Trump to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it for him , so be it .
There ’ s real news lurking behind the surreal image of a red face mask with “ MAGA ” branded on it .
This is part of an effort by Trump and the campaign to reingratiate themselves to senior citizens , one of the biggest electoral problems facing the GOP right now .
I ’ ve written about that more than once lately .
Americans 65 and older went big for Trump over Hillary in 2016 , tilting towards him by seven points nationally and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most notably Florida .
In a state that Trump won by just 1.2 percent , senior citizens there broke 57/40 for him .
They were decisive .
And yet , Biden has led Trump among the 65+ group in numerous polls this past month , including and especially Florida .
How come ?
Republicans have a theory .
More from the WSJ : The Trump campaign tested the effectiveness of the Democratic ads last week , the first time the campaign has done so in either of Mr. Trump ’ s two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the results .
However , the data indicated that Mr. Trump ’ s drop was more directly related to his performance at the nightly task force briefings that he has since curtailed , according to the person .
Mr. Trump ’ s news conferences , which often include political attacks , disputes with reporters and sometimes unreliable information about the pandemic , have drawn criticism from members of both parties… Older citizens , already a politically attentive voting bloc , are the most at-risk of dying from Covid-19 , the disease caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also closely watching the news conferences , said one Republican close to the campaign .
“ I quit watching .
I truly can ’ t stand it , ” said Judy Hoffman , a 72-year-old Ohio retiree who said she had been considering supporting Mr. Trump until his handling of the pandemic .
“ I quit feeling like I was gaining any information .
I started listening to podcasts.
” The White House has noticed his numbers falling among seniors : The event yesterday involved representatives from senior-citizen groups and hospice-care facilities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the White House to win back older voters .
Trump said he ’ d form a commission focused on preventing outbreaks at nursing homes and promised to send more PPE to them .
What he ’ s trying to do is reboot his image on how he ’ s handled the pandemic , not exclusively with seniors but first and foremost with seniors given how heavily Republican electoral fortunes rest on them .
I think the MAGA masks are a small part of that .
The message is that the president has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase , which may have spooked older Americans , and is now all-in on containing the spread , right down to offering his own personally branded protective face gear .
His surprising response yesterday to MAGA diehards about Sweden may be part of that image makeover too .
His base thinks it was foolish to close down businesses and wants him to follow the Swedish model .
Too many deaths , says the president , mindful of which group will do most of the dying — and knows it ’ ll do most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Swedish approach .
“ Our country could not be anything near what it is without our incredible seniors , ” he said at yesterday ’ s event , per the Journal .
“ We will show them the same loyalty and love they have shown us.
” Why , he ’ ll have them wearing MAGA masks before we know it .
I haven ’ t seen polling on it yet but I ’ m curious to know what the partisan breakdown is on mask-wearing .
It ’ s a cinch that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but how much more likely ?
In 2020 nothing is immune from dumb blue/red partisan signaling , including one ’ s personal risk tolerance for contracting a deadly disease : For progressives , masks have become a sign that you take the pandemic seriously and are willing to make a personal sacrifice to save lives .
Prominent people who don ’ t wear them are shamed and dragged on Twitter by lefty accounts .
On the right , where the mask is often seen as the symbol of a purported overreaction to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target of ridicule , a sign that in a deeply polarized America almost anything can be politicized and turned into a token of tribal affiliation… Visiting the White House , it ’ s striking how many people don ’ t wear masks .
Very few Secret Service agents have them on .
Some days , even the staff member performing temperature checks on reporters doesn ’ t wear one .
In contrast , most , though certainly not all , members of the media wear some kind of face covering while in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential event .
But very few keep them on during the televised briefings .
A sociologist wrote a few days ago in Scientific American that it ’ s no surprise Trump has personally refused to wear a mask .
“ Leaders who are more concerned with preserving a macho public image put our lives at risk as they prove their manhood by showing resistance to experts ’ opinions , hypersensitivity to criticism and constant feuding with anyone who seems to disagree with them , ” wrote the author .
I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is rebelling against by eschewing a mask ; he ’ s followed Fauci ’ s and Birx ’ s advice on big-picture stuff .
I think it ’ s driven by personal vanity plus the sense that masks are to some degree an admission of fear , which strongman leaders can ’ t abide even if they privately are afraid and have good reason to be .
But having the campaign start selling MAGA masks is a step in the right direction : Even if Trump won ’ t personally wear one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing them will send a message that masking up won ’ t cost you your MAGA cred .
Can ’ t wait for when Team Biden puts out its own blue mask with the slogan “ It Never Happened .
”

So says the Wall Street Journal. I wonder how they’ll be branded. “Trump 2020”? “Make America Great Again”? Or “Keep America Great”?
Either way, there’s serious backfire potential. Trump-branded pandemic paraphernalia will be exploited by Biden and the Democrats as symbols of what national “greatness” under Trump looks like in practice.
I’m glad the campaign’s doing it, though. Anything that mainstreams mask-wearing is a good thing. If the price of getting Trump to become a mask enthusiast is to logo-ize it for him, so be it.
The campaign has ordered red, Trump-branded face masks for supporters, according to people familiar with the matter. Campaign officials have discussed giving away the masks at events or in return for donations, one of the people said.
There’s real news lurking behind the surreal image of a red face mask with “MAGA” branded on it. This is part of an effort by Trump and the campaign to reingratiate themselves to senior citizens, one of the biggest electoral problems facing the GOP right now. I’ve written about that more than once lately. Americans 65 and older went big for Trump over Hillary in 2016, tilting towards him by seven points nationally and by wider margins in some key states, most notably Florida. In a state that Trump won by just 1.2 percent, senior citizens there broke 57/40 for him. They were decisive. And yet, Biden has led Trump among the 65+ group in numerous polls this past month, including and especially Florida. How come?
Republicans have a theory. More from the WSJ:
The Trump campaign tested the effectiveness of the Democratic ads last week, the first time the campaign has done so in either of Mr. Trump’s two races, according to a person familiar with the results. However, the data indicated that Mr. Trump’s drop was more directly related to his performance at the nightly task force briefings that he has since curtailed, according to the person. Mr. Trump’s news conferences, which often include political attacks, disputes with reporters and sometimes unreliable information about the pandemic, have drawn criticism from members of both parties… Older citizens, already a politically attentive voting bloc, are the most at-risk of dying from Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. They are also closely watching the news conferences, said one Republican close to the campaign. “I quit watching. I truly can’t stand it,” said Judy Hoffman, a 72-year-old Ohio retiree who said she had been considering supporting Mr. Trump until his handling of the pandemic. “I quit feeling like I was gaining any information. I started listening to podcasts.”
The White House has noticed his numbers falling among seniors:
Among those said to be involved in trying to improve the president's numbers among senior citizens amid concerns over coronavirus and the president's approach to health care is Kellyanne Conway, who helped orchestrate Thursday afternoon event. — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) April 30, 2020
The event yesterday involved representatives from senior-citizen groups and hospice-care facilities, part of a new charm offensive organized by the White House to win back older voters. Trump said he’d form a commission focused on preventing outbreaks at nursing homes and promised to send more PPE to them. What he’s trying to do is reboot his image on how he’s handled the pandemic, not exclusively with seniors but first and foremost with seniors given how heavily Republican electoral fortunes rest on them.
I think the MAGA masks are a small part of that. The message is that the president has moved past his “reopen ASAP” phase, which may have spooked older Americans, and is now all-in on containing the spread, right down to offering his own personally branded protective face gear. His surprising response yesterday to MAGA diehards about Sweden may be part of that image makeover too. His base thinks it was foolish to close down businesses and wants him to follow the Swedish model. Too many deaths, says the president, mindful of which group will do most of the dying — and knows it’ll do most of the dying — if he embraces a Swedish approach.
“Our country could not be anything near what it is without our incredible seniors,” he said at yesterday’s event, per the Journal. “We will show them the same loyalty and love they have shown us.” Why, he’ll have them wearing MAGA masks before we know it.
I haven’t seen polling on it yet but I’m curious to know what the partisan breakdown is on mask-wearing. It’s a cinch that Democrats are more likely to wear them, but how much more likely? In 2020 nothing is immune from dumb blue/red partisan signaling, including one’s personal risk tolerance for contracting a deadly disease:
For progressives, masks have become a sign that you take the pandemic seriously and are willing to make a personal sacrifice to save lives. Prominent people who don’t wear them are shamed and dragged on Twitter by lefty accounts. On the right, where the mask is often seen as the symbol of a purported overreaction to the coronavirus, mask promotion is a target of ridicule, a sign that in a deeply polarized America almost anything can be politicized and turned into a token of tribal affiliation… Visiting the White House, it’s striking how many people don’t wear masks. Very few Secret Service agents have them on. Some days, even the staff member performing temperature checks on reporters doesn’t wear one. In contrast, most, though certainly not all, members of the media wear some kind of face covering while in the press workspace or waiting to cover a presidential event. But very few keep them on during the televised briefings.
A sociologist wrote a few days ago in Scientific American that it’s no surprise Trump has personally refused to wear a mask. “Leaders who are more concerned with preserving a macho public image put our lives at risk as they prove their manhood by showing resistance to experts’ opinions, hypersensitivity to criticism and constant feuding with anyone who seems to disagree with them,” wrote the author. I don’t think it’s expert opinion that Trump is rebelling against by eschewing a mask; he’s followed Fauci’s and Birx’s advice on big-picture stuff. I think it’s driven by personal vanity plus the sense that masks are to some degree an admission of fear, which strongman leaders can’t abide even if they privately are afraid and have good reason to be. But having the campaign start selling MAGA masks is a step in the right direction: Even if Trump won’t personally wear one, his tacit approval of his fans wearing them will send a message that masking up won’t cost you your MAGA cred. Can’t wait for when Team Biden puts out its own blue mask with the slogan “It Never Happened.”


hotair--2020-05-01--China has refused to allow WHO to join its investigation of the origins of the coronavirus

Speculation is still swirling around how and when the coronavirus began to spread in Wuhan and China is currently investigating the issue .
But a representative for the World Health Organization ( WHO ) told Sky News Thursday that China has refused its requests to participate in that investigation .
“ We know that some national investigation is happening but at this stage we have not been invited to join , ” Dr Gauden Galea said .
“ WHO is making requests of the health commission and of the authorities , ” he said .
“ The origins of virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is extremely important and needs to be studied… Asked by Sky News whether there was a good reason not to include the WHO , Dr Galea replied : “ From our point of view , no.
” I guess the question is why , from China ’ s point of view , they don ’ t want anyone looking over their shoulder as they investigate this .
China has reacted strongly to suggestions that the virus might have escaped from a laboratory .
U.S. intelligence agencies say they are still investigating that possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself was man-made .
Yesterday , President Trump was asked if he ’ d seen any evidence that the virus might have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and he said that he had but when pressed he replied , “ I can ’ t tell you that .
I ’ m not allowed to tell you that.
” One thing that might help rule out the accidental lab release theory is an examination of records from the lab , but Dr. Galea says China hasn ’ t allowed access to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News that the WHO had not been able to investigate logs from the two laboratories working with viruses in Wuhan , the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan CDC .
“ From all available evidence , WHO colleagues in our three-level system are convinced that the origins are in Wuhan and that it is a naturally occurring , not a manufactured , virus , ” he said .
Nevertheless , according to Dr Galea , the laboratory logs “ would need to be part of any full report , any full look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the Wuhan market origin of the virus is still considered likely , China has also not released any data that would back up that origin .
For instance , China has claimed that after it shuttered the market it tested animals found there and found samples of the coronavirus , but the details , such as which animals were tested and the test results , have not been released .
The other problem with the wet market theory is that about a third of the initial cohort of 41 cases did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , the person believed to be the first person to come down with the disease hadn ’ t been to the market .
That ’ s not to say the disease didn ’ t spread at the market , it clearly did early on , but the evidence that the market was the origin point is still lacking .
Here ’ s the interview with Dr. Galea .
Toward the end of this he talks about how after China hesitated on saying the virus was transmitting person-to-person , WHO doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients immediately volunteered that virus had spread to health care workers .
The day of that visit was the day China ’ s government finally acknowledged human-to-human transmission .
Finally , yesterday the Washington Post published a 10-minute video exploring the question of the origin of the virus .
It ’ s not perfect as it leaves out a couple of things but it does a pretty good job of pointing out why the wet market origin is still partly in doubt and why the accidental lab release theory hasn ’ t been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open to having outside doctors look at their work or U.S. intelligence agencies release all they know , we ’ re left trying to judge between two incomplete and unsatisfactory stories of the origin .

Speculation is still swirling around how and when the coronavirus began to spread in Wuhan and China is currently investigating the issue. But a representative for the World Health Organization (WHO) told Sky News Thursday that China has refused its requests to participate in that investigation.
“We know that some national investigation is happening but at this stage we have not been invited to join,” Dr Gauden Galea said. “WHO is making requests of the health commission and of the authorities,” he said. “The origins of virus are very important, the animal-human interface is extremely important and needs to be studied… Asked by Sky News whether there was a good reason not to include the WHO, Dr Galea replied: “From our point of view, no.”
I guess the question is why, from China’s point of view, they don’t want anyone looking over their shoulder as they investigate this. China has reacted strongly to suggestions that the virus might have escaped from a laboratory. U.S. intelligence agencies say they are still investigating that possibility but have ruled out that the virus itself was man-made.
Yesterday, President Trump was asked if he’d seen any evidence that the virus might have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and he said that he had but when pressed he replied, “I can’t tell you that. I’m not allowed to tell you that.”
One thing that might help rule out the accidental lab release theory is an examination of records from the lab, but Dr. Galea says China hasn’t allowed access to that information:
Dr Galea also told Sky News that the WHO had not been able to investigate logs from the two laboratories working with viruses in Wuhan, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan CDC. “From all available evidence, WHO colleagues in our three-level system are convinced that the origins are in Wuhan and that it is a naturally occurring, not a manufactured, virus,” he said. Nevertheless, according to Dr Galea, the laboratory logs “would need to be part of any full report, any full look at the story of the origins”.
While the Wuhan market origin of the virus is still considered likely, China has also not released any data that would back up that origin. For instance, China has claimed that after it shuttered the market it tested animals found there and found samples of the coronavirus, but the details, such as which animals were tested and the test results, have not been released.
The other problem with the wet market theory is that about a third of the initial cohort of 41 cases did not have a connection to the market. In fact, the person believed to be the first person to come down with the disease hadn’t been to the market. That’s not to say the disease didn’t spread at the market, it clearly did early on, but the evidence that the market was the origin point is still lacking.
Here’s the interview with Dr. Galea. Toward the end of this he talks about how after China hesitated on saying the virus was transmitting person-to-person, WHO doctors went to China where doctors treating infected patients immediately volunteered that virus had spread to health care workers. The day of that visit was the day China’s government finally acknowledged human-to-human transmission.
Finally, yesterday the Washington Post published a 10-minute video exploring the question of the origin of the virus. It’s not perfect as it leaves out a couple of things but it does a pretty good job of pointing out why the wet market origin is still partly in doubt and why the accidental lab release theory hasn’t been ruled out. Until China becomes more open to having outside doctors look at their work or U.S. intelligence agencies release all they know, we’re left trying to judge between two incomplete and unsatisfactory stories of the origin.


hotair--2020-05-01--Here's why you won't be going to the movies once everything reopens

Some states are beginning to slowly allow businesses to reopen as long as efforts continue to be made to combat the coronavirus .
Social distancing and personal protection equipment , like face masks , are still required in many places .
One place you won ’ t be patronizing any time soon , though , is your local movie theatre no matter where you live .
Movie theatre chains have decided to go by their own schedules , not those being put into place by governors who are reopening individual states .
For example , the executive order signed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie theatres to open today in Texas with social distancing measures still in effect .
Theatres have to abide by Phase One rules , though , and only 25 % occupancy is allowed .
There are specifications on seating , too .
There will not be many Texas residents going to the movies today .
That ’ s because only one spot is going to reopen – one chain in San Antonio is opening three theatres with strict limitations in place .
If you are a regular moviegoer , you ’ ll likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the latest movie release .
Most large theater chains , closed since mid-March , have declined to take advantage of the voluntary reopening date .
Cinemark , Studio Movie Grill and Alamo Drafthouse locations will remain closed until further notice , citing the safety of both customers and staff as issues that must be addressed before the public is invited back for films and concessions .
Cinemark said Tuesday it ’ s proceeding with plans for a midsummer opening .
AMC Theatres is targeting a similar date , according to a report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Movie theatres are remaining closed in other states that are beginning to reopen , like Florida .
Governor DeSantis encourages getting out for some fresh air .
“ You are much better off being outdoors , ” he said .
“ While some states and localities are beginning to authorize the opening of movie theaters under certain conditions , the movie theater industry is also a national one .
Until the majority of markets in the U.S. are open , and major markets in particular , new wide release movies are unlikely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some theaters in some areas that are authorized to open may be able economically to reopen with repertory product ; however , many theaters will not be able to feasibly open , ” said NATO this morning in a statement .
The big chains , Deadline has confirmed –AMC , Regal , and Cinemark– won ’ t be re-opening anytime soon .
While AMC is eyeing early June , and Cinemark around July 1 , Regal still hasn ’ t officially said when they ’ ll re-open .
Other states allowing cinemas to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mississippi .
One independent theater owner in Kentucky told Deadline he plans to have his cinemas open for Memorial Day weekend .
“ At this time , we have not made a decision when to reopen Regal theatres .
We are constantly following the information provided by authorities .
In order to open our theatres , at first we will need to ensure the safety of our guests and employees .
At the same time , we are working closely with our studio partners on when they will make their movies available .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities and the studios in order to host our audiences and show them the big blockbusters in a safe environment , ” Regal said in a statement sent to Deadline .
It makes sense , business-wise for the theatres to wait until guidelines loosen up .
Theatre owners ’ profits won ’ t make it worth their efforts to reopen with restricted capacity and also , there is a problem with the availability of new movie releases .
The coronavirus interrupted Hollywood , too , and an interesting thing happened .
In order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic closed businesses down , movie theatres received new releases and there was a certain time period before those new movies were released to on-demand streaming services .
That has changed now and a good example was an announcement that “ Trolls World Tour ” would be simultaneously released to movie theatres ( even before the theatres closed down ) and on-demand streaming by NBCUniversal .
Universal announced it may continue to do business this way .
The movie has been a huge hit .
Theatre owners are not happy , to state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight is going on between AMC and Universal .
AMC says their chain of more than 1,000 theatres will no longer show Universal ’ s films .
NATO argues that the success of “ Trolls World Tour ” is due to everyone being stuck at home and looking for family entertainment .
Correct me if I ’ m wrong , but doesn ’ t limiting the movies a theatre will show from a huge studio going to produce a loss of revenue ?
It seems like in order to make a point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its nose to spite its face , doesn ’ t it ?
Theatres make their profits from openings of new movies , that ’ s clear , and of course from the overpriced snacks and beverages at the concession stand .
I just don ’ t think that severing a relationship with a major movie distributor made in anger is the solution to potential continued economic worries .
“ We are dealing with a wrecked business , ” said Jonathan Kuntz , who teaches film history at UCLA School of Theater , Film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and their investors know it , and it ’ s why you are seeing an imminent risk of death to that company.
” Theaters thrive on having the exclusive first window for a film .
It ’ s what drives consumers out of their homes .
If studios were to start releasing films in theaters and on-demand at the same time , it would not only take ticket revenue away from exhibitors , it would also mean concession revenue would take a hit .
Last year , the movie theater industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestically , a combination of around $ 11 billion in ticket sales and $ 4 billion in concessions .
Globally , ticket sales soared to a new high of $ 42.5 billion .
Is anyone going to want to go to a movie theatre when the pandemic fades ?
Sure they will .
Moviegoers who enjoy that activity will still do it .
It ’ s just going to be different for at least a while , whether movie selections are limited or something like a seating arrangement is restricted .
Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drive-in movies .
How fun is that ?

Some states are beginning to slowly allow businesses to reopen as long as efforts continue to be made to combat the coronavirus. Social distancing and personal protection equipment, like face masks, are still required in many places. One place you won’t be patronizing any time soon, though, is your local movie theatre no matter where you live.
Movie theatre chains have decided to go by their own schedules, not those being put into place by governors who are reopening individual states. For example, the executive order signed by Governor Abbott a few days ago allows movie theatres to open today in Texas with social distancing measures still in effect. Theatres have to abide by Phase One rules, though, and only 25% occupancy is allowed. There are specifications on seating, too. There will not be many Texas residents going to the movies today. That’s because only one spot is going to reopen – one chain in San Antonio is opening three theatres with strict limitations in place.
If you are a regular moviegoer, you’ll likely have to wait until midsummer to check out the latest movie release.
Most large theater chains, closed since mid-March, have declined to take advantage of the voluntary reopening date. Cinemark, Studio Movie Grill and Alamo Drafthouse locations will remain closed until further notice, citing the safety of both customers and staff as issues that must be addressed before the public is invited back for films and concessions. Cinemark said Tuesday it’s proceeding with plans for a midsummer opening. AMC Theatres is targeting a similar date, according to a report from the entertainment news site Deadline.
Movie theatres are remaining closed in other states that are beginning to reopen, like Florida. Governor DeSantis encourages getting out for some fresh air. “You are much better off being outdoors,” he said.
The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) released a statement.
“While some states and localities are beginning to authorize the opening of movie theaters under certain conditions, the movie theater industry is also a national one. Until the majority of markets in the U.S. are open, and major markets in particular, new wide release movies are unlikely to be available. As a result, some theaters in some areas that are authorized to open may be able economically to reopen with repertory product; however, many theaters will not be able to feasibly open,” said NATO this morning in a statement. The big chains, Deadline has confirmed –AMC, Regal, and Cinemark– won’t be re-opening anytime soon. While AMC is eyeing early June, and Cinemark around July 1, Regal still hasn’t officially said when they’ll re-open. Other states allowing cinemas to re-open include Tennessee, South Carolina and Mississippi. One independent theater owner in Kentucky told Deadline he plans to have his cinemas open for Memorial Day weekend. “At this time, we have not made a decision when to reopen Regal theatres. We are constantly following the information provided by authorities. In order to open our theatres, at first we will need to ensure the safety of our guests and employees. At the same time, we are working closely with our studio partners on when they will make their movies available. We will continue to work with both authorities and the studios in order to host our audiences and show them the big blockbusters in a safe environment,” Regal said in a statement sent to Deadline.
It makes sense, business-wise for the theatres to wait until guidelines loosen up. Theatre owners’ profits won’t make it worth their efforts to reopen with restricted capacity and also, there is a problem with the availability of new movie releases. The coronavirus interrupted Hollywood, too, and an interesting thing happened. In order to keep afloat, before the coronavirus pandemic closed businesses down, movie theatres received new releases and there was a certain time period before those new movies were released to on-demand streaming services. That has changed now and a good example was an announcement that “Trolls World Tour” would be simultaneously released to movie theatres (even before the theatres closed down) and on-demand streaming by NBCUniversal. Universal announced it may continue to do business this way. The movie has been a huge hit. Theatre owners are not happy, to state the obvious.
After taking a victory lap in the press over the digital success of “Trolls World Tour,” NBCUniversal CEO Jeff Shell suggested on Tuesday that the studio may start to do more simultaneous releases of its movies in theaters and on-demand, even when theaters reopen.
Now a big ole fight is going on between AMC and Universal. AMC says their chain of more than 1,000 theatres will no longer show Universal’s films. NATO argues that the success of “Trolls World Tour” is due to everyone being stuck at home and looking for family entertainment.
“AMC’s position in this matter, which is to never show Universal pictures again, is absolutely not only the correct response for a theater chain to have, but really it’s their only response,” said Tom Nunan, a lecturer at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. “That kind of comment from Jeff Shell could be a death knell for theater chains.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t limiting the movies a theatre will show from a huge studio going to produce a loss of revenue? It seems like in order to make a point, the chain is willing to cut off its nose to spite its face, doesn’t it? Theatres make their profits from openings of new movies, that’s clear, and of course from the overpriced snacks and beverages at the concession stand. I just don’t think that severing a relationship with a major movie distributor made in anger is the solution to potential continued economic worries.
“We are dealing with a wrecked business,” said Jonathan Kuntz, who teaches film history at UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television. “And AMC knows it, and their investors know it, and it’s why you are seeing an imminent risk of death to that company.” Theaters thrive on having the exclusive first window for a film. It’s what drives consumers out of their homes. If studios were to start releasing films in theaters and on-demand at the same time, it would not only take ticket revenue away from exhibitors, it would also mean concession revenue would take a hit. Last year, the movie theater industry took in $15 billion in revenue domestically, a combination of around $11 billion in ticket sales and $4 billion in concessions. Globally, ticket sales soared to a new high of $42.5 billion.
Is anyone going to want to go to a movie theatre when the pandemic fades? Sure they will. Moviegoers who enjoy that activity will still do it. It’s just going to be different for at least a while, whether movie selections are limited or something like a seating arrangement is restricted. Do you know what is making a comeback? Drive-in movies. How fun is that?


hotair--2020-05-01--Sessions: I warned Trump to fire Comey "from virtually Day One"

Looks like Jeff Sessions has less interest in returning to Donald Trump ’ s favor , at least in one sense .
Trump has continued to make his former AG pay for the decision to recuse himself from the now-debunked Russia-collusion case by endorsing Sessions ’ primary opponent in the race to win his old Senate seat back .
On one hand , Sessions gives Trump an assist by agreeing with him that James Comey set a “ perjury trap ” against Michael Flynn in a politicized witch hunt aimed at Trump ’ s presidency , based on newly released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : On the other , Sessions tells Tucker Carlson that he tried to get Trump to fire Comey almost as soon as Trump took office : “ I think people knew that I felt that he should not continue from virtually day one of the administration , ” said Sessions , who is running for his old Senate seat in Alabama .
“ When I was asked by the president about it , it didn ’ t take me 30 seconds to say [ that ] my recommendation is that he be removed.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comey for taking advantage of the chaos surrounding the transition period to send two FBI agents to interview Flynn at the White House with no notice to the rest of the administration .
“ They should have called the … White House counsel or chief of staff to ask for permission to interview a key member of the president ’ s administration , ” he said .
“ Comey just laughs about how he got around that.
” In other words , Trump should have taken his advice and could have avoided a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counsel appointment by Rod Rosenstein .
At least that ’ s what Sessions seems to imply here , but given that the investigation was well under way even before Trump ’ s inauguration , that seems an unlikely outcome .
Firing Comey on January 21 would have created the same political storm that it did in May once news of the FBI probe leaked out .
Neither would it have changed the circumstances of Sessions ’ recusal , which was and is entirely defensible , no matter how Trump feels about it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , rather than turning to the awful special-counsel option .
Sessions does cleave to Trump on how they both see Comey , though — as a power-abusing elitist : Sessions said he did not trust Comey to lead the FBI , saying , “ Jim Comey did not believe he was bound by the rules .
He thought he was above the rules .
I did not feel good about his leadership at the FBI.
” “ Those notes [ on Flynn ’ s case ] go back to Comey .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sessions later added .
“ When they talked about conducting this interview , and , as he said , he sent them in , and he wouldn ’ t have done it against Obama .
He wouldn ’ t have done it against Bush .
It was in the first days of this administration , and that ’ s why he did it.
” Unfortunately , the Fox News site makes it almost impossible to get the whole Tucker Carlson interview , so follow the link back to watch it on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back on Fox this morning to make the same points at more length .
Trump ’ s not the only one sore about Robert Mueller ’ s appointment , but Sessions blames Comey ’ s manipulations for that outcome .
Will Trump embrace Sessions ’ remarks here — or use this to attack him ?
Sessions takes credit for cleaning out the top ranks of the FBI , which might not set well with Trump either , even though Sessions argues that Trump was “ totally cleared.
” Stick around for when Sessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s recent attacks on Session and still holds out hope for resurrecting his relationship with Trump .
Good luck with that , pal .

Looks like Jeff Sessions has less interest in returning to Donald Trump’s favor, at least in one sense. Trump has continued to make his former AG pay for the decision to recuse himself from the now-debunked Russia-collusion case by endorsing Sessions’ primary opponent in the race to win his old Senate seat back. On one hand, Sessions gives Trump an assist by agreeing with him that James Comey set a “perjury trap” against Michael Flynn in a politicized witch hunt aimed at Trump’s presidency, based on newly released documents in Flynn’s court case:
Jeff Sessions claims James Comey was the leader of a perjury trap and a setup against Michael Flynn pic.twitter.com/PckJ4A4IGz — Acyn (@Acyn) May 1, 2020
On the other, Sessions tells Tucker Carlson that he tried to get Trump to fire Comey almost as soon as Trump took office:
Jeff Sessions tells Fox News’ @TuckerCarlson he told President Trump to remove James Comey: “I felt he should not continue from virtually day one of the administration and when I was asked by the President, it didn’t take me 30 seconds to say he should be removed.” pic.twitter.com/uDd4lP5Uaa — TV News HQ (@TVNewsHQ) May 1, 2020
“I think people knew that I felt that he should not continue from virtually day one of the administration,” said Sessions, who is running for his old Senate seat in Alabama. “When I was asked by the president about it, it didn’t take me 30 seconds to say [that] my recommendation is that he be removed.” … Sessions went on to slam Comey for taking advantage of the chaos surrounding the transition period to send two FBI agents to interview Flynn at the White House with no notice to the rest of the administration. “They should have called the … White House counsel or chief of staff to ask for permission to interview a key member of the president’s administration,” he said. “Comey just laughs about how he got around that.”
In other words, Trump should have taken his advice and could have avoided a big mess — perhaps even the special counsel appointment by Rod Rosenstein. At least that’s what Sessions seems to imply here, but given that the investigation was well under way even before Trump’s inauguration, that seems an unlikely outcome. Firing Comey on January 21 would have created the same political storm that it did in May once news of the FBI probe leaked out. Neither would it have changed the circumstances of Sessions’ recusal, which was and is entirely defensible, no matter how Trump feels about it. Rosenstein could have run the probe himself, however, rather than turning to the awful special-counsel option.
Sessions does cleave to Trump on how they both see Comey, though — as a power-abusing elitist:
Sessions said he did not trust Comey to lead the FBI, saying, “Jim Comey did not believe he was bound by the rules. He thought he was above the rules. I did not feel good about his leadership at the FBI.” “Those notes [on Flynn’s case] go back to Comey. Those are meetings that he led,” Sessions later added. “When they talked about conducting this interview, and, as he said, he sent them in, and he wouldn’t have done it against Obama. He wouldn’t have done it against Bush. It was in the first days of this administration, and that’s why he did it.”
Unfortunately, the Fox News site makes it almost impossible to get the whole Tucker Carlson interview, so follow the link back to watch it on the Fox site. Fortunately, Sessions went back on Fox this morning to make the same points at more length. Trump’s not the only one sore about Robert Mueller’s appointment, but Sessions blames Comey’s manipulations for that outcome.
Will Trump embrace Sessions’ remarks here — or use this to attack him? Sessions takes credit for cleaning out the top ranks of the FBI, which might not set well with Trump either, even though Sessions argues that Trump was “totally cleared.” Stick around for when Sessions gets confronted by the Trump campaign’s recent attacks on Session and still holds out hope for resurrecting his relationship with Trump. Good luck with that, pal.


hotair--2020-05-01--GOP internal poll: Georgia is in play

GOP internal poll: Georgia is in play

You don ’ t need to take my word for it .
Listen to David Perdue , speaking to “ Women for Trump ” on a conference call on Monday : “ We have had our wake-up call in Georgia , ” Perdue said , detailing the state ’ s recent electoral history of increasingly tight races .
Perdue said he needs to win “ twice the number of votes ” than he did in his 2014 campaign to keep his seat due to the influx of new Democrats in Georgia .
“ The demographic moves against us .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get out and make sure that all of our voters vote .
That ’ s what this comes down to.
” Ginger Howard , a Georgia committeewoman for the Republican Party , responded that Perdue ’ s analysis was “ very sobering.
” “ It ’ s hard to hear , ” she said on the call .
“ The truth hurts sometimes — and we need to know that because we ’ ve got to work doubly hard.
” When I read that a few days ago I wondered what data Perdue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarm him .
Now we know .
The Georgia House GOP Caucus conducted an internal poll taking the temperature of the electorate six months out from the vote .
They polled everything — Trump vs. Biden , approval ratings for Trump , Brian Kemp , Kelly Loeffler , and Perdue , and , importantly , reaction to how Trump and Kemp are handling the COVID-19 crisis .
The only good news is that Perdue leads his Democratic challenger by six points , although even that comes with an asterisk .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not great for an incumbent whose surname is well-known in Georgia .
As for the rest : Voters are evenly split on Trump , but Kemp ’ s disapproval rating ( 52 % ) outweigh his approval rating ( 43 % ) .
Loeffler is deeper underwater after grappling with an uproar over her stock transactions during the pandemic , with an approval of 20 % and disapproval of 47 % .
[ Doug ] Collins ’ approval rating is about 10 percentage points higher than his disapproval… Trump and Biden are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , with Trump at 45 % and Biden at 44 % .
Only about 5 % of Georgians are undecided , and another 6 % back a third-party candidate… A majority of voters disapprove of the way Trump ( 51 % ) and Kemp ( 54 % ) are handling the pandemic .
Loeffler ’ s numbers are shockingly bad , no doubt because of intrigue surrounding her curiously timed stock trades as the epidemic was first beginning to explode .
Right now she has just 11 percent of the vote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far behind Collins at 29 percent .
Two Democrats also have ~11 percent , meaning that Loeffler stands a very good chance of not even making the runoff .
In the end , the GOP establishment that ’ s currently furious at Collins for primarying her may be grateful that he chose to run .
Loeffler may prove unelectable .
Her political problems are part of a perfect storm facing Georgia Republicans .
There ’ s the “ insider trading ” suspicions ; there ’ s the fact that a pandemic and economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House and the governor ’ s office ; and there ’ s Kemp ’ s decision to reopen early , which has become such a political lightning rod that even Trump has taken to commenting unfavorably on it during White House briefings .
Kemp ’ s 42/53 approval rating must be due in part to Georgians ’ skepticism about that decision : Asked about reopening soon , 58.4 percent said Georgia is moving too quickly versus just 31.1 percent who said the state is moving at an appropriate pace .
Bear in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers leap during the crisis .
Kemp ’ s not only doing poorly objectively , he ’ s doing abysmally given the curve state executives are being graded on by voters at the moment .
Erick Erickson ’ s right : If Kemp ’ s decision ends up triggering a second wave of COVID in the state , Republicans are facing a ferocious backlash .
I wonder if Stacey Abrams is second-guessing her decision not to run in either of Georgia ’ s two Senate races this fall .
Normally it ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run in a red state in a year when an incumbent Republican president is at the top of the ballot but this is fertile political ground for an upset .
Is Georgia still a “ red ” state , though ?
Data like the above somehow never loses its power to shock even though it ’ s been obvious for a few years that Georgia is more purple than red .
Trump beat Clinton there by just five points in 2016 .
Abrams nearly knocked off Kemp in the governor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfortably in 2014 by seven points but that ’ s not a blowout margin , and as he said during the conference call described up top , demographics have changed since then .
We shouldn ’ t be surprised to find the race between Trump and Biden tight in Georgia — or in North Carolina .
A new poll ( public , not internal ) from that state is also out today : It ’ s easy to dismiss that since North Carolina ’ s another Georgia-type state where it seems like Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the hump .
Except they have gotten over the hump : The governor , Roy Cooper , is a Democrat .
Thom Tillis won his last election by a point and a half in a very favorable Republican environment .
Trump won by less than four points in North Carolina in 2016 and enjoys a current approval rating , if this poll is to be believed , of 41/53 .
This makes three polls in a row showing Biden ahead in NC , in fact .
Why ?
Well , again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP : Trump has been smarter lately about the great reopening debate , choosing to lie low and occasionally urge caution when the likes of Kemp begins moving towards lifting restrictions .
But I don ’ t know if he can undo the bad impression he made early on when he became the lead cheerleader for reopening sooner rather than later .
In lieu of an exit question , read Peter Spiliakos on why the president ’ s numbers have slid lately .
It ’ s not because of his weird remarks last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internally .
His polling was in motion before that .
Pretty clearly it ’ s because he doesn ’ t grasp the extent to which most Americans are frightened by the epidemic and worried about getting infected .
Which is a big vulnerability potentially considering that one of Biden ’ s few stand-out political gifts is his ability to communicate empathy .

You don’t need to take my word for it. Listen to David Perdue, speaking to “Women for Trump” on a conference call on Monday:
“We have had our wake-up call in Georgia,” Perdue said, detailing the state’s recent electoral history of increasingly tight races. Perdue said he needs to win “twice the number of votes” than he did in his 2014 campaign to keep his seat due to the influx of new Democrats in Georgia. “The demographic moves against us. But we can still win this if we get out and make sure that all of our voters vote. That’s what this comes down to.” Ginger Howard, a Georgia committeewoman for the Republican Party, responded that Perdue’s analysis was “very sobering.” “It’s hard to hear,” she said on the call. “The truth hurts sometimes — and we need to know that because we’ve got to work doubly hard.”
When I read that a few days ago I wondered what data Perdue was seeing behind the scenes to so alarm him. Now we know. The Georgia House GOP Caucus conducted an internal poll taking the temperature of the electorate six months out from the vote. They polled everything — Trump vs. Biden, approval ratings for Trump, Brian Kemp, Kelly Loeffler, and Perdue, and, importantly, reaction to how Trump and Kemp are handling the COVID-19 crisis. The only good news is that Perdue leads his Democratic challenger by six points, although even that comes with an asterisk. He’s at just 45 percent right now, not great for an incumbent whose surname is well-known in Georgia.
As for the rest:
Voters are evenly split on Trump, but Kemp’s disapproval rating (52%) outweigh his approval rating (43%). Loeffler is deeper underwater after grappling with an uproar over her stock transactions during the pandemic, with an approval of 20% and disapproval of 47%. [Doug] Collins’ approval rating is about 10 percentage points higher than his disapproval… Trump and Biden are in a statistical tie in the race for president, with Trump at 45% and Biden at 44%. Only about 5% of Georgians are undecided, and another 6% back a third-party candidate… A majority of voters disapprove of the way Trump (51%) and Kemp (54%) are handling the pandemic.
Loeffler’s numbers are shockingly bad, no doubt because of intrigue surrounding her curiously timed stock trades as the epidemic was first beginning to explode. Right now she has just 11 percent of the vote in Georgia’s Senate jungle primary, far behind Collins at 29 percent. Two Democrats also have ~11 percent, meaning that Loeffler stands a very good chance of not even making the runoff. In the end, the GOP establishment that’s currently furious at Collins for primarying her may be grateful that he chose to run. Loeffler may prove unelectable.
Her political problems are part of a perfect storm facing Georgia Republicans. There’s the “insider trading” suspicions; there’s the fact that a pandemic and economic catastrophe have descended with Republicans in the White House and the governor’s office; and there’s Kemp’s decision to reopen early, which has become such a political lightning rod that even Trump has taken to commenting unfavorably on it during White House briefings. Kemp’s 42/53 approval rating must be due in part to Georgians’ skepticism about that decision:
Asked about reopening soon, 58.4 percent said Georgia is moving too quickly versus just 31.1 percent who said the state is moving at an appropriate pace. Bear in mind, many governors have seen their numbers leap during the crisis. Kemp’s not only doing poorly objectively, he’s doing abysmally given the curve state executives are being graded on by voters at the moment. Erick Erickson’s right: If Kemp’s decision ends up triggering a second wave of COVID in the state, Republicans are facing a ferocious backlash.
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1256187347617689601
I wonder if Stacey Abrams is second-guessing her decision not to run in either of Georgia’s two Senate races this fall. Normally it’d be foolish for a rising Democratic star to run in a red state in a year when an incumbent Republican president is at the top of the ballot but this is fertile political ground for an upset.
Is Georgia still a “red” state, though? Data like the above somehow never loses its power to shock even though it’s been obvious for a few years that Georgia is more purple than red. Trump beat Clinton there by just five points in 2016. Abrams nearly knocked off Kemp in the governor’s race two years ago. Perdue won comfortably in 2014 by seven points but that’s not a blowout margin, and as he said during the conference call described up top, demographics have changed since then. We shouldn’t be surprised to find the race between Trump and Biden tight in Georgia — or in North Carolina. A new poll (public, not internal) from that state is also out today:
It’s easy to dismiss that since North Carolina’s another Georgia-type state where it seems like Democrats are forever threatening but never quite get over the hump. Except they have gotten over the hump: The governor, Roy Cooper, is a Democrat. Thom Tillis won his last election by a point and a half in a very favorable Republican environment. Trump won by less than four points in North Carolina in 2016 and enjoys a current approval rating, if this poll is to be believed, of 41/53. This makes three polls in a row showing Biden ahead in NC, in fact. Why? Well, again, coronavirus politics are proving treacherous for the GOP:
Trump has been smarter lately about the great reopening debate, choosing to lie low and occasionally urge caution when the likes of Kemp begins moving towards lifting restrictions. But I don’t know if he can undo the bad impression he made early on when he became the lead cheerleader for reopening sooner rather than later. In lieu of an exit question, read Peter Spiliakos on why the president’s numbers have slid lately. It’s not because of his weird remarks last week about “cleaning” the body internally. His polling was in motion before that. Pretty clearly it’s because he doesn’t grasp the extent to which most Americans are frightened by the epidemic and worried about getting infected. Which is a big vulnerability potentially considering that one of Biden’s few stand-out political gifts is his ability to communicate empathy.


hotair--2020-05-01--More Biden: My life's an "open book" -- but you can't read the footnotes, or something

Even apart from its connection to the Tara Reade allegation , this contradiction from Joe Biden should prompt plenty of headscratching .
In his contentious interview with Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC ’ s Morning Joe , Biden refused to offer up access to his official papers at the University of Delaware — for any purpose , including a search limited to only Reade .
Other than the fact that you can ’ t read the pages , Biden says , he ’ s an “ open book ” ( transcript via MSNBC ) : BRZEZINSKI : “ The New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They didn ’ t find any of your former staff members were able to corroborate the details of this allegation .
She did file a police report a few weeks ago with the D.C. Police , but since you want to set the record straight , why limit this only to Tara Reade ?
Why not release any complaints that had may — had been made against you during your Senate career ?
BIDEN : I ’ m prepared to do that .
To the best of my knowledge , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of my Senate career , in terms of my office and anything that has been run ( ph ) .
Look , this is an open book .
There ’ s nothing for me to hide .
Nothing at all .
“ Open book ” is apparently a term of art .
When Brzezinski presses Biden on access to the papers that have come from almost 50 years of public office — the very experience on which Biden is campaigning — he refuses .
Allowing the media to access his papers would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden declares : BRZEZINSKI : The first is about your University of Delaware records .
Do you agree with the reporting that those records were supposed to be revealed to the public and then they were resealed for a longer period of time until after you leave “ public life ” ?
And if you agree with that , if that ’ s what happened , why did that happen ?
BIDEN : Because — look , the fact is that there ’ s a lot of things that — of speeches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken , interviews that I did overseas with people , all of those things relating to my job .
And the idea that they would all be made public and the fact while I was running for a public office they could be really taken out of context .
The papers are position papers .
They are documents that existed and that when I — for example when I go — when I met with Putin or when I met with whomever .
And all of that to be fodder in a campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know of anybody who ’ s done anything like that .
Put the Reade issue aside for a moment .
Why does Biden need to hide his “ position papers ” ?
Why wouldn ’ t Biden want us to see what he said to Putin ?
His fellow Democrats have spent the last three years demanding the transcripts of conversations between Trump and world leaders like Putin and Ukraine ’ s Volodymyr Zelensky , for instance , and have sued to get access to them .
The double standard on “ Believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only hypocrisy on display in this interview .
Bear in mind that these aren ’ t Biden ’ s personal papers , like diaries , a distinction Biden makes himself .
They ’ re not tax or private-business records either , like Democrats have also been demanding of Trump for four-plus years .
These are records of his actions and positions while serving in the US Senate , a public office , while he runs for the highest public office we have .
We should already have access to these records as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how we paid for them over the 38-year course of Biden ’ s Senate tenure .
It ’ s not as if Biden can ’ t grant the access , either .
The Washington Post made that clear last July , when his records became an issue in the primaries over his part in the Clarence Thomas hearings : Starting in 2011 and for years after , the university had described the terms of the agreement as keeping the papers sealed “ for two years after Biden retires from public office.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden announced his presidential campaign , the university changed the way that it described those terms .
Instead of citing his departure from “ public office , ” the university said the documents would not be made public until two years after Biden “ retires from public life ” or after Dec. 31 , 2019 , whichever is later .
It did not define what is considered “ public life.
” “ The entire collection is unavailable , ” said Andrea Boyle Tippett , a spokeswoman for the University of Delaware .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the website indicates , when Mr. Biden retires from public life.
” “ As he is currently running for office , he is in public life , ” she said .
“ Since retirement for anyone , not just public figures , takes different forms , I can ’ t speculate beyond that.
” The university denied public records requests for copies of the initial agreement that Biden signed , as well as any changes to it or correspondence about it .
Biden lied about being an “ open book.
” He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book closed , even though it directly relates to his public service and to his campaign to return to office .
It ’ s not the only lie Biden ’ s telling these days , either , which calls his credibility into serious question not just on Tara Reade ’ s allegation but on a wide variety of topics , including his own capabilities to handle the job .

Even apart from its connection to the Tara Reade allegation, this contradiction from Joe Biden should prompt plenty of headscratching. In his contentious interview with Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Biden refused to offer up access to his official papers at the University of Delaware — for any purpose, including a search limited to only Reade.
Other than the fact that you can’t read the pages, Biden says, he’s an “open book” (transcript via MSNBC):
BRZEZINSKI: “The New York Times” has investigated this exhaustively. They didn’t find any of your former staff members were able to corroborate the details of this allegation. She did file a police report a few weeks ago with the D.C. Police, but since you want to set the record straight, why limit this only to Tara Reade? Why not release any complaints that had may — had been made against you during your Senate career? BIDEN: I’m prepared to do that. To the best of my knowledge, there’s been no complaints made against me in terms of my Senate career, in terms of my office and anything that has been run (ph). Look, this is an open book. There’s nothing for me to hide. Nothing at all.
“Open book” is apparently a term of art. When Brzezinski presses Biden on access to the papers that have come from almost 50 years of public office — the very experience on which Biden is campaigning — he refuses. Allowing the media to access his papers would create “campaign fodder” for Trump, Biden declares:
Full exchange on Biden saying he won't release his Senate records at the Univ. of Delaware — "The idea that they would be made public while I was running for public office, they could be taken out of context … they could be fodder." pic.twitter.com/tUOGBBttOd — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 1, 2020
BRZEZINSKI: The first is about your University of Delaware records. Do you agree with the reporting that those records were supposed to be revealed to the public and then they were resealed for a longer period of time until after you leave “public life”? And if you agree with that, if that’s what happened, why did that happen? BIDEN: Because — look, the fact is that there’s a lot of things that — of speeches I have made, positions I have taken, interviews that I did overseas with people, all of those things relating to my job. And the idea that they would all be made public and the fact while I was running for a public office they could be really taken out of context. The papers are position papers. They are documents that existed and that when I — for example when I go — when I met with Putin or when I met with whomever. And all of that to be fodder in a campaign at this time I don’t know of anybody who’s done anything like that.
Put the Reade issue aside for a moment. Why does Biden need to hide his “position papers”? Why wouldn’t Biden want us to see what he said to Putin? His fellow Democrats have spent the last three years demanding the transcripts of conversations between Trump and world leaders like Putin and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, for instance, and have sued to get access to them. The double standard on “Believe All Women” isn’t the only hypocrisy on display in this interview.
Bear in mind that these aren’t Biden’s personal papers, like diaries, a distinction Biden makes himself. They’re not tax or private-business records either, like Democrats have also been demanding of Trump for four-plus years. These are records of his actions and positions while serving in the US Senate, a public office, while he runs for the highest public office we have. We should already have access to these records as a matter of public record, seeing as how we paid for them over the 38-year course of Biden’s Senate tenure.
It’s not as if Biden can’t grant the access, either. The Washington Post made that clear last July, when his records became an issue in the primaries over his part in the Clarence Thomas hearings:
Starting in 2011 and for years after, the university had described the terms of the agreement as keeping the papers sealed “for two years after Biden retires from public office.” But this year, on the day before Biden announced his presidential campaign, the university changed the way that it described those terms. Instead of citing his departure from “public office,” the university said the documents would not be made public until two years after Biden “retires from public life” or after Dec. 31, 2019, whichever is later. It did not define what is considered “public life.” “The entire collection is unavailable,” said Andrea Boyle Tippett, a spokeswoman for the University of Delaware. “Its contents will become available, as the website indicates, when Mr. Biden retires from public life.” “As he is currently running for office, he is in public life,” she said. “Since retirement for anyone, not just public figures, takes different forms, I can’t speculate beyond that.” The university denied public records requests for copies of the initial agreement that Biden signed, as well as any changes to it or correspondence about it.
Biden lied about being an “open book.” He’s trying his best to keep the book closed, even though it directly relates to his public service and to his campaign to return to office. It’s not the only lie Biden’s telling these days, either, which calls his credibility into serious question not just on Tara Reade’s allegation but on a wide variety of topics, including his own capabilities to handle the job.