hotair--2020-12-13--Former presidential adviser calls for Biden, Harris to be vaccinated on Monday

Dr. Jonathan Reiner , a former medical adviser to President George W. Bush has some advice for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris – take the coronavirus vaccine as quickly as possible .
He says he would recommend that both of them be vaccinated Monday .
The vaccine takes about a month before the full extent of its protection takes hold .
The inauguration is 38 days away .
Reiner wants the incoming leaders to be fully protected as they enter their offices .
That sounds reasonable , right ?
It would also be best if they were administered the shots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encourage the general public to do the same when the vaccine becomes available to everyone .
The former Bush adviser insisted that , for Biden , the vaccine is a key part of his presidential protections and is ‘ no different to his secret service [ detail ] or his armored car , or any protections surrounding the White House.
’ ‘ This is a biological protection – and I would vaccinate him on Monday , ’ Reiner added .
Reiner continued that he believed the Biden should receive the vaccine publicly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This will go a long way to show this is a safe vaccine , ’ he said .
‘ That ’ s really the concern , that ’ s where the reluctance is .
People who are hesitant to take the vaccine are worried , is it safe .
And if the incoming president is taking it , then that will go a long way to assuage any concern.
’ I had a thought that an interesting event to watch would be a split-screen version of Biden and Harris in Delaware taking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pence at the White House .
Both men ’ s supporters would see that they were taking the vaccinations themselves and maybe persuade the doubters to do the same .
Now that the first shipments of the vaccine are rolling out for delivery , the next hurdle is for the general public to be convinced to get the shot .
Let ’ s face it , the vaccine has gotten as politicized as the handling of the coronavirus pandemic has in the United States .
Joe Biden was no more helpful than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be coming to fruition soon .
Biden grumbled about needing to be reassured by scientists , not just the Trump administration ( specifically Trump ) that no corners were cut for expediency and Kamala Harris flat-out said she would not take the vaccine during the Trump administration .
So , now they have to consume a slice of humble pie and take the vaccine .
They ’ ll be responsible for getting people to take the vaccine so when they reap what they ’ ve sown by deliberately undermining the safety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the expression is about karma .
Biden would be eligible for the vaccine fairly quickly anyway .
His age ( 78 ) and past medical history place him at the front of the line .
Kamala would benefit from the push to prioritize vaccinating minorities .
If these two people really want the American public to believe that the coronavirus is their top priority and they want to unify the country , let them take the shot in a fully transparent way .
On Sunday ’ s Face the Nation , host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a mix of both Trump and Biden supporters .
The topic was whether or not they will take the vaccine .
Of the seven participants , only two said yes , they are willing to take the vaccine .
One was a white male Trump supporter and the other was a white female Biden supporter .
The Biden supporter said she has a pre-existing condition – asthma .
None of the black participants said yes , all of them expressed skepticism about the vaccine ’ s safety and over the speed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention the racial component because a major concern in the medical community is that minorities won ’ t agree to be vaccinated .
Millions of people will likely postpone or completely opt-out of getting the vaccine .
It ’ s not just the anti-vaxxers , either .
In Texas , Houston will receive the vaccine on Monday .
Medical professionals are reassuring the public that the vaccine wasn ’ t rushed , the process played out safely .
This vaccine was the beneficiary of years of work in coronavirus development , like that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine safety , such as those expressed by Broze , appear the most common reason behind the vaccine resistance .
Other reasons include ideological views that vaccines aren ’ t necessary because the pandemic is exaggerated ; an increasingly influential anti-vaccine movement ; conspiracy theories such as the claim the vaccine will contain a tracking microchip ; and the African-American community ’ s distrust of health care authorities because of historic racism .
“ It ’ s going to be a bumpy road , ” said Peter Hotez , a vaccine scientist at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media scrutiny and an aggressive anti-vaxxer movement , particularly in Texas , any adverse vaccine events are going to be amplified.
” Hotez has an answer to those who worry about safety concerns because the vaccine was developed in seemingly record time , concerns fed by the initiative name , Operation Warp Speed , and the perception that President Donald Trump ’ s desire for an October surprise might have caused corners to be cut .
The vaccine was really developed over decades , not a few months , Hotez notes .
Scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when SARS ( Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ) , an older cousin of COVID-19 , emerged in China and spread to a number of countries , including Canada .
Four years ago , a Hotez team developed a SARS vaccine he thinks likely would have provided some protection against COVID-19 , the strains are so similar .
Research underpinning the new genetic technology Pfizer and Moderna employed on the two vaccines goes back 30 years .
Dr. Jonathan Reiner is no fan of President Trump .
He didn ’ t mention if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away .
His concern is for the incoming administration , which probably isn ’ t very surprising , given today ’ s divided atmosphere .
Reiner called for Trump to resign in September over allegations made in the book by Bob Woodward claiming Trump deliberately misled the public about the coronavirus in its early stages .
In October Reiner again slammed Trump over the coronavirus .
Whatever anyone ’ s personal decision about taking the vaccine is , the fact that a coronavirus vaccine is now in transport to its first recipients is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied , even by the most ardent Never Trumpers .
Operation Warp Speed is Trump ’ s legacy .

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a former medical adviser to President George W. Bush has some advice for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris – take the coronavirus vaccine as quickly as possible. He says he would recommend that both of them be vaccinated Monday. The vaccine takes about a month before the full extent of its protection takes hold. The inauguration is 38 days away. Reiner wants the incoming leaders to be fully protected as they enter their offices.
That sounds reasonable, right? It would also be best if they were administered the shots in front of a camera, to encourage the general public to do the same when the vaccine becomes available to everyone.
The former Bush adviser insisted that, for Biden, the vaccine is a key part of his presidential protections and is ‘no different to his secret service [detail] or his armored car, or any protections surrounding the White House.’ ‘This is a biological protection – and I would vaccinate him on Monday,’ Reiner added. Reiner continued that he believed the Biden should receive the vaccine publicly, and possibly alongside first responders. ‘This will go a long way to show this is a safe vaccine,’ he said. ‘That’s really the concern, that’s where the reluctance is. People who are hesitant to take the vaccine are worried, is it safe. And if the incoming president is taking it, then that will go a long way to assuage any concern.’
I had a thought that an interesting event to watch would be a split-screen version of Biden and Harris in Delaware taking the shot at the same time as Trump and Pence at the White House. Both men’s supporters would see that they were taking the vaccinations themselves and maybe persuade the doubters to do the same. Now that the first shipments of the vaccine are rolling out for delivery, the next hurdle is for the general public to be convinced to get the shot. Let’s face it, the vaccine has gotten as politicized as the handling of the coronavirus pandemic has in the United States.
Joe Biden was no more helpful than Kamala Harris originally when the vaccine looked to be coming to fruition soon. Biden grumbled about needing to be reassured by scientists, not just the Trump administration (specifically Trump) that no corners were cut for expediency and Kamala Harris flat-out said she would not take the vaccine during the Trump administration. So, now they have to consume a slice of humble pie and take the vaccine. They’ll be responsible for getting people to take the vaccine so when they reap what they’ve sown by deliberately undermining the safety of the vaccine, well, you know what the expression is about karma.
Biden would be eligible for the vaccine fairly quickly anyway. His age (78) and past medical history place him at the front of the line. Kamala would benefit from the push to prioritize vaccinating minorities. If these two people really want the American public to believe that the coronavirus is their top priority and they want to unify the country, let them take the shot in a fully transparent way.
On Sunday’s Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan spoke with a panel consisting of a mix of both Trump and Biden supporters. The topic was whether or not they will take the vaccine. Of the seven participants, only two said yes, they are willing to take the vaccine. One was a white male Trump supporter and the other was a white female Biden supporter. The Biden supporter said she has a pre-existing condition – asthma. None of the black participants said yes, all of them expressed skepticism about the vaccine’s safety and over the speed at which it has become available. I mention the racial component because a major concern in the medical community is that minorities won’t agree to be vaccinated. Millions of people will likely postpone or completely opt-out of getting the vaccine. It’s not just the anti-vaxxers, either. In Texas, Houston will receive the vaccine on Monday. Medical professionals are reassuring the public that the vaccine wasn’t rushed, the process played out safely. This vaccine was the beneficiary of years of work in coronavirus development, like that of the SARS virus.
Concerns about vaccine safety, such as those expressed by Broze, appear the most common reason behind the vaccine resistance. Other reasons include ideological views that vaccines aren’t necessary because the pandemic is exaggerated; an increasingly influential anti-vaccine movement; conspiracy theories such as the claim the vaccine will contain a tracking microchip; and the African-American community’s distrust of health care authorities because of historic racism. “It’s going to be a bumpy road,” said Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist at Baylor College of Medicine. “Given media scrutiny and an aggressive anti-vaxxer movement, particularly in Texas, any adverse vaccine events are going to be amplified.” Hotez has an answer to those who worry about safety concerns because the vaccine was developed in seemingly record time, concerns fed by the initiative name, Operation Warp Speed, and the perception that President Donald Trump’s desire for an October surprise might have caused corners to be cut. The vaccine was really developed over decades, not a few months, Hotez notes. Scientists have studied coronaviruses since the early 2000s when SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), an older cousin of COVID-19, emerged in China and spread to a number of countries, including Canada. Four years ago, a Hotez team developed a SARS vaccine he thinks likely would have provided some protection against COVID-19, the strains are so similar. Research underpinning the new genetic technology Pfizer and Moderna employed on the two vaccines goes back 30 years.
Dr. Jonathan Reiner is no fan of President Trump. He didn’t mention if Trump and Pence should take the vaccine right away. His concern is for the incoming administration, which probably isn’t very surprising, given today’s divided atmosphere. Reiner called for Trump to resign in September over allegations made in the book by Bob Woodward claiming Trump deliberately misled the public about the coronavirus in its early stages. In October Reiner again slammed Trump over the coronavirus.
Whatever anyone’s personal decision about taking the vaccine is, the fact that a coronavirus vaccine is now in transport to its first recipients is a historical accomplishment that cannot be denied, even by the most ardent Never Trumpers. Operation Warp Speed is Trump’s legacy.


hotair--2020-12-13--Former aide: Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed me for years

And not just her , she claims .
Cuomo was never going to be Attorney General , despite yesterday ’ s rumors .
He ’ s chummy enough with Biden that maybe Sleepy Joe would have taken a chance on him if a blue tsunami had crashed down on November 3 , handing Democrats a solid Senate majority .
As it is , with the best-case scenario for Dems a 50/50 Senate in which Joe Manchin is the 50th vote , forget it .
Republicans would tear Cuomo apart in a hearing about how he ’ s chronically mishandled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last spring to his embarrassing self-promotional efforts over the summer to his dubious decision to close indoor dining in NYC again starting tomorrow .
The last thing the Biden White House needs as it takes power is COVID-related embarrassment on a big stage .
Having Cuomo go down to humiliating defeat on a confirmation vote would double the embarrassment .
But in case there was a shread of doubt about whether Biden might really nominate him instead of just floating a rumor about it to stroke Cuomo ’ s ego , this morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has erased it .
Last week she attacked Cuomo on Twitter for having made everyone working for him miserable but didn ’ t delve into specifics beyond “ he ’ s an A-hole , ” which is evident enough : This morning she finally got specific : Will she tell her story ?
No , Boylan said later .
At least , not to a reporter : I assume Team Cuomo will accuse her of being a disgruntled staffer , possibly looking for a quick way to boost her public profile .
Boylan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , having just concluded a longshot candidacy for Congress this past summer when she primaried Jerry Nadler .
( Nadler won by nearly 50 points . )
But there ’ s a flaw in the theory that she ’ s seeking fame : Making enemies of Cuomo ’ s many political allies inside New York ’ s Democratic machine is an odd way for an aspiring Democratic politician in that state to get her foot in the door , even if she ’ s running from the left .
And just because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press doesn ’ t mean others won ’ t .
No doubt New York newspapers are contacting people who worked with her in Cuomo ’ s office as I write this to try to corroborate her claim that “ many saw it , and watched.
” Or , more sensationally , that she ’ s not the only woman who ’ s been treated this way by Cuomo .
We ’ ve seen enough # MeToo stories over the past few years to know how they develop .
One or two people finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dam bursts .
The dam around Cuomo is awfully strong , though .
Despite all the reporting about his pandemic flaws , despite the endless restrictions that New York businesses have coped with since March , a poll taken in mid-October found his approval rating at … 71/21 .
Whether that ’ ll deter anyone who witnessed the behavior Boylan described from coming forward — or whether it ’ ll immunize Cuomo to some extent if someone does come forward — are the questions .
But at least he ’ ll remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s .
He has too much baggage now to be a cabinet officer like AG , let alone president someday .

And not just her, she claims.
Cuomo was never going to be Attorney General, despite yesterday’s rumors. He’s chummy enough with Biden that maybe Sleepy Joe would have taken a chance on him if a blue tsunami had crashed down on November 3, handing Democrats a solid Senate majority. As it is, with the best-case scenario for Dems a 50/50 Senate in which Joe Manchin is the 50th vote, forget it. Republicans would tear Cuomo apart in a hearing about how he’s chronically mishandled the pandemic, from his infamous nursing-home order last spring to his embarrassing self-promotional efforts over the summer to his dubious decision to close indoor dining in NYC again starting tomorrow. The last thing the Biden White House needs as it takes power is COVID-related embarrassment on a big stage. Having Cuomo go down to humiliating defeat on a confirmation vote would double the embarrassment.
But in case there was a shread of doubt about whether Biden might really nominate him instead of just floating a rumor about it to stroke Cuomo’s ego, this morning’s Twitter thread from Lindsey Boylan has erased it. Last week she attacked Cuomo on Twitter for having made everyone working for him miserable but didn’t delve into specifics beyond “he’s an A-hole,” which is evident enough:
I tried to quit three times before it stuck. I’ve worked hard my whole life. Hustled – fake it till you make it style. That environment is beyond toxic. I’m still unwrapping it years later in therapy! — Lindsey Boylan (@LindseyBoylan) December 5, 2020
He is a total asshole surrounded by enablers. — Lindsey Boylan (@LindseyBoylan) December 5, 2020
This morning she finally got specific:
It was then how I learned how hard it is for women. How hard this world can be for us when we are trying to be taken seriously and help our community. How easily jerks can destroy the lives of women. — Lindsey Boylan (@LindseyBoylan) December 13, 2020
Yes, @NYGovCuomo sexually harassed me for years. Many saw it, and watched. I could never anticipate what to expect: would I be grilled on my work (which was very good) or harassed about my looks. Or would it be both in the same conversation? This was the way for years. — Lindsey Boylan (@LindseyBoylan) December 13, 2020
I’m angry to be put in this situation at all. That because I am a woman, I can work hard my whole life to better myself and help others and yet still fall victim as countless women over generations have. Mostly silently. I hate that some men, like @NYGovCuomo abuse their power. — Lindsey Boylan (@LindseyBoylan) December 13, 2020
Will she tell her story? No, Boylan said later. At least, not to a reporter:
To be clear: I have no interest in talking to journalists. I am about validating the experience of countless women and making sure abuse stops. My worst fear is that this continues. And as @FKAtwigs said yesterday, my second worst fear is having to talk about and relive this. — Lindsey Boylan (@LindseyBoylan) December 13, 2020
I assume Team Cuomo will accuse her of being a disgruntled staffer, possibly looking for a quick way to boost her public profile. Boylan is a longshot candidate for Manhattan borough president, having just concluded a longshot candidacy for Congress this past summer when she primaried Jerry Nadler. (Nadler won by nearly 50 points.) But there’s a flaw in the theory that she’s seeking fame: Making enemies of Cuomo’s many political allies inside New York’s Democratic machine is an odd way for an aspiring Democratic politician in that state to get her foot in the door, even if she’s running from the left.
And just because Boylan won’t talk to the press doesn’t mean others won’t. No doubt New York newspapers are contacting people who worked with her in Cuomo’s office as I write this to try to corroborate her claim that “many saw it, and watched.” Or, more sensationally, that she’s not the only woman who’s been treated this way by Cuomo.
We’ve seen enough #MeToo stories over the past few years to know how they develop. One or two people finally break the conspiracy of silence, and the dam bursts.
The dam around Cuomo is awfully strong, though. Despite all the reporting about his pandemic flaws, despite the endless restrictions that New York businesses have coped with since March, a poll taken in mid-October found his approval rating at … 71/21. Whether that’ll deter anyone who witnessed the behavior Boylan described from coming forward — or whether it’ll immunize Cuomo to some extent if someone does come forward — are the questions. But at least he’ll remain New York’s problem, not the country’s. He has too much baggage now to be a cabinet officer like AG, let alone president someday.


hotair--2020-12-13--Turkey is now making inroads against... Russia?

Not too long ago we were discussing the incursions against the Armenians by Azerbaijan and Turkey ’ s open backing of the Azeri forces .
It was beginning to look like it could be the beginning of a new Armenian genocide , but things cooled down considerably after Russia stepped in to mediate a ceasefire , moving their own troops into the area to help enforce the agreement and keep a lid on the hostilities .
But the agreement included a codicil that didn ’ t attract much attention when it was announced .
As a concession to Turkey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain in the area to oversee the process .
This has now effectively given them a long-term presence in an area traditionally considered to be well within Russia ’ s sphere of military influence and power .
Vladimir Putin was forced to publicly admit that this is the new reality in their part of the world .
( Wall Street Journal , subscription required ) When Russia single-handedly brokered an agreement last month to stop fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia , two former Soviet republics , the Kremlin granted an important concession to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implementation .
Turkey ’ s strong military support for Azerbaijan was a reality the Kremlin couldn ’ t ignore , said Russian President Vladimir Putin .
“ What can I tell you , ” he said on Russian television when asked about Turkey ’ s broader role in the Caucasus days after fighting stopped last month .
“ It ’ s a geopolitical fallout from the downfall of Soviet Union.
” Turkey ’ s foray into an area the Kremlin has traditionally regarded as its exclusive sphere of influence is emblematic of President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refashion the NATO member and once-pliant U.S. ally into a power player at the crossroads between Europe , the Middle East and Asia .
With everything else going on in the world right now , this sort of story is easy to overlook .
But it ’ s still a rather remarkable development .
To see Vladimir Putin come out during a televised interview and essentially shrug his shoulders and admit that Turkey is a force to be reckoned with is very much out of character for him .
But this development is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might look at first glance .
It ’ s true that Russia seems to be conceding its de facto control of a neighboring territory , but Putin is actually getting something valuable in return for that concession .
Putin has always sought to weaken NATO , which makes sense since the primary function of that organization is to act as a check on Russian influence and military power .
By cozying up to Ankara , Putin is driving even more of a wedge between Turkey and the United States , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NATO alliance .
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been drifting in this direction for some time now and not really making any effort to hide it .
While still technically maintaining his nation ’ s status as a NATO member and hosting key United States military facilities , Erdogan has cut deals with the Russians for the purchase of new missile systems that are not compatible with NATO hardware .
He ’ s also closed deals to purchase fighter jets from Moscow .
Erdogan hasn ’ t really been an ally to the west @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years now , and yet he ’ s somehow managed to eat his cake and have it also in this regard .
Given Turkey ’ s crucial location , adjacent to both Syria and Iran , they hold a vital position for the west when dealing with any flareups in those countries .
Losing military and diplomatic relations with Turkey entirely wouldn ’ t be the end of the world , but it would make American and NATO military endeavors in that region far more complicated and logistically difficult .
But even knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no turning back while Erdogan is in charge .
Perhaps it ’ s time to simply cut bait and boot Turkey out of NATO .
Perhaps Erdogan would then find out that being a “ friend ” of Vladimir Putin ’ s isn ’ t all it ’ s cracked up to be .

Not too long ago we were discussing the incursions against the Armenians by Azerbaijan and Turkey’s open backing of the Azeri forces. It was beginning to look like it could be the beginning of a new Armenian genocide, but things cooled down considerably after Russia stepped in to mediate a ceasefire, moving their own troops into the area to help enforce the agreement and keep a lid on the hostilities. But the agreement included a codicil that didn’t attract much attention when it was announced. As a concession to Turkey, Russia agreed to allow Turkish troops to remain in the area to oversee the process. This has now effectively given them a long-term presence in an area traditionally considered to be well within Russia’s sphere of military influence and power. Vladimir Putin was forced to publicly admit that this is the new reality in their part of the world. (Wall Street Journal, subscription required)
When Russia single-handedly brokered an agreement last month to stop fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia, two former Soviet republics, the Kremlin granted an important concession to Turkey, allowing Ankara to monitor its implementation. Turkey’s strong military support for Azerbaijan was a reality the Kremlin couldn’t ignore, said Russian President Vladimir Putin. “What can I tell you,” he said on Russian television when asked about Turkey’s broader role in the Caucasus days after fighting stopped last month. “It’s a geopolitical fallout from the downfall of Soviet Union.” Turkey’s foray into an area the Kremlin has traditionally regarded as its exclusive sphere of influence is emblematic of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s efforts to refashion the NATO member and once-pliant U.S. ally into a power player at the crossroads between Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
With everything else going on in the world right now, this sort of story is easy to overlook. But it’s still a rather remarkable development. To see Vladimir Putin come out during a televised interview and essentially shrug his shoulders and admit that Turkey is a force to be reckoned with is very much out of character for him.
But this development is probably a bit more complicated than it might look at first glance. It’s true that Russia seems to be conceding its de facto control of a neighboring territory, but Putin is actually getting something valuable in return for that concession. Putin has always sought to weaken NATO, which makes sense since the primary function of that organization is to act as a check on Russian influence and military power. By cozying up to Ankara, Putin is driving even more of a wedge between Turkey and the United States, as well as the rest of the west and the NATO alliance.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been drifting in this direction for some time now and not really making any effort to hide it. While still technically maintaining his nation’s status as a NATO member and hosting key United States military facilities, Erdogan has cut deals with the Russians for the purchase of new missile systems that are not compatible with NATO hardware. He’s also closed deals to purchase fighter jets from Moscow. Erdogan hasn’t really been an ally to the west in more than name only for several years now, and yet he’s somehow managed to eat his cake and have it also in this regard.
Given Turkey’s crucial location, adjacent to both Syria and Iran, they hold a vital position for the west when dealing with any flareups in those countries. Losing military and diplomatic relations with Turkey entirely wouldn’t be the end of the world, but it would make American and NATO military endeavors in that region far more complicated and logistically difficult. But even knowing that, it seems as if there is no turning back while Erdogan is in charge. Perhaps it’s time to simply cut bait and boot Turkey out of NATO. Perhaps Erdogan would then find out that being a “friend” of Vladimir Putin’s isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.


hotair--2020-12-13--The last shall be first -- and that means ..: Sunday reflection

A man named John was sent from God .
He came for testimony , to testify to the light , so that all might believe through him .
He was not the light , but came to testify to the light .
And this is the testimony of John .
When the Jews from Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to him to ask him , “ Who are you ?
” he admitted and did not deny it , but admitted , “ I am not the Christ.
” So they asked him , “ What are you then ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ I am not.
” “ Are you the Prophet ?
” He answered , “ No.
” So they said to him , “ Who are you , so we can give an answer to those who sent us ?
What do you have to say for yourself ?
” He said : “ I am the voice of one crying out in the desert , ‘ Make straight the way of the Lord , ’ as Isaiah the prophet said.
” Some Pharisees were also sent .
They asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baptize if you are not the Christ or Elijah or the Prophet ?
” John answered them , “ I baptize with water ; but there is one among you whom you do not recognize , the one who is coming after me , whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie.
” This happened in Bethany across the Jordan , where John was baptizing .
As we continue our journey into Advent and then into Christmas , we also continue our focus on the ministry of John the Baptist .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , John the Baptist cut a controversial figure in his day .
By the end of his life , John managed to threaten the entire leadership caste in Jerusalem , and he paid for that with his life .
In the end , it was his condemnation of Herod Antipas and his marriage that provided the catalyst for his imprisonment and then execution .
Today ’ s passage , though , shows that John the Bapist had already gotten onto the radar screens of the power brokers at the temple as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why an itinerant preacher that far outside of Jerusalem posed such a threat .
Bethany across the Jordan is probably around 20-30 miles as the crow flies from Jerusalem , far enough away that the musings of a teacher shouldn ’ t have created much of a stir .
( Today , the routes to get between the two points are roughly 130 miles or more , thanks to modern highways and political conflict . )
Furthermore , the path between the two even in those days went through some of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have taken an enormous effort to go back and forth between the two for anything other than planned commerce .
And yet , we know from the Gospels that people did make that pilgrimage — many people , in fact .
The Pharisees , scribes , and Levites — the power structure of the Judeans at the time — came to see what exactly drew people out to the desert to hear John preach .
We see an echo of this in Herod Antipas ’ fascination with John , too — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s initial fascination with Jesus .
John preached something for which the Judeans thirsted , and which the temple authorities did not or could not provide .
That presented a real threat to their standing , which is why they grew interested in John at all .
Note too that these leaders didn ’ t come to listen , either .
They do not ask , “ What is your message ?
” Instead , they demand to know his position and authority to preach .
John the Baptist does not pretend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they defined it at that moment .
All he claims to be is one who is urging preparation , and telling people that their hour of deliverance will soon be at hand .
Again , it ’ s remarkable that such a message would have been that attractive , especially considering the source in the context of those times .
Something in John ’ s message called to the hearts of those Judeans ; they understood his prophetic nature even though John eschewed that title or any of the trappings of authority .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dry exercise of law or a leadership caste that left them as refugees in their own land .
They dragged themselves through the desert looking for living water .
Even more basic : They wanted to know that the Lord had not forgotten them .
The people wanted a way back into the heart of the Lord .
John promised them that they should build that path in their hearts , because the hour would soon come when He would transform those hearts and provide salvation .
The Lord is coming , John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the simplicity of that message , and John ’ s status in delivering it , showed precisely what the Lord ’ s coming would mean .
As Jesus would later teach , the last shall be first … .
and the first would be last .
This advent of salvation would not come through the temple authorities and the haughty who cared more for themselves than the Lord or the people .
The Pharisees , scribes , Levites , and Herod Antipas would all be bypassed by the Son of God , coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then by extension the world through His own church .
John warns the power brokers who challenge him that he speaks as Isaiah did in declaring the Lord ’ s salvation .
Our first reading from Isaiah reminds us of the Lord ’ s promise to lift up the lowly in salvation : What does this tell us today about our own lives ?
In this season of Advent especially , we must decide which we love more : the Lord , or our own pretensions of lordliness .
Salvation can lift all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach it in the recognition of our own fallenness and our own lowliness in sin .
Salvation came for the Pharisees , scribes , and Levites too , and even Herod and the Romans , had they prepared themselves for the coming of Christ .
Isaiah ’ s prophesy wasn ’ t an exclusion , but a warning about recognizing our own right relationship with God .
Power and wealth are human pretensions to glory , the love of which must be cast aside if we are to truly prepare our hearts for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all poor before God , which we need to recognize .
Sin has broken our hearts and made us captives and prisoners to our own impulses and desires .
Christ comes to heal this brokenness through His grace and His Word .
Baptism provides a moment of cleanliness before the Lord and an invitation from us to have the Holy Spirit enter our hearts .
It is that for which we prepare this Advent season — our renewal in Christ , and a recommitment to His Word .
We do this as ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight the paths to the Lord ’ s encounter with us .
Even the least of us can have hope in that salvation .
The front-page image is a detail from “ Saint John the Baptist ” by an anonymous artist , c. 1600 .
On display at the National Trust in the UK .
Via Wikimedia Commons .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is John 1:6–8, 19–28:
A man named John was sent from God. He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. And this is the testimony of John. When the Jews from Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to him to ask him, “Who are you?” he admitted and did not deny it, but admitted, “I am not the Christ.” So they asked him, “What are you then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.” So they said to him, “Who are you, so we can give an answer to those who sent us? What do you have to say for yourself?” He said: “I am the voice of one crying out in the desert, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.” Some Pharisees were also sent. They asked him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ or Elijah or the Prophet?” John answered them, “I baptize with water; but there is one among you whom you do not recognize, the one who is coming after me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie.” This happened in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
As we continue our journey into Advent and then into Christmas, we also continue our focus on the ministry of John the Baptist. As we recognize from today’s Gospel, John the Baptist cut a controversial figure in his day. By the end of his life, John managed to threaten the entire leadership caste in Jerusalem, and he paid for that with his life. In the end, it was his condemnation of Herod Antipas and his marriage that provided the catalyst for his imprisonment and then execution. Today’s passage, though, shows that John the Bapist had already gotten onto the radar screens of the power brokers at the temple as well as the palace.
One has to wonder why an itinerant preacher that far outside of Jerusalem posed such a threat. Bethany across the Jordan is probably around 20-30 miles as the crow flies from Jerusalem, far enough away that the musings of a teacher shouldn’t have created much of a stir. (Today, the routes to get between the two points are roughly 130 miles or more, thanks to modern highways and political conflict.) Furthermore, the path between the two even in those days went through some of the most inhospitable territory in the world. It would have taken an enormous effort to go back and forth between the two for anything other than planned commerce.
And yet, we know from the Gospels that people did make that pilgrimage — many people, in fact. The Pharisees, scribes, and Levites — the power structure of the Judeans at the time — came to see what exactly drew people out to the desert to hear John preach. We see an echo of this in Herod Antipas’ fascination with John, too — and for that matter, in Herod’s initial fascination with Jesus. John preached something for which the Judeans thirsted, and which the temple authorities did not or could not provide. That presented a real threat to their standing, which is why they grew interested in John at all.
Note too that these leaders didn’t come to listen, either. They do not ask, “What is your message?” Instead, they demand to know his position and authority to preach. John the Baptist does not pretend to have authority, at least not as they defined it at that moment. All he claims to be is one who is urging preparation, and telling people that their hour of deliverance will soon be at hand.
Again, it’s remarkable that such a message would have been that attractive, especially considering the source in the context of those times. Something in John’s message called to the hearts of those Judeans; they understood his prophetic nature even though John eschewed that title or any of the trappings of authority. They thirsted for something more than a dry exercise of law or a leadership caste that left them as refugees in their own land. They dragged themselves through the desert looking for living water.
Even more basic: They wanted to know that the Lord had not forgotten them. The people wanted a way back into the heart of the Lord. John promised them that they should build that path in their hearts, because the hour would soon come when He would transform those hearts and provide salvation. The Lord is coming, John promised; prepare the way.
Yet the simplicity of that message, and John’s status in delivering it, showed precisely what the Lord’s coming would mean. As Jesus would later teach, the last shall be first …. and the first would be last. This advent of salvation would not come through the temple authorities and the haughty who cared more for themselves than the Lord or the people. The Pharisees, scribes, Levites, and Herod Antipas would all be bypassed by the Son of God, coming directly to the people of Judea and then by extension the world through His own church.
John warns the power brokers who challenge him that he speaks as Isaiah did in declaring the Lord’s salvation. Our first reading from Isaiah reminds us of the Lord’s promise to lift up the lowly in salvation:
The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring glad tidings to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and release to the prisoners, to announce a year of favor from the LORD and a day of vindication by our God.
What does this tell us today about our own lives? In this season of Advent especially, we must decide which we love more: the Lord, or our own pretensions of lordliness. Salvation can lift all of us, but only if we approach it in the recognition of our own fallenness and our own lowliness in sin. Salvation came for the Pharisees, scribes, and Levites too, and even Herod and the Romans, had they prepared themselves for the coming of Christ. Isaiah’s prophesy wasn’t an exclusion, but a warning about recognizing our own right relationship with God.
Power and wealth are human pretensions to glory, the love of which must be cast aside if we are to truly prepare our hearts for the advent of Christ. We are all poor before God, which we need to recognize. Sin has broken our hearts and made us captives and prisoners to our own impulses and desires. Christ comes to heal this brokenness through His grace and His Word. Baptism provides a moment of cleanliness before the Lord and an invitation from us to have the Holy Spirit enter our hearts.
It is that for which we prepare this Advent season — our renewal in Christ, and a recommitment to His Word. We do this as ones in the desert of sin, making straight the paths to the Lord’s encounter with us. Even the least of us can have hope in that salvation.
The front-page image is a detail from “Saint John the Baptist” by an anonymous artist, c. 1600. On display at the National Trust in the UK. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here.


hotair--2020-12-13--WSJ op-ed writer critical of 'Dr.' Jill Biden gets canceled by Northwestern University

Joseph Epstein was recognized on Northwestern University ’ s website as “ emeritus lecturer ” for more than twenty years .
That changed Saturday when it was discovered that his profile is no longer available .
Epstein has been canceled .
Epstein made the mistake of criticizing Jill Biden in an opinion essay published in the Wall Street Journal Friday .
He calls her out for insisting on using the designation of “ Dr. ” with her name .
He ends the essay with a suggestion that she consider stopping it , at least for now .
He wrote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least in public , at least for now.
” Many people applauded his essay , or at least the sentiment behind it , including myself .
Most people with a Ph.D. do not refer to themselves as Jill Biden does , using the formal recognition of her advanced academic degree .
It sounds haughty , frankly .
Mr. Epstein is not innocent here .
His tone and some of the wording of his essay are often condescending and dismissive , which is unfortunate .
I would like to think that Northwestern University canceled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply penning an op-ed published in a major news publication but color me cynical .
Instead of his choice of words and the tone , he was likely canceled for having the nerve to criticize the wife of the Democrat president-elect .
Do we really think Northwestern would have done the same to an essay writer critical of Melania Trump , for example , and acted so swiftly ?
Of course not .
The author started out with a bang – he didn ’ t mince words and was unnecessarily coarse in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respectful while criticizing someone and still make a point but Epstein chose to start with words like “ fraudulent ” and “ comic ” .
Then he summarized his resume with a focus on his career at Northwestern .
He ’ s an older man now and bristled when people addressed him as “ Dr .
Epstein ” since he doesn ’ t have a doctorate degree .
Madame First Lady—Mrs .
Biden—Jill—kiddo : a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Dr. ” before your name ?
“ Dr .
Jill Biden ” sounds and feels fraudulent , not to say a touch comic .
Your degree is , I believe , an Ed.D.
, a doctor of education , earned at the University of Delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title “ Student Retention at the Community College Level : Meeting Students ’ Needs.
” A wise man once said that no one should call himself “ Dr. ” unless he has delivered a child .
Think about it , Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I taught at Northwestern University for 30 years without a doctorate or any advanced degree .
I have only a B.A .
in absentia from the University of Chicago—in absentia because I took my final examination on a pool table at Headquarters Company , Fort Hood , Texas , while serving in the peacetime Army in the late 1950s .
I do have an honorary doctorate , though I have to report that the president of the school that awarded it was fired the year after I received it , not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctorate .
During my years as a university teacher I was sometimes addressed , usually on the phone , as “ Dr .
Epstein.
” On such occasions it was all I could do not to reply , “ Read two chapters of Henry James and get into bed .
I ’ ll be right over.
” The essay could almost be taken as a tongue-in-cheek exercise but I think he is completely earnest here .
Maybe if he continues to suffer public ridicule , as he is now on social media , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that – an attempt to make light of something that bothers him .
Women on all parts of the political spectrum are angry that Epstein said the quiet part out loud .
Dr. Jill deserves to feel proud of her academic and professional accomplishments .
Using the title in everyday life , though , is an act of arrogance .
It ’ s obnoxious .
On Twitter , for example , her handle is @ DrBiden .
Epstein makes some legitimate points about higher education and a general loss of stature of college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t as much prestige associated with college degrees now as in the past .
As for a Ph.D. , Epstein says they “ may once have held prestige , but that has been diminished by the erosion of seriousness and the relaxation of standards in university education generally.
” By Saturday night it was being noted on social media that Epstein had been canceled by Northwestern .
The comments to this news on social media included references to past statements deemed politically incorrect .
As I said , he is obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military in the 1950s , so he likely has offered opinions in the past that do not hold up well today .
This is not the first time that Jill Biden ’ s degrees have been the topic of discussion .
Earlier this year , Whoopi Goldberg on The View even made the mistake of referencing Jill as a physician because of her Dr. designation .
That ’ s a common mistake , right ?
Seeing ‘ Dr. ’ conjures up an assumption that it is a medical title , not an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recommend Jill to be the next Surgeon General because she is such a great doctor .
She was quickly corrected and had to walk all that malarkey back after the next commercial break .
In a tweet yesterday , Meghan McCain , a co-host on The View and its token conservative , railed against Epstein and stood up for her personal friend , Jill Biden .
In 2013 , the liberal L.A. Times ran an article criticizing Jill ’ s use of the professional designation .
Around the time of former President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 , when Joe Biden once again took the oath of office for vice president , the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed about the use of “ Dr. ” before Jill Biden ’ s name .
That L.A. Times article , titled , “ Joe Biden ’ s wife is a ‘ Dr. , ’ but she doesn ’ t deliver babies , ” noted that the New York Times had recently referred to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as “ Ms .
Rice , ” even though Rice also holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it wasn ’ t uncommon for many holders of high degrees to be addressed without the title , “ Dr. ” “ I have lots of friends ( and a brother-in-law ) with Ph.Ds , ” author Michael McGough of the L.A. Times wrote at the time .
“ None of them expects to be addressed as ‘ Dr. ’ So what ’ s up with Jill Biden ?
” “ Whatever the explanation , ” McGough continued , “ It ’ s ironic that the spouse of just plain ‘ Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. , ’ when so many other holders of advanced degrees in public life have to settle for ‘ Mr. ’ or ‘ Ms. ’ ” Jill Biden didn ’ t complete her Ph.D. until she was 55 years old .
Her accomplishment is real and she deserves to feel proud .
She ’ s worked in education throughout her marriage to a career politician , no doubt trying to create her own identity .
The constant “ Dr. ” stuff , though , is a bit too much , especially from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Joseph Epstein was recognized on Northwestern University’s website as “emeritus lecturer” for more than twenty years. That changed Saturday when it was discovered that his profile is no longer available. Epstein has been canceled.
Epstein made the mistake of criticizing Jill Biden in an opinion essay published in the Wall Street Journal Friday. He calls her out for insisting on using the designation of “Dr.” with her name. He ends the essay with a suggestion that she consider stopping it, at least for now. He wrote, “please consider stowing it, at least in public, at least for now.” Many people applauded his essay, or at least the sentiment behind it, including myself. Most people with a Ph.D. do not refer to themselves as Jill Biden does, using the formal recognition of her advanced academic degree. It sounds haughty, frankly.
Mr. Epstein is not innocent here. His tone and some of the wording of his essay are often condescending and dismissive, which is unfortunate. I would like to think that Northwestern University canceled him for that reason and not for simply penning an op-ed published in a major news publication but color me cynical. Instead of his choice of words and the tone, he was likely canceled for having the nerve to criticize the wife of the Democrat president-elect. Do we really think Northwestern would have done the same to an essay writer critical of Melania Trump, for example, and acted so swiftly? Of course not.
The author started out with a bang – he didn’t mince words and was unnecessarily coarse in his wording. It is possible to be respectful while criticizing someone and still make a point but Epstein chose to start with words like “fraudulent” and “comic”. Then he summarized his resume with a focus on his career at Northwestern. He’s an older man now and bristled when people addressed him as “Dr. Epstein” since he doesn’t have a doctorate degree.
Madame First Lady—Mrs. Biden—Jill—kiddo: a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter. Any chance you might drop the “Dr.” before your name? “Dr. Jill Biden ” sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic. Your degree is, I believe, an Ed.D., a doctor of education, earned at the University of Delaware through a dissertation with the unpromising title “Student Retention at the Community College Level: Meeting Students’ Needs.” A wise man once said that no one should call himself “Dr.” unless he has delivered a child. Think about it, Dr. Jill, and forthwith drop the doc. I taught at Northwestern University for 30 years without a doctorate or any advanced degree. I have only a B.A. in absentia from the University of Chicago—in absentia because I took my final examination on a pool table at Headquarters Company, Fort Hood, Texas, while serving in the peacetime Army in the late 1950s. I do have an honorary doctorate, though I have to report that the president of the school that awarded it was fired the year after I received it, not, I hope, for allowing my honorary doctorate. During my years as a university teacher I was sometimes addressed, usually on the phone, as “Dr. Epstein.” On such occasions it was all I could do not to reply, “Read two chapters of Henry James and get into bed. I’ll be right over.”
The essay could almost be taken as a tongue-in-cheek exercise but I think he is completely earnest here. Maybe if he continues to suffer public ridicule, as he is now on social media, he will decide to call it just that – an attempt to make light of something that bothers him. Women on all parts of the political spectrum are angry that Epstein said the quiet part out loud. Dr. Jill deserves to feel proud of her academic and professional accomplishments. Using the title in everyday life, though, is an act of arrogance. It’s obnoxious. On Twitter, for example, her handle is @DrBiden.
Epstein makes some legitimate points about higher education and a general loss of stature of college degrees, including advanced degrees. There isn’t as much prestige associated with college degrees now as in the past. As for a Ph.D., Epstein says they “may once have held prestige, but that has been diminished by the erosion of seriousness and the relaxation of standards in university education generally.”
By Saturday night it was being noted on social media that Epstein had been canceled by Northwestern. The comments to this news on social media included references to past statements deemed politically incorrect. As I said, he is obviously an older man, having served in the military in the 1950s, so he likely has offered opinions in the past that do not hold up well today.
It appears Northwestern University's English Department has removed Joseph Epstein's profile from its website. Earlier today, he was listed as an "emeritus lecturer." pic.twitter.com/XBZI8ZbN1B — David Gura (@davidgura) December 13, 2020
Northwestern University issued a statement.
A statement from Northwestern University, on Joseph Epstein: pic.twitter.com/rhCmK2HvSy — David Gura (@davidgura) December 13, 2020
This is not the first time that Jill Biden’s degrees have been the topic of discussion. Earlier this year, Whoopi Goldberg on The View even made the mistake of referencing Jill as a physician because of her Dr. designation. That’s a common mistake, right? Seeing ‘Dr.’ conjures up an assumption that it is a medical title, not an academic one. Goldberg went further as to recommend Jill to be the next Surgeon General because she is such a great doctor. She was quickly corrected and had to walk all that malarkey back after the next commercial break. In a tweet yesterday, Meghan McCain, a co-host on The View and its token conservative, railed against Epstein and stood up for her personal friend, Jill Biden.
In 2013, the liberal L.A. Times ran an article criticizing Jill’s use of the professional designation.
Around the time of former President Barack Obama’s second inauguration in 2013, when Joe Biden once again took the oath of office for vice president, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed about the use of “Dr.” before Jill Biden’s name. That L.A. Times article, titled, “Joe Biden’s wife is a ‘Dr.,’ but she doesn’t deliver babies,” noted that the New York Times had recently referred to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as “Ms. Rice,” even though Rice also holds a Ph.D. The same article noted that it wasn’t uncommon for many holders of high degrees to be addressed without the title, “Dr.” “I have lots of friends (and a brother-in-law) with Ph.Ds,” author Michael McGough of the L.A. Times wrote at the time. “None of them expects to be addressed as ‘Dr.’ So what’s up with Jill Biden?” “Whatever the explanation,” McGough continued, “It’s ironic that the spouse of just plain ‘Joe’ Biden should be described as ‘Dr.,’ when so many other holders of advanced degrees in public life have to settle for ‘Mr.’ or ‘Ms.’”
Jill Biden didn’t complete her Ph.D. until she was 55 years old. Her accomplishment is real and she deserves to feel proud. She’s worked in education throughout her marriage to a career politician, no doubt trying to create her own identity. The constant “Dr.” stuff, though, is a bit too much, especially from “Amtrak Joe’s” wife.


hotair--2020-12-13--Trump suggests he might "declassify everything"

Let ’ s just start with the President ’ s tweet , since that ’ s what kicked all of this off .
Expressing frustration with Attorney General Bill Barr , Donald Trump appeared to be reaching the end of his patience yesterday , retweeting a comment from author Todd Starnes , suggesting that the President simply “ declassify everything.
” As reported in The Sun , this was part of a longer rant by the President , reflecting the reality that any investigations into Hunter Biden ’ s overseas business dealings or tax issues will very likely fall down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sworn in and installs his own people .
And it ’ s not as if we haven ’ t seen similar things in the past .
Trump added : “ I have been doing this .
I agree !
” He then went on a rant accusing President-elect Joe Biden ’ s campaign and his son , Hunter , among others , of spying and treason .
“ IF Biden gets in , nothing will happen to Hunter or Joe , ” Trump tweeted .
“ Barr will do nothing , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will quickly kill it all .
“ Same thing with Durham .
We caught them cold , spying , treason & more ( the hard part ) , but “ Justice ” took too long .
Will be DOA !
” I suppose the first question to ask is whether the President is talking about declassifying “ everything ” that ’ s specific to Barr ’ s investigation into Hunter Biden or , well… everything .
We should probably assume he means the former .
It ’ s rather unimaginable that Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every bit of information in the possession of the federal government , including all of our nuclear weapons and other tactical capabilities , the identities of overseas information assets , and countless other items that are critical to national security .
Assuming we ’ re only talking about the Hunter Biden material , some journalists would need to move quickly to file FOIA requests for all of the information .
But even then , the clock would be ticking .
Whoever receives the FOIA requests could slow walk them until January 26th , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classify them again .
Yes , the optics of that would be horrible for the nascent Biden administration , but if you think that wouldn ’ t happen I would suggest you haven ’ t been paying much attention to the swamp for the past couple of decades .
I ’ ve also seen some people on social media asking if Trump actually could declassify whatever he feels like .
The answer to that question is nearly unambiguously yes .
This question has come up before and the general consensus is there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President to classify or declassify information at will .
The issue was even addressed by the Supreme Court back in 1988 .
The majority concluded that the President ’ s official capacity as the Commander in Chief gives him the final word on such matters without any congressional oversight .
“ The President , after all , is the ‘ Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ’ ” according to Article II of the Constitution .
His authority to classify and control access to information bearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this constitutional investment of power in the President , and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.
” Assuming that President Trump has been made aware of his sweeping powers in this area , there ’ s really nothing stopping him from declassifying the Hunter Biden investigation , though it would be unusual in the extreme to empty the bag in an ongoing investigation .
Then again , “ unusual in the extreme ” could probably be printed on the President ’ s business cards at this point .
While we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest a few other documents that Donald Trump could declassify for us if he ’ s in the mood to share ?
For starters , everything the Pentagon has on Roswell , other UFO incidents and the findings of the UAP Task Force to date would be nice .
Oh , and he might finally release everything we have on the JFK assassination .
( He suggested on the campaign trail that he might do that . )
I ’ m sure we could think of a few more , but that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to handle and time is running short .

Let’s just start with the President’s tweet, since that’s what kicked all of this off. Expressing frustration with Attorney General Bill Barr, Donald Trump appeared to be reaching the end of his patience yesterday, retweeting a comment from author Todd Starnes, suggesting that the President simply “declassify everything.”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337753159905767425
As reported in The Sun, this was part of a longer rant by the President, reflecting the reality that any investigations into Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings or tax issues will very likely fall down the memory hole after Joe Biden is sworn in and installs his own people. And it’s not as if we haven’t seen similar things in the past.
Trump added: “I have been doing this. I agree!” He then went on a rant accusing President-elect Joe Biden’s campaign and his son, Hunter, among others, of spying and treason. “IF Biden gets in, nothing will happen to Hunter or Joe,” Trump tweeted. “Barr will do nothing, and the new group of partisan killers coming in will quickly kill it all. “Same thing with Durham. We caught them cold, spying, treason & more (the hard part), but “Justice” took too long. Will be DOA!”
I suppose the first question to ask is whether the President is talking about declassifying “everything” that’s specific to Barr’s investigation into Hunter Biden or, well… everything. We should probably assume he means the former. It’s rather unimaginable that Donald Trump would simply wave his hand and declassify every bit of information in the possession of the federal government, including all of our nuclear weapons and other tactical capabilities, the identities of overseas information assets, and countless other items that are critical to national security.
Assuming we’re only talking about the Hunter Biden material, some journalists would need to move quickly to file FOIA requests for all of the information. But even then, the clock would be ticking. Whoever receives the FOIA requests could slow walk them until January 26th, at which point Joe Biden could simply classify them again. Yes, the optics of that would be horrible for the nascent Biden administration, but if you think that wouldn’t happen I would suggest you haven’t been paying much attention to the swamp for the past couple of decades.
I’ve also seen some people on social media asking if Trump actually could declassify whatever he feels like. The answer to that question is nearly unambiguously yes. This question has come up before and the general consensus is there are essentially no limits to the power of the President to classify or declassify information at will. The issue was even addressed by the Supreme Court back in 1988. The majority concluded that the President’s official capacity as the Commander in Chief gives him the final word on such matters without any congressional oversight.
“The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’” according to Article II of the Constitution. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security … flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.”
Assuming that President Trump has been made aware of his sweeping powers in this area, there’s really nothing stopping him from declassifying the Hunter Biden investigation, though it would be unusual in the extreme to empty the bag in an ongoing investigation. Then again, “unusual in the extreme” could probably be printed on the President’s business cards at this point.
While we’re on the subject, might I suggest a few other documents that Donald Trump could declassify for us if he’s in the mood to share? For starters, everything the Pentagon has on Roswell, other UFO incidents and the findings of the UAP Task Force to date would be nice. Oh, and he might finally release everything we have on the JFK assassination. (He suggested on the campaign trail that he might do that.) I’m sure we could think of a few more, but that’s already a pretty major laundry list to handle and time is running short.


hotair--2020-12-14--Our electoral processes need to be fixed well before 2024

I was reading an interesting column from Roger Kimball at the American Spectator this weekend and it led to a rather dark train of thought about the future .
Kimball was musing about whether or not we are witnessing the end of the United States as a democratic republic in the wake of the SCOTUS decision to dismiss the Texas lawsuit .
I realize that sounds a bit extreme and there may have been a bit of intentional hyperbole at play on the author ’ s part , but he went on to speak to larger questions regarding the faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , honesty and integrity of our elections .
That ’ s obviously been eroded badly in the past month or so , and Kimball counts himself among those who truly believe that the election was hijacked .
For reasons that I have rehearsed repeatedly , I believe that the 2020 presidential election was rigged .
The rigging was successful .
Because of it , Joe Biden appeared to have received more votes than Donald Trump .
Those extra Biden votes , I believe , are illegitimate .
Maybe ‘ irregularities ’ ( a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) with the Dominion voting machines accounted for some of the Biden ballots .
But most were from the tsunami of mail-in ballots , all 90 to 100 million of them .
This was no squalid two-bit voter fraud .
It was a planned campaign .
Maybe China has a role .
Eric Swalwell may have some insight about that .
In any event , some geniuses understood that COVID was the perfect cover for voter fraud on an industrial scale .
In a way , I admire the bravura that went into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be imposed again and again .
I ’ ve largely been biting my tongue about this ever since election day , preferring to wait and see how the lawsuits played out and what investigations into some of the more sweeping claims about “ irregularities ” eventually produced .
Unfortunately , the clock has basically run out on such matters because the electors are about to be seated and once that is done , barring some massive flood of faithless electors , there is no other constitutional path leading us to anything but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did win the election fairly ( and I ’ m not saying that he couldn ’ t have ) , then so be it .
The system is operating as it should .
If new information were to later prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump actually won , we would be immediately thrust into a constitutional crisis unlike any this nation has ever faced .
But this leads me to the issue that ’ s facing us today and will be hanging over us like a dark cloud four years from now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address it .
We have a problem today because basically , half the country either believes that the election was rigged or they ’ re at least not confident enough to say that it wasn ’ t .
And both election officials and politicians across the nation have given these people far more than sufficient cause to have and express those doubts .
If people have sincere questions about the integrity of the system then those questions deserve answers and solutions that are solid enough to restore the trust of the voters or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a nation left to bother voting anymore .
I ’ m not saying I know whether or not the correct person was declared the winner of the presidential race ( or any other , really ) but there are two general categories of potential voter fraud that need to be examined and publicly rooted out .
One is localized small-scale voter fraud while the other is the possibility of something sweeping , systemic , and intentional .
I ’ ll address them in reverse order .
Were the Dominion voting machines ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matter ) set up in such a way that they flipped a sufficient percentage of votes from Trump to Biden to change the results statewide ?
Again , I don ’ t know because I ’ ve yet to see definitive proof that they were .
But I ’ ve also yet to hear any satisfactory , comprehensive explanation of how we know that they weren ’ t .
We need to take a fresh look at how such manufacturers are selected and certified to provide equipment for the polling stations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about the physical machines themselves , but the software underpinning the process .
Each system being used needs to be examined at a fine-grain level by experienced white hat hackers provided and approved by representatives of both major parties .
We need a comprehensive , professional analysis of these systems to determine if there ’ s some malfeasance built into the code by the supplier .
And if that ’ s not found , we need to know if the machines could be externally hacked after they are put online to alter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be done in every state .
The other half of the “ systemic ” level problems come with the paper ballots themselves .
As long as there are only a relative handful of absentee ballots each year , the numbers don ’ t overwhelm poll workers and they ’ re mostly manageable .
( More on that in a moment . )
When the vast majority of people are showing up at their polling place , filling out the ballot in person and feeding it into the voting machine , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solid results if the machines have been proven to be secure , reliable and without software bias .
But the mountains of mail-in ballots that were handled this year obviously opened the door to errors , if not intentional fraud .
We were warned in advance by people screaming from the rooftops that tens or hundreds of millions of mail-in ballots were going to cause equally massive problems and that ’ s precisely how it worked out .
We can ’ t repeat this error in perpetuity Even if the results from those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter if the nation doesn ’ t have faith in those results .
Then there ’ s the small-scale voter fraud that turns up in every election .
Once again this year we saw dead people voting in New York , Florida and California along with who knows how many other states .
People were arrested after mailing ballots in on behalf of dead relatives .
Ballot harvesters were sticking huge slugs of ballot envelopes into postal boxes .
The list goes on .
Many of us , including myself , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that such incidents don ’ t add up to enough of a margin to throw off more than a local village council race .
That complacency can ’ t be the normal state of affairs after 2020 .
Why ?
Because even those levels of fraud matter .
Here ’ s a question for you .
Who won the race for New York ’ s 22nd Congressional District ?
Claudia Tenney or Anthony Brindisis ?
You don ’ t know be we still don ’ t have an official answer and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since election day .
After the Republican was leading by roughly 10,000 votes the morning after the election , they ’ re now separated by less than 20 .
The lead keeps changing and it seems like they are “ finding ” more ballots every other day .
How many people voting for a dead relative or illicitly harvesting a ballot would it take for the results to change ?
And what happens there is going to determine a congressional seat .
At this point , why would anyone believe that whoever is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The issue of being able to verify questionable ballots when they are received is never going to go away until every state cleans up its voting rolls and puts a system in place to keep them clean .
And a process is needed so that any ballot challenged by observers from either party can be quickly and accurately checked against those rolls .
We clearly need voter ID for all fifty states .
If we somehow manage to pull all of this off , we just might restore enough of the faith of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow us to soldier on .
If we don ’ t , the original question addressed by Roger Kimball above will have been answered And to the disappointment of the spirit of Benjamin Franklin , we won ’ t have been able to keep the republic they gave us

I was reading an interesting column from Roger Kimball at the American Spectator this weekend and it led to a rather dark train of thought about the future. Kimball was musing about whether or not we are witnessing the end of the United States as a democratic republic in the wake of the SCOTUS decision to dismiss the Texas lawsuit. I realize that sounds a bit extreme and there may have been a bit of intentional hyperbole at play on the author’s part, but he went on to speak to larger questions regarding the faith the American people have in the security, honesty and integrity of our elections. That’s obviously been eroded badly in the past month or so, and Kimball counts himself among those who truly believe that the election was hijacked.
For reasons that I have rehearsed repeatedly, I believe that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. The rigging was successful. Because of it, Joe Biden appeared to have received more votes than Donald Trump. Those extra Biden votes, I believe, are illegitimate. Maybe ‘irregularities’ (a nice six-syllable word for ‘fraudulent’) with the Dominion voting machines accounted for some of the Biden ballots. But most were from the tsunami of mail-in ballots, all 90 to 100 million of them. This was no squalid two-bit voter fraud. It was a planned campaign. Maybe China has a role. Eric Swalwell may have some insight about that. In any event, some geniuses understood that COVID was the perfect cover for voter fraud on an industrial scale. In a way, I admire the bravura that went into it. Having succeeded once, it will be imposed again and again.
I’ve largely been biting my tongue about this ever since election day, preferring to wait and see how the lawsuits played out and what investigations into some of the more sweeping claims about “irregularities” eventually produced. Unfortunately, the clock has basically run out on such matters because the electors are about to be seated and once that is done, barring some massive flood of faithless electors, there is no other constitutional path leading us to anything but a Joe Biden presidency.
If Biden did win the election fairly (and I’m not saying that he couldn’t have), then so be it. The system is operating as it should. If new information were to later prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump actually won, we would be immediately thrust into a constitutional crisis unlike any this nation has ever faced. But this leads me to the issue that’s facing us today and will be hanging over us like a dark cloud four years from now unless something rather radical is done to address it.
We have a problem today because basically, half the country either believes that the election was rigged or they’re at least not confident enough to say that it wasn’t. And both election officials and politicians across the nation have given these people far more than sufficient cause to have and express those doubts. If people have sincere questions about the integrity of the system then those questions deserve answers and solutions that are solid enough to restore the trust of the voters or we probably won’t have enough of a nation left to bother voting anymore.
I’m not saying I know whether or not the correct person was declared the winner of the presidential race (or any other, really) but there are two general categories of potential voter fraud that need to be examined and publicly rooted out. One is localized small-scale voter fraud while the other is the possibility of something sweeping, systemic, and intentional. I’ll address them in reverse order.
Were the Dominion voting machines (or those of any other manufacturer for that matter) set up in such a way that they flipped a sufficient percentage of votes from Trump to Biden to change the results statewide? Again, I don’t know because I’ve yet to see definitive proof that they were. But I’ve also yet to hear any satisfactory, comprehensive explanation of how we know that they weren’t. We need to take a fresh look at how such manufacturers are selected and certified to provide equipment for the polling stations. And we’re obviously not just talking about the physical machines themselves, but the software underpinning the process.
Each system being used needs to be examined at a fine-grain level by experienced white hat hackers provided and approved by representatives of both major parties. We need a comprehensive, professional analysis of these systems to determine if there’s some malfeasance built into the code by the supplier. And if that’s not found, we need to know if the machines could be externally hacked after they are put online to alter the results they produce. This needs to be done in every state.
The other half of the “systemic” level problems come with the paper ballots themselves. As long as there are only a relative handful of absentee ballots each year, the numbers don’t overwhelm poll workers and they’re mostly manageable. (More on that in a moment.) When the vast majority of people are showing up at their polling place, filling out the ballot in person and feeding it into the voting machine, you’re at least going to expect some solid results if the machines have been proven to be secure, reliable and without software bias. But the mountains of mail-in ballots that were handled this year obviously opened the door to errors, if not intentional fraud. We were warned in advance by people screaming from the rooftops that tens or hundreds of millions of mail-in ballots were going to cause equally massive problems and that’s precisely how it worked out. We can’t repeat this error in perpetuity Even if the results from those ballots are mostly honest, it doesn’t matter if the nation doesn’t have faith in those results.
Then there’s the small-scale voter fraud that turns up in every election. Once again this year we saw dead people voting in New York, Florida and California along with who knows how many other states. People were arrested after mailing ballots in on behalf of dead relatives. Ballot harvesters were sticking huge slugs of ballot envelopes into postal boxes. The list goes on. Many of us, including myself, have been too casual about that, saying that such incidents don’t add up to enough of a margin to throw off more than a local village council race. That complacency can’t be the normal state of affairs after 2020.
Why? Because even those levels of fraud matter. Here’s a question for you. Who won the race for New York’s 22nd Congressional District? Claudia Tenney or Anthony Brindisis? You don’t know be we still don’t have an official answer and it’s been well over a month since election day. After the Republican was leading by roughly 10,000 votes the morning after the election, they’re now separated by less than 20. The lead keeps changing and it seems like they are “finding” more ballots every other day. How many people voting for a dead relative or illicitly harvesting a ballot would it take for the results to change? And what happens there is going to determine a congressional seat. At this point, why would anyone believe that whoever is eventually declared the winner actually won?
The issue of being able to verify questionable ballots when they are received is never going to go away until every state cleans up its voting rolls and puts a system in place to keep them clean. And a process is needed so that any ballot challenged by observers from either party can be quickly and accurately checked against those rolls. We clearly need voter ID for all fifty states. If we somehow manage to pull all of this off, we just might restore enough of the faith of the nation in our electoral process to allow us to soldier on. If we don’t, the original question addressed by Roger Kimball above will have been answered And to the disappointment of the spirit of Benjamin Franklin, we won’t have been able to keep the republic they gave us


hotair--2020-12-14--Some Republican senators coming around towards acknowledging Biden victory after electoral college p

Some Republican senators coming around towards acknowledging Biden victory after electoral college passes 270

Quite a news day .
In the span of about 10 hours , the U.S. passed 300,000 deaths from COVID , began distributing the Pfizer vaccine , had the Attorney General announce that he ’ s leaving , and formally elected a new president .
California made it official at around 5:30 ET when its 55 electors finally pushed Biden over 270 , but the shift towards acquiescence had already begun a few hours earlier when Newsmax — Newsmax !
— began referring to him as the president-elect .
This morning the WSJ called on the GOP to acknowledge Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concede , but it ’ s one thing for prestige right-wing media to throw in the towel and another for populist right-wing media to do it .
Where do election truthers go now that Newsmax won ’ t go all-in on denialism ?
Your move , OAN .
Biden will speak at 7:30 ET , about 45 minutes after I ’ m writing this .
“ In this battle for the soul of America , democracy prevailed , ” he ’ ll say according to his prepared remarks .
“ We the People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The integrity of our elections remains intact .
And so , now it is time to turn the page .
To unite .
To heal.
” That ’ s mighty optimistic of him , but it does appear that some Senate Republicans who ’ ve been shy about acknowledging that Biden will be the next president have started to bend a bit tonight .
Right now they have as much cover as they ’ re ever going to get : SCOTUS nuked Texas ’ s lawsuit on Friday and the electoral college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Might as well bow to reality while everyone else is .
“ [ W ] e were cool with a coup but now it ’ s awkward so time to focus on debt reduction and family values , ” said a Twitter pal , summing up their position .
Not everyone has been so frank in owning up to reality .
Kevin Cramer practically invented a new language in trying to acknowledge Biden ’ s win without actually acknowledging it : The big one , though , is Lindsey Graham , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who went so far as to phone Biden tonight to congratulate him : There ’ s only one formal step left in this process before Biden is sworn in .
That ’ s January 6 , the day Congress accepts the vote of the electoral college .
MAGA types in the House are plotting to object to the results in various states , which would force a floor vote in each chamber on each state ’ s results — which McConnell presumably does *not* want — but they need the help of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that happen .
Will they get it ?
Hmmmm : Senator John Thune , the Senate ’ s No .
2 Republican , said lawmakers had the right to challenge electoral votes but that the effort would get little support .
“ It ’ s their prerogative , it ’ s allowed for in the Constitution , but it ’ s not going anywhere , ” he told reporters .
Senator John Cornyn , another veteran Republican , also said he thought any such effort “ would be a bad mistake ” soundly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled by his party .
“ There comes a time when you have to realize that , despite your best efforts , you ’ ve been unsuccessful , that ’ s sort of the nature of these elections .
You ’ ve got to have a winner .
You ’ ve got to have a loser , ” Cornyn told reporters at the U.S. Capitol .
Thune is the number two Republican in the Senate and Cornyn used to be number three .
These aren ’ t backbenchers giving thumbs down to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The only question is whether McConnell can keep all 53 Republicans in line ; if he can , and no senator objects to any state ’ s results , then there ’ ll be no vote no matter what happens in the House .
Which means purple-state Republicans won ’ t need to make an awkward no-win choice on whether to infuriate MAGA fans by accepting the results in swing states that Biden won or to infuriate Democrats by refusing to .
The more Republicans come around to acknowledging Biden ’ s win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for holdouts to distinguish themselves as “ fighters ” in the eyes of MAGA fans .
I ’ d expect that most of the presidential hopefuls , like Cruz , Hawley , and Cotton , will be a little slower to admit defeat and more careful with their language in how they admit it than the rest of the caucus .
State legislators in particular have no strong incentive to acquiesce , which is why a state that prides itself on not being “ messed with ” continues to mess with other states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave you with this interview with Steve Scalise , who joined Texas ’ s disgraceful lawsuit against Pennsylvania and who continues to insist that the legal process must play out .
Steve : It ’ s December 14 .
The electoral college has now voted .
Trump ’ s legal team and their allies are something like 1-59 in lawsuits .
It ’ s played out , in every sense of those words .

Quite a news day. In the span of about 10 hours, the U.S. passed 300,000 deaths from COVID, began distributing the Pfizer vaccine, had the Attorney General announce that he’s leaving, and formally elected a new president. California made it official at around 5:30 ET when its 55 electors finally pushed Biden over 270, but the shift towards acquiescence had already begun a few hours earlier when Newsmax — Newsmax! — began referring to him as the president-elect.
Newsmax anchor John Bachman finally bursts the bubble to the network's die-hard MAGA viewers and twice refers to Joe Biden as the "president-elect" pic.twitter.com/Uk04yV8xAs — Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) December 14, 2020
This morning the WSJ called on the GOP to acknowledge Biden’s victory and for Trump to concede, but it’s one thing for prestige right-wing media to throw in the towel and another for populist right-wing media to do it. Where do election truthers go now that Newsmax won’t go all-in on denialism? Your move, OAN.
Biden will speak at 7:30 ET, about 45 minutes after I’m writing this. “In this battle for the soul of America, democracy prevailed,” he’ll say according to his prepared remarks. “We the People voted. Faith in our institutions held. The integrity of our elections remains intact. And so, now it is time to turn the page. To unite. To heal.” That’s mighty optimistic of him, but it does appear that some Senate Republicans who’ve been shy about acknowledging that Biden will be the next president have started to bend a bit tonight. Right now they have as much cover as they’re ever going to get: SCOTUS nuked Texas’s lawsuit on Friday and the electoral college vote came off without a hitch today. Might as well bow to reality while everyone else is.
Sen. Blunt, chair of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, says he’ll begin working with the Biden team. Statement via @HouseInSession. pic.twitter.com/MnQoe8wI2K — Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) December 14, 2020
Sen Ernst: “I know for Iowans it’s disappointing, but the process is what it is and the constitution will be followed.” Sen Thune: “At some point you have to face the music. And I think once the electoral college settles the issue today, it's time for everybody to move on." — Nancy Cordes (@nancycordes) December 14, 2020
Sen Portman: “…the Electoral College vote today makes clear that Joe Biden is now President-Elect.” Sen Braun: “The Electoral College has cast their votes and selected Joe Biden…Legislatures (and courts) have not found enough evidence of voter fraud to overturn the results.” — Nancy Cordes (@nancycordes) December 14, 2020
“[W]e were cool with a coup but now it’s awkward so time to focus on debt reduction and family values,” said a Twitter pal, summing up their position.
Not everyone has been so frank in owning up to reality. Kevin Cramer practically invented a new language in trying to acknowledge Biden’s win without actually acknowledging it:
GOP Sen. Kevin Cramer, a top Trump ally, when asked by Hill pool if Biden is president-elect: pic.twitter.com/d7eH8BWfoG — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) December 14, 2020
The big one, though, is Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s most loyal sycophants, who went so far as to phone Biden tonight to congratulate him:
Graham spoke positively about several of Biden's nominees, including Lloyd Austin for defense secretary, Tony Blinken for State and Janet Yellen for Treasury. He saidTanden — who will have to go through Budget (which he would chair in a GOP majority) – would be a "heavy lift." — Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 14, 2020
There’s only one formal step left in this process before Biden is sworn in. That’s January 6, the day Congress accepts the vote of the electoral college. MAGA types in the House are plotting to object to the results in various states, which would force a floor vote in each chamber on each state’s results — which McConnell presumably does *not* want — but they need the help of at least one Senate Republican to make that happen. Will they get it? Hmmmm:
Senator John Thune, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, said lawmakers had the right to challenge electoral votes but that the effort would get little support. “It’s their prerogative, it’s allowed for in the Constitution, but it’s not going anywhere,” he told reporters. Senator John Cornyn, another veteran Republican, also said he thought any such effort “would be a bad mistake” soundly defeated in the 100-member chamber, currently controlled by his party. “There comes a time when you have to realize that, despite your best efforts, you’ve been unsuccessful, that’s sort of the nature of these elections. You’ve got to have a winner. You’ve got to have a loser,” Cornyn told reporters at the U.S. Capitol.
Thune is the number two Republican in the Senate and Cornyn used to be number three. These aren’t backbenchers giving thumbs down to a floor vote, these are influencers. The only question is whether McConnell can keep all 53 Republicans in line; if he can, and no senator objects to any state’s results, then there’ll be no vote no matter what happens in the House. Which means purple-state Republicans won’t need to make an awkward no-win choice on whether to infuriate MAGA fans by accepting the results in swing states that Biden won or to infuriate Democrats by refusing to.
The more Republicans come around to acknowledging Biden’s win, though, the easier it is for holdouts to distinguish themselves as “fighters” in the eyes of MAGA fans. I’d expect that most of the presidential hopefuls, like Cruz, Hawley, and Cotton, will be a little slower to admit defeat and more careful with their language in how they admit it than the rest of the caucus. State legislators in particular have no strong incentive to acquiesce, which is why a state that prides itself on not being “messed with” continues to mess with other states in obnoxious ways:
New: Texas electors vote 34-4 to call on Legislatures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin — whose election results handed the White House @JoeBiden — to appoint their own electors. — Alexandra Samuels (@AlexSamuelsx5) December 14, 2020
That tweet drew this reply:
Moreover, they must acknowledge how much the Cowboys blow — John Fetterman (@JohnFetterman) December 14, 2020
Fetterman isn’t a rando. He’s the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania.
I’ll leave you with this interview with Steve Scalise, who joined Texas’s disgraceful lawsuit against Pennsylvania and who continues to insist that the legal process must play out. Steve: It’s December 14. The electoral college has now voted. Trump’s legal team and their allies are something like 1-59 in lawsuits. It’s played out, in every sense of those words.