hotair--2020-04-28--Does a new court filing point to Michael Flynn's exoneration -- and prosecutorial misconduct by Muel

Does a new court filing point to Michael Flynn's exoneration -- and prosecutorial misconduct by Mueller's office?

Did Robert Mueller ’ s special counsel team withhold exculpatory evidence from Michael Flynn — and did the FBI conspire to entrap him ?
A new filing from Flynn attorney Sidney Powell suggests that the case against the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief and Donald Trump national security adviser may shift dramatically in the next few days .
New information released from the Department of Justice under a discovery demand — driven in part by the DoJ ’ s own internal review of their handling of Flynn — may show investigative and prosecutorial misconduct that could end up exonerating Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen such a clearer-cut case of entrapment than this one , ” one source with access to the documents told Tucker Carlson yesterday .
Carlson asks Andrew McCarthy whether prosecutors themselves committed a crime , if true .
McCarthy can ’ t understand why the FBI went after Flynn at all , except as a political jeremiad : McCarthy had always been deeply skeptical about the prosecution of Flynn , but had thought it was more likely just wrong rather than potentially illegal .
This filing has changed his mind on that point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ explosive ” : This goes to the point I ’ ve been pressing for years .
There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn .
Under federal law , a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material .
That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation .
If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn , then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information .
It would have enabled his counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made were immaterial .
… As I ’ ve noted several times over the years , it has long been speculated that Flynn — though he did not believe he was guilty ( and though the agents who interviewed him also did not believe he had intentionally misled them ) — nevertheless pled guilty to false-statements charges because prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s staff threatened him .
Specifically , Flynn is said to have been warned that , if he refused to plead guilty , prosecutors would charge his son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Justice Department as a foreign agent .
Such a so-called FARA violation ( Foreign Agent Registration Act ) is a crime that the DOJ almost never charged before the Mueller investigation , and it had dubious application to Flynn ’ s son ( who worked for Flynn ’ s private-intelligence firm ) .
Well , Powell now contends that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller ’ s prosecutors — she specifically cites Brandon Van Grack , who now runs Justice ’ s FARA unit — did indeed promise Flynn that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pled guilty .
Worse , Powell avers that the prosecutors coerced Flynn and his counsel to keep this agreement secret .
That is , this was to be a side deal that would not be written into the plea agreement and therefore would be kept from the court and the public .
Under federal law , all understandings that are relevant to a guilty plea must be disclosed to the judge .
It would be not merely a serious ethical breach for government lawyers to fail to reveal such an arrangement .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That in itself would be prosecutorial misconduct , although McCarthy doesn ’ t think it would cause the judge to dismiss the case outright .
The best outcome for which Flynn could hope in court , McCarthy concludes , is that the judge finally allows Flynn to withdraw from the plea deal and forces the Department of Justice to put on its case .
If the documents given to Powell live up to their billing , there ’ s no way that the DoJ would put these FBI investigators and prosecutors on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions as part of Powell ’ s defense .
They would run for the hills .
There might be increasing skepticism about pursuing the case within the DoJ anyway .
Attorney General William Barr assigned US Attorney Jeffrey Jensen to conduct an independent review of the case , which apparently forced the belated disclosure of these documents to Powell and Flynn .
Barr has been publicly critical of the FBI ’ s investigations around the Trump campaign already , and Flynn ’ s team credited Barr with the latest disclosure : The evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a review of Flynn ’ s prosecution ordered by Attorney General Bill Barr earlier this year .
The DOJ assigned U.S. attorney for eastern Missouri Jeffrey Jensen to “ assist ” and review the matter with federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia , whose office has handled Flynn ’ s case since the special counsel ’ s office closed up shop a year ago .
“ In light of Mr. Jensen ’ s independent review , we are finally getting to the Truth .
We applaud Attorney General Barr for directing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] , ” Powell told ABC News Monday .
… Sources with knowledge of the sealed evidence as well as the Flynn ally told ABC News on Monday they expect the files , if revealed publicly , to show that the FBI failed to turn over some records under what ’ s known as the Brady Rule .
That requirement is for all potentially exculpatory evidence in the hands of the prosecutors to be turned over to a defendant .
But a full legal exoneration for Flynn is not expected from the sealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps it won ’ t amount to a “ full legal exoneration , ” but it will demonstrated that the FBI and Mueller ’ s team tried to railroad Flynn .
That alone should draw sanctions from the court and a do-over for Flynn ’ s plea , plus some consideration for a dismissal with prejudice .
It ’ s yet another smelly circumstance for the FBI and Mueller ’ s team , but at this point the DoJ is probably stuck politically with this case until the judge agrees that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
This episode should be recalled immediately the next time anyone calls for a special counsel under any circumstance .
It ’ s a poisoned chalice no matter what .

Did Robert Mueller’s special counsel team withhold exculpatory evidence from Michael Flynn — and did the FBI conspire to entrap him? A new filing from Flynn attorney Sidney Powell suggests that the case against the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief and Donald Trump national security adviser may shift dramatically in the next few days. New information released from the Department of Justice under a discovery demand — driven in part by the DoJ’s own internal review of their handling of Flynn — may show investigative and prosecutorial misconduct that could end up exonerating Flynn after all.
“I have never seen such a clearer-cut case of entrapment than this one,” one source with access to the documents told Tucker Carlson yesterday. Carlson asks Andrew McCarthy whether prosecutors themselves committed a crime, if true. McCarthy can’t understand why the FBI went after Flynn at all, except as a political jeremiad:
McCarthy had always been deeply skeptical about the prosecution of Flynn, but had thought it was more likely just wrong rather than potentially illegal. This filing has changed his mind on that point, and calls the revelations in it “explosive”:
This goes to the point I’ve been pressing for years. There was no good-faith basis for an investigation of General Flynn. Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is not actionable unless it is material. That means it must be pertinent to a matter that is properly under investigation. If the FBI did not have a legitimate investigative basis to interview Flynn, then that fact should have been disclosed as exculpatory information. It would have enabled his counsel to argue that any inaccurate statements he made were immaterial. … As I’ve noted several times over the years, it has long been speculated that Flynn — though he did not believe he was guilty (and though the agents who interviewed him also did not believe he had intentionally misled them) — nevertheless pled guilty to false-statements charges because prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s staff threatened him. Specifically, Flynn is said to have been warned that, if he refused to plead guilty, prosecutors would charge his son with a felony for failing to register with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. Such a so-called FARA violation (Foreign Agent Registration Act) is a crime that the DOJ almost never charged before the Mueller investigation, and it had dubious application to Flynn’s son (who worked for Flynn’s private-intelligence firm). Well, Powell now contends that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller’s prosecutors — she specifically cites Brandon Van Grack, who now runs Justice’s FARA unit — did indeed promise Flynn that they would not charge his son if Flynn pled guilty. Worse, Powell avers that the prosecutors coerced Flynn and his counsel to keep this agreement secret. That is, this was to be a side deal that would not be written into the plea agreement and therefore would be kept from the court and the public. Under federal law, all understandings that are relevant to a guilty plea must be disclosed to the judge. It would be not merely a serious ethical breach for government lawyers to fail to reveal such an arrangement. It would be a fraud on the court.
That in itself would be prosecutorial misconduct, although McCarthy doesn’t think it would cause the judge to dismiss the case outright. The best outcome for which Flynn could hope in court, McCarthy concludes, is that the judge finally allows Flynn to withdraw from the plea deal and forces the Department of Justice to put on its case. If the documents given to Powell live up to their billing, there’s no way that the DoJ would put these FBI investigators and prosecutors on the stand to get grilled over their actions as part of Powell’s defense. They would run for the hills.
There might be increasing skepticism about pursuing the case within the DoJ anyway. Attorney General William Barr assigned US Attorney Jeffrey Jensen to conduct an independent review of the case, which apparently forced the belated disclosure of these documents to Powell and Flynn. Barr has been publicly critical of the FBI’s investigations around the Trump campaign already, and Flynn’s team credited Barr with the latest disclosure:
The evidence is the first to be used from a review of Flynn’s prosecution ordered by Attorney General Bill Barr earlier this year. The DOJ assigned U.S. attorney for eastern Missouri Jeffrey Jensen to “assist” and review the matter with federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia, whose office has handled Flynn’s case since the special counsel’s office closed up shop a year ago. “In light of Mr. Jensen’s independent review, we are finally getting to the Truth. We applaud Attorney General Barr for directing the proper application of [The Brady Act],” Powell told ABC News Monday. … Sources with knowledge of the sealed evidence as well as the Flynn ally told ABC News on Monday they expect the files, if revealed publicly, to show that the FBI failed to turn over some records under what’s known as the Brady Rule. That requirement is for all potentially exculpatory evidence in the hands of the prosecutors to be turned over to a defendant. But a full legal exoneration for Flynn is not expected from the sealed records, the sources told ABC News.
Perhaps it won’t amount to a “full legal exoneration,” but it will demonstrated that the FBI and Mueller’s team tried to railroad Flynn. That alone should draw sanctions from the court and a do-over for Flynn’s plea, plus some consideration for a dismissal with prejudice. It’s yet another smelly circumstance for the FBI and Mueller’s team, but at this point the DoJ is probably stuck politically with this case until the judge agrees that there’s no case in the first place.
This episode should be recalled immediately the next time anyone calls for a special counsel under any circumstance. It’s a poisoned chalice no matter what.


hotair--2020-04-28--Alyssa Milano: Um, maybe we should listen to Tara Reade after all (but I'm still endorsing Biden)

Earlier this month I pointed out how Alyssa Milano , the self-appointed # MeToo point person on the Kavanaugh confirmation , wrote in 2018 , “ The lives of survivors will always be more important than Brett Kavanaugh ’ s career.
” But when a woman came forward alleging sexual assault against Joe Biden last month , Milano ’ s reaction suddenly became a lot more nuanced .
On a radio show she explained , ” I just don ’ t feel comfortable throwing away a decent man that I ’ ve known for 15 years in this time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation.
” Milano also suggested that if Reade ’ s story were credible it would be getting more media attention : “ I ’ m sure the mainstream media would be jumping all over this as well if…if they found more evidence.
” I wasn ’ t the only person who was surprised by this sudden turn toward skepticism .
Here ’ s Hill reporter Krystal Ball expressing surprise .
Notice Milano ’ s purely partisan response : You can listen to that four minute clip if you ’ re so inclined in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone from # believewomen to not being willing to throw away Biden because of an allegation against him which she found unconvincing .
Yesterday , Business Insider reported that two additional women remember Tara Reade telling them about sexual assault/sexual harassment she experienced in the 90s .
And now Alyssa Milano is changing her tune a bit : Milano has already endorsed and expressed support for Biden .
So what does “ I hear and see you , Tara ” actually mean ?
Does it mean she believes what Reade is saying ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has changed her mind about endorsing and supporting Biden ?
So far , she hasn ’ t said anything about rescinding her endorsement .
I guess the career of Joe Biden still takes precedence .
That ’ s probably why Milano is being ratioed by people are not happy which how she has handled this .
Speaking of which , Biden is hosting a town hall about the impact of the coronavirus on women today .
He has promised a special guest will be there .
Rose McGowan is predicting he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reade wonders if Joe will finally be asked about the allegations .
That is the key question .
When will the media get around to asking Joe about this ?
Because as of now they are still protecting him .
Finally , I came across this and wanted to share it as one more indication of the way the media has been handling this story badly .
Rich McHugh is the person who wrote the story for Business Insider which revealed two new people who corroborate Reade ’ s story .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story he did on Reade filing a police report about the alleged assault .
After publishing that story McHugh noticed that the Washington Post somehow inserted two words into a quote from the police report .
Here ’ s the correction as it appears at the end of the Post ’ s story : What a curious mistake .
The Post doesn ’ t explain how “ she believes ” got added into a quote from a police report but the addition clearly softens her claim just a bit , as if she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Rich McHugh from Business Insider describing how he discovered the error at the Post when comparing it to his own copy of the police report .

Earlier this month I pointed out how Alyssa Milano, the self-appointed #MeToo point person on the Kavanaugh confirmation, wrote in 2018, “The lives of survivors will always be more important than Brett Kavanaugh’s career.” But when a woman came forward alleging sexual assault against Joe Biden last month, Milano’s reaction suddenly became a lot more nuanced. On a radio show she explained, ” I just don’t feel comfortable throwing away a decent man that I’ve known for 15 years in this time of complete chaos without their being a thorough investigation.”
Milano also suggested that if Reade’s story were credible it would be getting more media attention: “I’m sure the mainstream media would be jumping all over this as well if…if they found more evidence.” I wasn’t the only person who was surprised by this sudden turn toward skepticism. Here’s Hill reporter Krystal Ball expressing surprise. Notice Milano’s purely partisan response:
Bernie supporter, right? — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) April 6, 2020
You can listen to that four minute clip if you’re so inclined in which Milano explains how she’s gone from #believewomen to not being willing to throw away Biden because of an allegation against him which she found unconvincing.
Yesterday, Business Insider reported that two additional women remember Tara Reade telling them about sexual assault/sexual harassment she experienced in the 90s. And now Alyssa Milano is changing her tune a bit:
I’m aware of the new developments in Tara Reade’s accusation against Joe Biden. I want Tara, like every other survivor, to have the space to be heard and seen without being used as fodder. I hear and see you, Tara. #MeToo — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) April 28, 2020
Milano has already endorsed and expressed support for Biden. So what does “I hear and see you, Tara” actually mean? Does it mean she believes what Reade is saying? If so, does that mean she has changed her mind about endorsing and supporting Biden? So far, she hasn’t said anything about rescinding her endorsement. I guess the career of Joe Biden still takes precedence. That’s probably why Milano is being ratioed by people are not happy which how she has handled this.
Speaking of which, Biden is hosting a town hall about the impact of the coronavirus on women today. He has promised a special guest will be there. Rose McGowan is predicting he’ll be endorsed by Michelle Obama:
Let me guess? @MichelleObama is endorsing you? Answer your taxpayers, answer Tara Reade, stop speaking through your manager. You are a creep. You know it. We know it. I know it. Tara definitely knows it. #DropOutBiden https://t.co/Jyp3PKT0SX — Rose McGowan (@rosemcgowan) April 28, 2020
Tara Reade wonders if Joe will finally be asked about the allegations.
Or Veep announcement…so will Joe Biden finally be asked? https://t.co/42JS3AJGyF — Tara Reade 🦋 (@ReadeAlexandra) April 28, 2020
That is the key question. When will the media get around to asking Joe about this? Because as of now they are still protecting him.
Finally, I came across this and wanted to share it as one more indication of the way the media has been handling this story badly. Rich McHugh is the person who wrote the story for Business Insider which revealed two new people who corroborate Reade’s story. He was interviewed by Katie Halper about a previous story he did on Reade filing a police report about the alleged assault. After publishing that story McHugh noticed that the Washington Post somehow inserted two words into a quote from the police report. Here’s the correction as it appears at the end of the Post’s story:
Correction: This story as originally published misstated the language in a police report about Tara Reade’s complaint. That version of the story quoted the document as saying Reade “disclosed that she believes she was the victim of a sexual assault.” The document does not contain the words “she believes.” This version has been corrected.
What a curious mistake. The Post doesn’t explain how “she believes” got added into a quote from a police report but the addition clearly softens her claim just a bit, as if she wasn’t quite certain. Here’s Rich McHugh from Business Insider describing how he discovered the error at the Post when comparing it to his own copy of the police report.
https://youtu.be/SJCKjOkW-oo?t=372


hotair--2020-04-28--A later and more "compact" NFL season?

A later and more "compact" NFL season?

You know , I was sort of okay with everyone being told they had to lock themselves in their homes like prisoners because of the novel coronavirus outbreak .
I managed to look past the fact that you suddenly couldn ’ t find a can of tuna fish in the supermarket to save your life .
I was even willing to trust that our local store would restock the toilet paper before we totally ran out .
But if the response to this pandemic means that it ’ s going to impact the start of the NFL season , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out into the streets and burn this mother down .
And yet , that ’ s exactly what might be happening .
The league had previously said that they still planned to move forward with the regular season as scheduled .
But now the NFL is releasing some proposed “ alternate ” scheduling options , including not starting until nearly Halloween , canceling the pre-season and pushing the Superbowl out until the end of February .
( NY Post ) Schedule-makers are in the process of designing several versions of the 2020 slate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bowl on Feb. 28 , the regular season starting as late as Thursday , Oct. 15 and a season without bye weeks or a Pro Bowl , according to Sports Business Daily .
It marks a striking , but also unsurprising about-face in the league ’ s thinking since the end of March , when NFL executive vice president and general counsel Jeff Pash said he was “ planning on having a full season , ” and “ in the same way ” as previous years .
Since then commissioner Roger Goodell has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes as the coronavirus pandemic has left many professional leagues around the world , including the NFL , with uncertain futures .
The schedules are expected to be released early next month and include the standard 16-game , 17-week slate but will allow for flexibility , if necessary .
All joking aside , none of these changes seem all that drastic and might not impact the outcome of the season anyway .
Right off the bat , if they decided to skip the Pro Bowl this year , would anyone really notice or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lowest-rated games every season .
If they “ compress ” the season by doing away with the bye weeks , that will have some impact , at least from the perspective of the coaches and players .
Teams use the bye weeks to rest up , give injured players a chance to heal and maybe get in a few extra practices to fine-tune strategies for the upcoming games .
But the NFL didn ’ t originally put them in for that reason .
They wanted to stretch the season out for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ televised games and hence more advertising dollars .
Plus , they start byes in week four before most teams are really all that banged up .
But this could definitely impact the post-season .
A recent rule change set us up for an even larger number of teams making it into the playoffs .
How they ’ re going to arrange this is a mystery .
One big question is what they plan to do about the stadiums if parts of the country are still on lockdown in the fall .
Or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another coronavirus season going into the winter that ’ s even worse .
But they should be able to play in an empty stadium with no fans , right ?
There are 55 players on the active roster for each game and another 15 on the practice squad .
Add in the coaches , trainers and other staff and you ’ ve still got a reasonable number of people that you could test every week for the virus .
All I know is I don ’ t want the NFL season to disappear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of other fans feel the same way .
Surely there ’ a way to keep football alive , even in the midst of a pandemic .
We seriously need the stress relief .
And besides , this is the year when the Jets are finally going to make it back to the Superbowl .
I guarantee it !

You know, I was sort of okay with everyone being told they had to lock themselves in their homes like prisoners because of the novel coronavirus outbreak. I managed to look past the fact that you suddenly couldn’t find a can of tuna fish in the supermarket to save your life. I was even willing to trust that our local store would restock the toilet paper before we totally ran out. But if the response to this pandemic means that it’s going to impact the start of the NFL season, I say we grab some torches, head out into the streets and burn this mother down.
And yet, that’s exactly what might be happening. The league had previously said that they still planned to move forward with the regular season as scheduled. But now the NFL is releasing some proposed “alternate” scheduling options, including not starting until nearly Halloween, canceling the pre-season and pushing the Superbowl out until the end of February. (NY Post)
Schedule-makers are in the process of designing several versions of the 2020 slate, some of which include a Super Bowl on Feb. 28, the regular season starting as late as Thursday, Oct. 15 and a season without bye weeks or a Pro Bowl, according to Sports Business Daily. It marks a striking, but also unsurprising about-face in the league’s thinking since the end of March, when NFL executive vice president and general counsel Jeff Pash said he was “planning on having a full season,” and “in the same way” as previous years. Since then commissioner Roger Goodell has said the league is prepared to make changes as the coronavirus pandemic has left many professional leagues around the world, including the NFL, with uncertain futures. The schedules are expected to be released early next month and include the standard 16-game, 17-week slate but will allow for flexibility, if necessary.
All joking aside, none of these changes seem all that drastic and might not impact the outcome of the season anyway. Right off the bat, if they decided to skip the Pro Bowl this year, would anyone really notice or care? It’s one of the lowest-rated games every season.
If they “compress” the season by doing away with the bye weeks, that will have some impact, at least from the perspective of the coaches and players. Teams use the bye weeks to rest up, give injured players a chance to heal and maybe get in a few extra practices to fine-tune strategies for the upcoming games. But the NFL didn’t originally put them in for that reason. They wanted to stretch the season out for an extra week so there would be more televised games and hence more advertising dollars. Plus, they start byes in week four before most teams are really all that banged up.
But this could definitely impact the post-season. A recent rule change set us up for an even larger number of teams making it into the playoffs. How they’re going to arrange this is a mystery.
One big question is what they plan to do about the stadiums if parts of the country are still on lockdown in the fall. Or even worse, if we get hit with another coronavirus season going into the winter that’s even worse. But they should be able to play in an empty stadium with no fans, right? There are 55 players on the active roster for each game and another 15 on the practice squad. Add in the coaches, trainers and other staff and you’ve still got a reasonable number of people that you could test every week for the virus.
All I know is I don’t want the NFL season to disappear, and I’m sure a lot of other fans feel the same way. Surely there’ a way to keep football alive, even in the midst of a pandemic. We seriously need the stress relief. And besides, this is the year when the Jets are finally going to make it back to the Superbowl. I guarantee it!


hotair--2020-04-28--<span class='red'>Breaking: Hoyer reverses, says House won't return next week after all; Update: McC

Going to work in the midst of a pandemic is “ essential ” for doctors , nurses , first responders , and even grocery store workers and delivery people .
House Democrats don ’ t think it ’ s “ essential ” for a Congress in the middle of a national emergency and a three trillion dollar spending spree .
In a sudden reversal from a commitment last night , House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced a few minutes ago that the lower chamber will not come back into session next week as scheduled : The House will not come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer told reporters Tuesday , reversing an announcement he made on a Democratic Caucus conference call the previous day .
The change of course comes as members expressed concern about returning to Washington while some areas in the region are developing into coronavirus hot spots .
Hoyer said the decision to delay the return , which had been briefly scheduled for May 4 , came after he talked with the Capitol physician , who said he recommended against taking the risk involved in members returning .
“ The house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday , was concerned because the numbers in the District of Columbia are going up , ” the Maryland Democrat said .
“ They ’ re not flat , and they ’ re not going down.
” Politico had reported earlier that House Democrats had balked at returning to the Capitol .
They are also frustrated at being sidelined in the crisis while Nancy Pelosi singlehandedly makes decisions for them , but don ’ t seem too keen on fixing that problem : The decision to resume in-person business comes amid growing frustrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worried about being seen as sitting on their hands while the crisis rages .
And lawmakers have so far been unable to agree on a remote voting plan that would allow them to work from afar .
“ Look , it doesn ’ t make sense for the Senate to sit on the sidelines while a lot of other people are going to work everyday and trying to get us through this , ” McConnell told Burgess in an interview .
But , but , but … some lawmakers are upset over returning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks before D.C. ’ s stay-at-home order ends .
Several members raised concerns during a private Democratic caucus call yesterday , including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz , who warned that a premature return could be “ dangerous.
” Others fretted about the prospect of an extended stay in Washington when they don ’ t have childcare at home .
And on a separate call , the Capitol physician warned a group of lawmakers that they might be “ years ” away from normalcy .
So … we are years away from having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seriously ?
Congress could have fixed this problem by temporarily allowing for remote voting and debate .
Pelosi refused to consider it in March , and Republicans objected to it last week as they demanded that Congress reconvene in the emergency .
McConnell ’ s call to reconvene the Senate seemed to have belatedly shamed Hoyer and Pelosi into returning to their posts in a national emergency , but apparently there ’ s no end to shame among House Democrats and the Brave Sir Robin Congress .
There seems to be strategy behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House decided to delay its return is because the chamber is not ready to vote on the next coronavirus relief bill , Hoyer said .
“ We will not come back next week , but we hope to come back very soon to consider the CARES 2 legislation , ” Hoyer said , adding that the House will take “ the time to get that in order ” before returning .
Ahem .
Wouldn ’ t that require the House to return all the more , especially with all of the failures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is nothing more than Pelosi trying to preserve her leverage through the use of the “ unanimous consent ” parliamentary maneuver to keep the House from debating the issues properly .
And what about the vigorous congressional oversight Pelosi demanded in CARES I ?
Pelosi claimed that as her big win for delaying that relief bill by several days , and yet hasn ’ t bothered to show up to conduct any oversight in almost a month since .
This is nothing less than an abdication of office in the face of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect itself from the COVID-19 pandemic , they could have appropriated money to rent out a local five-star hotel for weeks on end , disinfected it , and then used it as a dorm for its members , complete with quarantine options if necessary .
Meeting rooms could have been used for committee hearings or simple negotiations with all social distancing protocols observed .
Capitol Hill has been closed to outsiders , so that isn ’ t an issue , and Congress could have arranged for reserved buses to transport members back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol .
Instead , we have the Brave Sir Robin Congress , who deserted their posts when their country needs them on the job most .
In contrast with all of the other Americans showing up to do their jobs to serve their communities , it ’ s an utter disgrace , and the stain of their abdication deserves to follow this Congress and its leadership for years to come .
Update : The gauntlet has been thrown , finally : The lily-livered need not apply for these positions in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country in an emergency .
Those who balk at this should resign and allow governors to appoint replacements .
Enough is enough .
Update : Trump took a well-aimed shot at Pelosi for her ice-cream adventure and says House Democrats should get back to work .
“ They ’ re enjoying their vacation , ” Trump says .

Breaking: Hoyer reverses, says House won't return next week after all; Update: McConnell says Senate will return regardless; Trump: House Dems sure are enjoying their vacation, huh?
Going to work in the midst of a pandemic is “essential” for doctors, nurses, first responders, and even grocery store workers and delivery people. House Democrats don’t think it’s “essential” for a Congress in the middle of a national emergency and a three trillion dollar spending spree. In a sudden reversal from a commitment last night, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced a few minutes ago that the lower chamber will not come back into session next week as scheduled:
JUST IN: House Majority Leader House announces the US House will not be returning on May 4, as initially planned. After speaking with the House physician on Monday, “we made a judgment that we will not come back next week,” Hoyer says. — NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) April 28, 2020
The House will not come back to Washington next week, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer told reporters Tuesday, reversing an announcement he made on a Democratic Caucus conference call the previous day. The change of course comes as members expressed concern about returning to Washington while some areas in the region are developing into coronavirus hot spots. Hoyer said the decision to delay the return, which had been briefly scheduled for May 4, came after he talked with the Capitol physician, who said he recommended against taking the risk involved in members returning. “The house doctor, when I talked to him yesterday, was concerned because the numbers in the District of Columbia are going up,” the Maryland Democrat said. “They’re not flat, and they’re not going down.”
Politico had reported earlier that House Democrats had balked at returning to the Capitol. They are also frustrated at being sidelined in the crisis while Nancy Pelosi singlehandedly makes decisions for them, but don’t seem too keen on fixing that problem:
The decision to resume in-person business comes amid growing frustrations from lawmakers in both parties who are worried about being seen as sitting on their hands while the crisis rages. And lawmakers have so far been unable to agree on a remote voting plan that would allow them to work from afar. “Look, it doesn’t make sense for the Senate to sit on the sidelines while a lot of other people are going to work everyday and trying to get us through this,” McConnell told Burgess in an interview. But, but, but … some lawmakers are upset over returning to Washington next week — nearly two weeks before D.C.’s stay-at-home order ends. Several members raised concerns during a private Democratic caucus call yesterday, including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who warned that a premature return could be “dangerous.” Others fretted about the prospect of an extended stay in Washington when they don’t have childcare at home. And on a separate call, the Capitol physician warned a group of lawmakers that they might be “years” away from normalcy.
So … we are years away from having a Congress that stays on the job? Seriously?
Congress could have fixed this problem by temporarily allowing for remote voting and debate. Pelosi refused to consider it in March, and Republicans objected to it last week as they demanded that Congress reconvene in the emergency. McConnell’s call to reconvene the Senate seemed to have belatedly shamed Hoyer and Pelosi into returning to their posts in a national emergency, but apparently there’s no end to shame among House Democrats and the Brave Sir Robin Congress.
There seems to be strategy behind the cravenness, too:
Another reason the House decided to delay its return is because the chamber is not ready to vote on the next coronavirus relief bill, Hoyer said. “We will not come back next week, but we hope to come back very soon to consider the CARES 2 legislation,” Hoyer said, adding that the House will take “the time to get that in order” before returning.
Ahem. Wouldn’t that require the House to return all the more, especially with all of the failures now becoming apparent in CARES I? This is nothing more than Pelosi trying to preserve her leverage through the use of the “unanimous consent” parliamentary maneuver to keep the House from debating the issues properly. And what about the vigorous congressional oversight Pelosi demanded in CARES I? Pelosi claimed that as her big win for delaying that relief bill by several days, and yet hasn’t bothered to show up to conduct any oversight in almost a month since.
This is nothing less than an abdication of office in the face of a national emergency. If Congress needs to protect itself from the COVID-19 pandemic, they could have appropriated money to rent out a local five-star hotel for weeks on end, disinfected it, and then used it as a dorm for its members, complete with quarantine options if necessary. Meeting rooms could have been used for committee hearings or simple negotiations with all social distancing protocols observed. Capitol Hill has been closed to outsiders, so that isn’t an issue, and Congress could have arranged for reserved buses to transport members back and forth between the hotel and the Capitol.
Instead, we have the Brave Sir Robin Congress, who deserted their posts when their country needs them on the job most. In contrast with all of the other Americans showing up to do their jobs to serve their communities, it’s an utter disgrace, and the stain of their abdication deserves to follow this Congress and its leadership for years to come.
Update: The gauntlet has been thrown, finally:
The Leader's statement from yesterday stands. https://t.co/Vq1NBBzPh1 — David Popp (@davidpopp) April 28, 2020
The lily-livered need not apply for these positions in the first place if they can’t serve their country in an emergency. Those who balk at this should resign and allow governors to appoint replacements. Enough is enough.
Update: Trump took a well-aimed shot at Pelosi for her ice-cream adventure and says House Democrats should get back to work. “They’re enjoying their vacation,” Trump says.
https://twitter.com/michaelbeatty3/status/1255182416106291201


hotair--2020-04-28--Report: Stacey Abrams dialing up Dem leaders, asking them to push for her as vice president

Embarrassing .
Not the fact that she ’ s campaigning for the job ; all politicians are ambitious , especially ones as young and well-known as Abrams .
What ’ s embarrassing is that ( a ) she ’ s campaigning not just privately but publicly , via a media tour that ’ s brought her to “ The View ” and various print publications , and ( b ) she ’ s a longshot but her ubiquity gives the impression that she ’ s a short-lister , which means her campaign for the job seems destined to end with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snubbed ” by Biden when she ’ s not chosen .
Especially with Abrams herself nudging fans to feel aggrieved if a woman of color — hint , hint — isn ’ t chosen as his running mate .
It ’ s not just that she ’ s being unusually candid about her ambition , in other words .
It ’ s that she risks doing actual damage to Biden and Democratic party unity by treating her VP chances as a sort of litmus test of racial progress even though she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a politician who ’ s held neither federal nor statewide office to be chosen as vice president .
Which is a special concern with Biden , of course , given the questions about his health .
If the oldest and most rickety presidential nominee of my lifetime decides to ignore the unusual thinness of Abrams ’ s resume and make a pure identity-politics play on the ticket then he really does have the sort of brain damage Trumpers suspect him of having .
The case for Abrams rests on the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic base if chosen .
A poll conducted by the left-wing shop Data for Progress recently found that a Biden-Abrams ticket would perform better than four alternatives , especially with black voters and women of color .
And despite what you may assume after Biden ’ s big win in the South Carolina primary , strong turnout for him from black voters this fall isn ’ t assured .
A national poll from Suffolk released yesterday discovered Biden ’ s support among African-Americans *dropping* since December in a race with Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 10 then to around two-thirds now .
Quote : “ [ O ] ne in four black voters now say they are undecided or would vote for a third-party candidate.
” Abrams also has something that Kamala Harris , the more likely black woman VP pick , lacks — real progressive cred , the sort of thing that might bring some wary lefties out to the polls despite their misgivings about Biden .
Put all of that together and you ’ re left with the sense that if she had won the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , she ’ d probably be the frontrunner .
But she didn ’ t win , no matter what Democrats will tell you .
And it ’ s exceedingly hard for me to believe that swing voters are going to roll the dice on a possibly-truncated four years for Joe Biden when his vice president hasn ’ t run so much as a city .
Abrams may also be hurting her own standing within the party by trying to cut the line on VP , notes Josh Kraushaar .
She ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party ’ s interests once this year , declining to run in either of the two upcoming Senate races in Georgia despite her strong finish in the last gubernatorial election .
She would have been the strongest candidate Democrats could field but I think she feared that losing two marquee races in two years might dim her political star permanently .
So she passed instead of helping her party out , and now wants to be chosen ahead of more seasoned pols like Harris , Amy Klobuchar , and Elizabeth Warren despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done what they ’ ve done , win a statewide race .
Kraushaar : With a pandemic raging across the country , it ’ s difficult to imagine the former vice president picking a relative novice whose highest leadership position was wrangling the Democratic minority in her state ’ s lower legislative chamber… [ B ] y transparently campaigning for a job she ’ s unlikely to win , Abrams is squandering some of the valuable goodwill she built up in the hard-fought 2018 governor ’ s race .
Instead of building up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she spent the postelection period refusing to concede the election , writing an essay advocating “ identity politics , ” and resisting Democratic entreaties to seek a plum promotion .
Even before this latest national media blitz , her popularity back home was already on the decline .
An Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll conducted last year showed just 45 percent of Georgia voters viewing Abrams favorably while another 45 percent viewed her unfavorably .
Her net favorability was weaker than all the Georgia politicians tested , including Kemp and Sen. David Perdue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling numbers that suggest she ’ s a political force back home .
Kraushaar speculates that Abrams ’ s public VP campaign may be little more than an attempt to stay relevant , knowing that she ’ s unlikely to be the choice .
Maybe , but that wouldn ’ t explain why she ’ s reportedly campaigning privately too .
And it wouldn ’ t explain her trying to box Biden in by hinting that she ’ ll be disappointed if a woman of color isn ’ t picked .
This seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way into being his running mate .
I think Kraushaar may have identified the real reason she ’ s reaching for the brass ring , though : Maybe she ’ s worried that , despite Brian Kemp ’ s newfound political vulnerability after clashing with Trump , she ’ s not as much of a force in Georgia politics anymore as she was two years ago .
The endless whiny “ I won ” complaints after her race against Kemp may have hurt her .
If she loses another statewide race she won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list for anything .
She needs to strike while the iron is still hot .
Or warm-ish , at least .
If she wanted to be VP she should have run for president .
If she had followed the Pete Buttigieg path and risen from semi-obscurity to a surprise win in Iowa or a series of strong showings in early states , she ’ d have hard evidence that there ’ s national enthusiasm for her .
She wouldn ’ t be an unknown quantity to swing voters either ; she ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ televised debates and campaign rallies under her belt , reassuring undecideds that Biden hadn ’ t chosen a newbie completely out of left field .
But she didn ’ t want to run for president , probably because — again — she suspected she ’ d lose badly and that her weird quasi-superstar status within the party would fade .
She clearly wants to be president .
It just seems like she ’ s not eager to take the risk of actually having to win an election herself to get there .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends up the big winner from the Abrams publicity tour .
I don ’ t think Abrams will succeed in pressuring Biden to choose her but she may succeed in pressuring him to choose a black woman over Warren or Klobuchar , if only to deny Abrams the opportunity to imply that being passed over was racially tinged .
No one will be excited for Harris but at least the proverbial box will have been checked .

Embarrassing. Not the fact that she’s campaigning for the job; all politicians are ambitious, especially ones as young and well-known as Abrams. What’s embarrassing is that (a) she’s campaigning not just privately but publicly, via a media tour that’s brought her to “The View” and various print publications, and (b) she’s a longshot but her ubiquity gives the impression that she’s a short-lister, which means her campaign for the job seems destined to end with perceptions that she’s been “snubbed” by Biden when she’s not chosen.
Especially with Abrams herself nudging fans to feel aggrieved if a woman of color — hint, hint — isn’t chosen as his running mate.
It’s not just that she’s being unusually candid about her ambition, in other words. It’s that she risks doing actual damage to Biden and Democratic party unity by treating her VP chances as a sort of litmus test of racial progress even though she’s surely aware how unusual it would be for a politician who’s held neither federal nor statewide office to be chosen as vice president. Which is a special concern with Biden, of course, given the questions about his health. If the oldest and most rickety presidential nominee of my lifetime decides to ignore the unusual thinness of Abrams’s resume and make a pure identity-politics play on the ticket then he really does have the sort of brain damage Trumpers suspect him of having.
Stacey Abrams, a former Georgia lawmaker and unsuccessful candidate for governor, has been privately calling Democratic powerbrokers, asking them to tell Biden campaign officials that she should be vice president, according to multiple labor leaders familiar with the discussions… But navigating the Biden campaign’s internal politics may be tricky for Abrams given Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms’ close relationships with Biden brass. Lance Bottoms has long been an Abrams rival, declining to endorse her in the 2018 gubernatorial primary and speaking positively about her opponent, Stacey Evans.
The case for Abrams rests on the idea that she’d generate unusual enthusiasm among the Democratic base if chosen. A poll conducted by the left-wing shop Data for Progress recently found that a Biden-Abrams ticket would perform better than four alternatives, especially with black voters and women of color. And despite what you may assume after Biden’s big win in the South Carolina primary, strong turnout for him from black voters this fall isn’t assured. A national poll from Suffolk released yesterday discovered Biden’s support among African-Americans *dropping* since December in a race with Trump and a third-party candidate, from around eight in 10 then to around two-thirds now. Quote: “[O]ne in four black voters now say they are undecided or would vote for a third-party candidate.” Abrams also has something that Kamala Harris, the more likely black woman VP pick, lacks — real progressive cred, the sort of thing that might bring some wary lefties out to the polls despite their misgivings about Biden. Put all of that together and you’re left with the sense that if she had won the Georgia governor’s race two years ago, she’d probably be the frontrunner.
But she didn’t win, no matter what Democrats will tell you. And it’s exceedingly hard for me to believe that swing voters are going to roll the dice on a possibly-truncated four years for Joe Biden when his vice president hasn’t run so much as a city.
Abrams may also be hurting her own standing within the party by trying to cut the line on VP, notes Josh Kraushaar. She’s already put her own interests above the Democratic Party’s interests once this year, declining to run in either of the two upcoming Senate races in Georgia despite her strong finish in the last gubernatorial election. She would have been the strongest candidate Democrats could field but I think she feared that losing two marquee races in two years might dim her political star permanently. So she passed instead of helping her party out, and now wants to be chosen ahead of more seasoned pols like Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren despite the fact that she’s never done what they’ve done, win a statewide race. Kraushaar:
With a pandemic raging across the country, it’s difficult to imagine the former vice president picking a relative novice whose highest leadership position was wrangling the Democratic minority in her state’s lower legislative chamber… [B]y transparently campaigning for a job she’s unlikely to win, Abrams is squandering some of the valuable goodwill she built up in the hard-fought 2018 governor’s race. Instead of building up political capital to prepare for a rematch, she spent the postelection period refusing to concede the election, writing an essay advocating “identity politics,” and resisting Democratic entreaties to seek a plum promotion. Even before this latest national media blitz, her popularity back home was already on the decline. An Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll conducted last year showed just 45 percent of Georgia voters viewing Abrams favorably while another 45 percent viewed her unfavorably. Her net favorability was weaker than all the Georgia politicians tested, including Kemp and Sen. David Perdue. These aren’t the type of polling numbers that suggest she’s a political force back home.
Kraushaar speculates that Abrams’s public VP campaign may be little more than an attempt to stay relevant, knowing that she’s unlikely to be the choice. Maybe, but that wouldn’t explain why she’s reportedly campaigning privately too. And it wouldn’t explain her trying to box Biden in by hinting that she’ll be disappointed if a woman of color isn’t picked. This seems like an earnest attempt to lobby her way into being his running mate. I think Kraushaar may have identified the real reason she’s reaching for the brass ring, though: Maybe she’s worried that, despite Brian Kemp’s newfound political vulnerability after clashing with Trump, she’s not as much of a force in Georgia politics anymore as she was two years ago. The endless whiny “I won” complaints after her race against Kemp may have hurt her. If she loses another statewide race she won’t be on anyone’s list for anything. She needs to strike while the iron is still hot. Or warm-ish, at least.
If she wanted to be VP she should have run for president. If she had followed the Pete Buttigieg path and risen from semi-obscurity to a surprise win in Iowa or a series of strong showings in early states, she’d have hard evidence that there’s national enthusiasm for her. She wouldn’t be an unknown quantity to swing voters either; she’d emerge as VP nominee with hours of televised debates and campaign rallies under her belt, reassuring undecideds that Biden hadn’t chosen a newbie completely out of left field. But she didn’t want to run for president, probably because — again — she suspected she’d lose badly and that her weird quasi-superstar status within the party would fade. She clearly wants to be president. It just seems like she’s not eager to take the risk of actually having to win an election herself to get there.
In the end it may be Harris who ends up the big winner from the Abrams publicity tour. I don’t think Abrams will succeed in pressuring Biden to choose her but she may succeed in pressuring him to choose a black woman over Warren or Klobuchar, if only to deny Abrams the opportunity to imply that being passed over was racially tinged. No one will be excited for Harris but at least the proverbial box will have been checked.


hotair--2020-04-28--Is Texas unveiling a Goldilocks model we've been waiting to see?

Monday afternoon as promised , Governor Greg Abbott announced the end of the stay at home order when it expires on April 30 .
He presented a plan recommended by the Strike Force to Open Texas charged with coming up with a science-based , data-driven way forward for the re-opening of the state .
Abbott said that Dr. Birx agrees the Texas plan is a good one .
First , an announcement by the city of Galveston started Monday off on a good note for beachgoers .
Its beaches are now open but with very limited hours and strict rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a beach .
In the age of the coronavirus pandemic , the catch is that we have to take the good with the bad when it comes to reopening up the state .
The beaches are only open from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. daily .
The key rule to follow is that visitors must keep moving – no chairs , tents , or beach picnics are not allowed and vehicles are not allowed on the beach .
Surfing , swimming , and fishing are allowed but social distancing is still in effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unincorporated areas of Galveston County have been open since April 14 .
Governor Abbott said the purpose of slowly re-opening Texas is to allow as many businesses to open while still containing the virus .
Businesses will not be allowed to open up all at once .
The governor cited concerns over the second wave of outbreaks of the coronavirus pandemic like is now happening in China and Singapore , for example .
Abbott is going by the advice from infectious disease specialists .
The report can be read HERE .
Phase One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly , those vulnerable to the coronavirus due to age or compromised immune systems are asked to remain sheltered at home .
And , businesses must show special consideration for the vulnerable population like with special hours set aside for shopping before the store opens to the general public .
While 20 % of people being tested test positive , 70 % of deaths from the coronavirus are age 65 or older .
We have shown that Texas can continue our efforts to contain COVID-19 while also adhering to safe standards that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening this great state .
The Strike Force to Open Texas brings together nationally recognized medical experts with public- and private-sector business leaders to help achieve this mission .
That is why we are first and foremost focusing on protecting the most vulnerable among us , on nursing home mitigation measures , on ramping up testing , and on scaling up contact tracing of the unseen enemy .
The list that everyone was waiting to hear about was announced – all retail stores , movie theatres , restaurants , and malls are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to re-open right now but if a business owner chooses to do so , it ’ s allowable .
Here ’ s the catch with this , though .
Phase One , while allowing restaurants and movie theatres to re-open , limits capacity to 25 % .
In retail stores that can be accomplished by restricting the number of customers in the store at one time , as happens now , but for restaurants and theatres it poses a different problem .
Smaller restaurants , for example , may decide it isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a limited number of customers while larger restaurants and chains will likely be able to handle the requirement and open .
Abbott ’ s new executive order cuts both ways .
Museums can reopen but none of the hands-on style exhibits in public museums will be available .
Private museums will make their own decisions .
Libraries can open but with 25 % occupancy , too .
Golf courses and tennis courts are allowed to open .
Churches can expand capacity as long as they are mindful to continue containment and distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still considered essential businesses .
All licensed health care workers are allowed to return to work .
The list of businesses not allowed to reopen yet include bars , barbershops , salons , spas , and gyms .
As you can imagine , people who patronize hair stylists who operate small businesses or only see one customer at a time , by appointment , are not pleased with this development .
Summer camps were included in the conversation .
The task force is still working on its recommendations for ways that summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is a list of over 6,000 child care providers in 1,000 zip codes for workers and working families to use when needed .
If all goes as planned and containment measures continue to be successful in Texas , Phase Two will go into place on May 18 .
This allows 50 % capacity in eating establishments and other businesses .
During this time , the businesses not opening now – bars , barbershops , salons , and gyms , for example – will be reopened .
It is important to remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work for all of Texas .
Governor Abbott noted that not all counties are alike .
Half of the counties in Texas are counties with low populations .
Most have 5 or fewer cases of the coronavirus .
These counties will be allowed to go to 50 % capacity , not start out with 25 % as other counties are required to do .
The testing and tracing programs for Phase One are complete , Abbott said .
Phase Two began Monday and Phase Three will begin May 18 .
Abbott said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Texas plan and says it is “ great ” .
He stresses that Texas can not take one step forward and two steps back .
Four parts to the puzzle of reopening Texas will continue to determine how quickly it all moves .
A commitment to safe distancing , doctors providing data , a focus on the vulnerable , and a reminder that entrepreneurs drive the Texas economy .
“ We are Texans .
We ’ ve got this.
” The Texas health care system has not been overwhelmed .
The new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put Phase One into place presents a conflict with some areas of the state .
On the very day that the mandatory mask rule went into place in Harris County , Governor Abbott essentially canceled it .
His orders supersede those of local orders as far as business closings go , too .
Gov .
Greg Abbott announced he is overriding Houston and Harris County and allowing the re-opening of all restaurants , retail stores , malls and movie theaters starting May 1 , but they must keep occupancy at 25 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the types of businesses and the extent to which they can open was driven by the doctors advising us about safe medical practices , ” Abbott said .
Abbott made clear that his decision “ supersedes all local orders.
” Abbott also announced that he is recommending everyone wears masks in public but will not mandate masks , as Harris County did effective Monday .
He said his new order bars local governments from fining people for not wearing a mask .
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo had a $ 1,000 fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that the temporary emergency site at NRG stadium was never used because Houston ’ s hospitals were not overwhelmed .
Beds are available .
The site in the parking lot at NRG ended up costing taxpayers at least $ 11M , though at the time Judge Hidalgo and the Harris County Commissioners Court authorized $ 60M for construction of emergency facilities .
Fortunately , that level of preparedness was never needed .
It ’ s a start .
The reopening of Texas can serve as a model for other states .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opens up the state all at once , but with measured actions .
It ’ s a Goldilocks solution – not too much , not too little , it ’ s just right .

Monday afternoon as promised, Governor Greg Abbott announced the end of the stay at home order when it expires on April 30. He presented a plan recommended by the Strike Force to Open Texas charged with coming up with a science-based, data-driven way forward for the re-opening of the state. Abbott said that Dr. Birx agrees the Texas plan is a good one.
First, an announcement by the city of Galveston started Monday off on a good note for beachgoers. Its beaches are now open but with very limited hours and strict rules for behavior while enjoying a visit to a beach. In the age of the coronavirus pandemic, the catch is that we have to take the good with the bad when it comes to reopening up the state. The beaches are only open from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. daily. The key rule to follow is that visitors must keep moving – no chairs, tents, or beach picnics are not allowed and vehicles are not allowed on the beach. Surfing, swimming, and fishing are allowed but social distancing is still in effect for those activities. Beaches in the unincorporated areas of Galveston County have been open since April 14.
LIVE: Galveston Island beaches reopen amid coronavirus. Views from AIR11 https://t.co/81dYzhoVDz — KHOU 11 News Houston (@KHOU) April 27, 2020
Governor Abbott said the purpose of slowly re-opening Texas is to allow as many businesses to open while still containing the virus. Businesses will not be allowed to open up all at once. The governor cited concerns over the second wave of outbreaks of the coronavirus pandemic like is now happening in China and Singapore, for example. Abbott is going by the advice from infectious disease specialists.
The report can be read HERE.
Phase One begins Friday, May 1. Most importantly, those vulnerable to the coronavirus due to age or compromised immune systems are asked to remain sheltered at home. And, businesses must show special consideration for the vulnerable population like with special hours set aside for shopping before the store opens to the general public. While 20% of people being tested test positive, 70% of deaths from the coronavirus are age 65 or older.
We have shown that Texas can continue our efforts to contain COVID-19 while also adhering to safe
standards that will allow us to begin the process of opening this great state. The Strike Force to Open Texas brings together nationally recognized medical experts with public- and
private-sector business leaders to help achieve this mission. That is why we are first and foremost focusing on protecting the most vulnerable among us, on nursing
home mitigation measures, on ramping up testing, and on scaling up contact tracing of the unseen
enemy.
The list that everyone was waiting to hear about was announced – all retail stores, movie theatres, restaurants, and malls are now allowed to open. No business is required to re-open right now but if a business owner chooses to do so, it’s allowable. Here’s the catch with this, though. Phase One, while allowing restaurants and movie theatres to re-open, limits capacity to 25%. In retail stores that can be accomplished by restricting the number of customers in the store at one time, as happens now, but for restaurants and theatres it poses a different problem. Smaller restaurants, for example, may decide it isn’t profitable enough to reopen for such a limited number of customers while larger restaurants and chains will likely be able to handle the requirement and open. Abbott’s new executive order cuts both ways.
Museums can reopen but none of the hands-on style exhibits in public museums will be available. Private museums will make their own decisions. Libraries can open but with 25% occupancy, too.
Golf courses and tennis courts are allowed to open. Churches can expand capacity as long as they are mindful to continue containment and distancing measures. Homeware stores and hardware stores are still considered essential businesses. All licensed health care workers are allowed to return to work.
The list of businesses not allowed to reopen yet include bars, barbershops, salons, spas, and gyms. As you can imagine, people who patronize hair stylists who operate small businesses or only see one customer at a time, by appointment, are not pleased with this development.
Summer camps were included in the conversation. The task force is still working on its recommendations for ways that summer camps can open for kids this summer. There is a list of over 6,000 child care providers in 1,000 zip codes for workers and working families to use when needed.
If all goes as planned and containment measures continue to be successful in Texas, Phase Two will go into place on May 18. This allows 50% capacity in eating establishments and other businesses. During this time, the businesses not opening now – bars, barbershops, salons, and gyms, for example – will be reopened.
It is important to remember that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn’t work for all of Texas. Governor Abbott noted that not all counties are alike. Half of the counties in Texas are counties with low populations. Most have 5 or fewer cases of the coronavirus. These counties will be allowed to go to 50% capacity, not start out with 25% as other counties are required to do.
The testing and tracing programs for Phase One are complete, Abbott said. Phase Two began Monday and Phase Three will begin May 18. Abbott said that Dr. Birx has read a copy of the Texas plan and says it is “great”. He stresses that Texas cannot take one step forward and two steps back. Four parts to the puzzle of reopening Texas will continue to determine how quickly it all moves. A commitment to safe distancing, doctors providing data, a focus on the vulnerable, and a reminder that entrepreneurs drive the Texas economy. “We are Texans. We’ve got this.”
The Texas health care system has not been overwhelmed. The new executive order signed by Governor Abbott Monday to put Phase One into place presents a conflict with some areas of the state. On the very day that the mandatory mask rule went into place in Harris County, Governor Abbott essentially canceled it. His orders supersede those of local orders as far as business closings go, too.
Gov. Greg Abbott announced he is overriding Houston and Harris County and allowing the re-opening of all restaurants, retail stores, malls and movie theaters starting May 1, but they must keep occupancy at 25 percent or less. “The ultimate decision about the types of businesses and the extent to which they can open was driven by the doctors advising us about safe medical practices,” Abbott said. Abbott made clear that his decision “supersedes all local orders.” Abbott also announced that he is recommending everyone wears masks in public but will not mandate masks, as Harris County did effective Monday. He said his new order bars local governments from fining people for not wearing a mask. Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo had a $1,000 fine in place.
It should also be noted that the temporary emergency site at NRG stadium was never used because Houston’s hospitals were not overwhelmed. Beds are available. The site in the parking lot at NRG ended up costing taxpayers at least $11M, though at the time Judge Hidalgo and the Harris County Commissioners Court authorized $60M for construction of emergency facilities. Fortunately, that level of preparedness was never needed.
Today Harris County Commissioners Court authorized up to $60 mil to proactively build out hospital capacity @nrgpark to build as much capacity as possible for #COVID patients in a worst-case scenario. Construction began last week. https://t.co/hynQRa8QeS — Office of Judge Lina Hidalgo (@HarrisCoJudge) April 7, 2020
It’s a start. The reopening of Texas can serve as a model for other states. The new order isn’t one that opens up the state all at once, but with measured actions. It’s a Goldilocks solution – not too much, not too little, it’s just right.


hotair--2020-04-28--Iranians poisoning themselves faster than the virus can kill them

As if Iran wasn ’ t having enough problems during the pandemic already .
They were among the slowest to respond to the novel coronavirus outbreak and they continued to allow regular flights to and from China until only recently .
The percapita death toll in their nation was among the highest in the world and most average citizens couldn ’ t expect much help or relief from their corrupt government .
And now , to top it all off , a rumor has been going around that drinking methanol ( commonly known as methyl alcohol or wood alcohol ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cure COVID-19 .
The result ?
More than 700 people have died from methyl alcohol poisoning , and those are only the numbers that the government is willing to admit to .
( Associated Press ) The false belief that toxic methanol cures the coronavirus has seen over 700 people killed in Iran , an official said Monday .
That represents a higher death toll than so far released by the Iranian Health Ministry .
An adviser to the ministry , Hossein Hassanian , said that the difference in death tallies is because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital .
“ Some 200 people died outside of hospitals ” , Hassanian told The Associated Press .
At least according to their official numbers , 728 Iranians died from drinking this poisonous product during the 46 days between Feb. 20 and April 7 .
That ’ s vastly more than in previous periods , but such incidents weren ’ t unknown .
Last year , before anyone had begun talking about the novel coronavirus , 66 Iranians died from methanol poisoning .
What were they thinking ?
Of course , the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States .
Back during the great depression and the prohibition era , people would take cans of Sterno ( composed mostly of methanol ) and strain it through bread in the belief that it would be less toxic .
The resulting drink was referred to as “ squeeze ” and many people either went completely blind from it or simply died .
If the Iranian government has been making any effort to let people know not to do this , they clearly haven ’ t been very effective in the job .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should be by that news , though .
After all , their government has already been found to have stolen literally a billion euros worth of aid and medical supplies that were intended for the citizens of Iran .
Government officials have been found stealing personal protective medical equipment and then selling it on the black market to make a profit .
Meanwhile , the Iranian government announced today that they had found more than one thousand new cases of infection and recorded 71 additional deaths .
That brings the official tally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above , that ’ s only the numbers that Iran is willing to publicly release .
It ’ s suspected that the real figures are far higher , but the Mullahs are downplaying them to make it seem as if their response hasn ’ t been such an unmitigated disaster .
They ’ re still trying to distract everyone from this catastrophe however they can .
Most recently , they launched a new military satellite over the objections of both the United States and Israel .
You know , rumor has it that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military space shuttle has anti-satellite weapons on it .
Maybe it ’ s time for them to get some real-world target practice in .

As if Iran wasn’t having enough problems during the pandemic already. They were among the slowest to respond to the novel coronavirus outbreak and they continued to allow regular flights to and from China until only recently. The percapita death toll in their nation was among the highest in the world and most average citizens couldn’t expect much help or relief from their corrupt government. And now, to top it all off, a rumor has been going around that drinking methanol (commonly known as methyl alcohol or wood alcohol) can stave off the virus or even cure COVID-19. The result? More than 700 people have died from methyl alcohol poisoning, and those are only the numbers that the government is willing to admit to. (Associated Press)
The false belief that toxic methanol cures the coronavirus has seen over 700 people killed in Iran, an official said Monday. That represents a higher death toll than so far released by the Iranian Health Ministry. An adviser to the ministry, Hossein Hassanian, said that the difference in death tallies is because some alcohol poisoning victims died outside of hospital. “Some 200 people died outside of hospitals”, Hassanian told The Associated Press.
At least according to their official numbers, 728 Iranians died from drinking this poisonous product during the 46 days between Feb. 20 and April 7. That’s vastly more than in previous periods, but such incidents weren’t unknown. Last year, before anyone had begun talking about the novel coronavirus, 66 Iranians died from methanol poisoning. What were they thinking?
Of course, the same crazy practices have been seen in the United States. Back during the great depression and the prohibition era, people would take cans of Sterno (composed mostly of methanol) and strain it through bread in the belief that it would be less toxic. The resulting drink was referred to as “squeeze” and many people either went completely blind from it or simply died.
If the Iranian government has been making any effort to let people know not to do this, they clearly haven’t been very effective in the job. I don’t know how surprised we should be by that news, though. After all, their government has already been found to have stolen literally a billion euros worth of aid and medical supplies that were intended for the citizens of Iran. Government officials have been found stealing personal protective medical equipment and then selling it on the black market to make a profit.
Meanwhile, the Iranian government announced today that they had found more than one thousand new cases of infection and recorded 71 additional deaths. That brings the official tally to 5,877 but, as I mentioned above, that’s only the numbers that Iran is willing to publicly release. It’s suspected that the real figures are far higher, but the Mullahs are downplaying them to make it seem as if their response hasn’t been such an unmitigated disaster.
They’re still trying to distract everyone from this catastrophe however they can. Most recently, they launched a new military satellite over the objections of both the United States and Israel. You know, rumor has it that the Pentagon’s nifty new secret military space shuttle has anti-satellite weapons on it. Maybe it’s time for them to get some real-world target practice in.


hotair--2020-04-28--Chicago protesters want to cancel rent and mortgage payments

The fact that people in Chicago and other major cities are protesting about rent and mortgage payments shouldn ’ t come as much of a surprise .
Tens of millions of people are out of work and overwhelmed state unemployment insurance systems have run into major issues for people who are trying to apply .
Also , the promised federal aid checks from the first stimulus package have been slow to arrive .
( And , to be honest , a $ 1,200 check wasn ’ t going to pay the rent for very long for most urban dwellers anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them are demanding that the government cancel all rent and mortgage payments for several months , at least until the economy is turned back on and they can hopefully get their jobs back .
But how would that work ?
The in cities across the country , protesters on Saturday came out in support of tenants who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads due to the coronavirus outbreak .
In Chicago , dozens of people took part in the National Day of Car Protests .
A caravan drove to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mercy Catholic Church , in Albany Park , where demonstrators demanded a nationwide cancellation of rent payments for all tenants and small businesses , and mortgage payments for all homeowners , small landlords , and small businesses .
“ It ’ s really ridiculous that we ’ re expected to pay when there ’ s this many closures .
The government can do more , and they choose not to .
We can have healthcare , we can have food , we can have education .
We ’ ve learned that before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to provide that stuff , ” Ana Santoyo said .
While we ’ ve covered this before , it ’ s definitely worth taking a fresh look at the question .
First of all , both the states and the federal governments have acknowledged that this is a serious issue and taken at least some steps to take the pressure off .
Any property owner with a federally backed mortgage is eligible to have their payments deferred for several months .
Many private lenders are also offering a similar deal even without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As far as renters go , most cities have instituted a three-month moratorium on evictions .
That doesn ’ t do much for the renters in terms of how they ’ re going to catch up on their back rent when the term expires , but at least it keeps them from being put out on the street for the time being .
What ’ s not being made clear is exactly what these protesters expect the government to do about the situation .
I would hope that we haven ’ t yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time of crisis has extended to the extent where governors believe they can simply order landlords to offer their rental units for free for months on end or tell lenders that they ’ ll have to suck it up and forgive portions of loans .
In reality , the only thing the government ( at any level ) could do about this is agree to make your rent or mortgage payments for you .
But before you begin cheering for that idea , consider that there are currently more than 10 trillion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requiring an average of nearly one thousand dollars per month in payments due .
There are more than 44 million active rental households in the United States .
( 31 % of them didn ’ t pay their rent in April . )
Feel free to do the math yourself and figure out how much it would cost to cover all of those payments for three months , but it ’ s a mindboggling number .
And how would we determine who gets that sort of relief if it ’ s not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some people didn ’ t lose their jobs .
Many others either are collecting $ 1,000 or more per month from federally enhanced unemployment benefits , or they will be when the enrollment systems aren ’ t overwhelmed .
Should they qualify to have their rent and mortgage payments simply forgiven ?
And if not , how is the government supposed to sort out who will or won ’ t be given this sort of aid ?
I ’ m not saying there ’ s an easy solution to these problems .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overreach of executive power that would crush landlords and lenders or somehow summon up magical money that will soon dwarf the country ’ s total GDP out of thin air .
Neither is appealing .

The fact that people in Chicago and other major cities are protesting about rent and mortgage payments shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Tens of millions of people are out of work and overwhelmed state unemployment insurance systems have run into major issues for people who are trying to apply. Also, the promised federal aid checks from the first stimulus package have been slow to arrive. (And, to be honest, a $1,200 check wasn’t going to pay the rent for very long for most urban dwellers anyway.) As a result, many of them are demanding that the government cancel all rent and mortgage payments for several months, at least until the economy is turned back on and they can hopefully get their jobs back. But how would that work?
The in cities across the country, protesters on Saturday came out in support of tenants who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads due to the coronavirus outbreak. In Chicago, dozens of people took part in the National Day of Car Protests. A caravan drove to the parking lot of Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Church, in Albany Park, where demonstrators demanded a nationwide cancellation of rent payments for all tenants and small businesses, and mortgage payments for all homeowners, small landlords, and small businesses. “It’s really ridiculous that we’re expected to pay when there’s this many closures. The government can do more, and they choose not to. We can have healthcare, we can have food, we can have education. We’ve learned that before the pandemic. They just don’t want to provide that stuff,” Ana Santoyo said.
While we’ve covered this before, it’s definitely worth taking a fresh look at the question. First of all, both the states and the federal governments have acknowledged that this is a serious issue and taken at least some steps to take the pressure off. Any property owner with a federally backed mortgage is eligible to have their payments deferred for several months. Many private lenders are also offering a similar deal even without a government order to do so.
As far as renters go, most cities have instituted a three-month moratorium on evictions. That doesn’t do much for the renters in terms of how they’re going to catch up on their back rent when the term expires, but at least it keeps them from being put out on the street for the time being.
What’s not being made clear is exactly what these protesters expect the government to do about the situation. I would hope that we haven’t yet reached the point where executive power during a time of crisis has extended to the extent where governors believe they can simply order landlords to offer their rental units for free for months on end or tell lenders that they’ll have to suck it up and forgive portions of loans.
In reality, the only thing the government (at any level) could do about this is agree to make your rent or mortgage payments for you. But before you begin cheering for that idea, consider that there are currently more than 10 trillion dollars worth of mortgages in this country requiring an average of nearly one thousand dollars per month in payments due. There are more than 44 million active rental households in the United States. (31% of them didn’t pay their rent in April.) Feel free to do the math yourself and figure out how much it would cost to cover all of those payments for three months, but it’s a mindboggling number.
And how would we determine who gets that sort of relief if it’s not just going to be offered to everyone? Some people didn’t lose their jobs. Many others either are collecting $1,000 or more per month from federally enhanced unemployment benefits, or they will be when the enrollment systems aren’t overwhelmed. Should they qualify to have their rent and mortgage payments simply forgiven? And if not, how is the government supposed to sort out who will or won’t be given this sort of aid?
I’m not saying there’s an easy solution to these problems. But our choices are to either allow an overreach of executive power that would crush landlords and lenders or somehow summon up magical money that will soon dwarf the country’s total GDP out of thin air. Neither is appealing.


hotair--2020-04-28--WaPo: We hear that "some Trump allies" are pouncing on corroborations of Reade's allegations against

WaPo: We hear that "some Trump allies" are pouncing on corroborations of Reade's allegations against Biden, or something

We ’ ve seen the media attempt oblique approaches before , but this effort last night from the Washington Post hits new heights in the Republicans pounce !
genre .
Faced with emerging new evidence that corroborates ( indirectly ) Tara Reade ’ s allegations that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her , the Post opts not to make those bolstered allegations the story .
They don ’ t make Joe Biden the story .
They don ’ t make Tara Reade the story .
So who is the story ?
“ Trump allies , ” and no , I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headline : Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden Some allies of President Trump pointed Monday to new claims by a woman who said she was told about sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden decades ago , renewing attention to questions about the past behavior of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee .
Apparent corroboration surfaced this week for elements of two accusations made by Biden ’ s former Senate aide Tara Reade , one involving harassment and the second a sexual assault .
Biden has not commented on the allegations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed to his record on women ’ s rights and promotion of women in his offices .
Readers don ’ t get to the actual news until the third and fourth paragraphs : Lynda LaCasse , who was one of Reade ’ s neighbors in California , where Reade moved after working for Biden , said in an interview with Business Insider published Monday that Reade told her in the mid-1990s that Biden had “ put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her.
” Lorraine Sanchez , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the office of a California state senator , also told the news outlet that Reade told her in the mid-1990s that she “ had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors , she was let go , fired.
” Sanchez did not recall whether Reade mentioned Biden specifically , or whether she provided further details about the allegation .
It takes readers until the second-to-last line to learn that LaCasse isn ’ t one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s allegations .
In fact , LaCasse “ can ’ t stand Donald Trump , ” as she told Business Insider , and still plans to vote for Biden in the general election .
Given how well this parallels the Post ’ s feelings about Trump , it ’ s a wonder they didn ’ t make that a more prominent part of the story .
It ’ s true that those speaking up for Reade now only provide indirect support for her claims .
None of them are “ witnesses ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not present during the alleged sexual assault .
However , unlike Christine Blasey Ford , Reade ’ s connection to her alleged attacker has been firmly established and these women confirm that Reade has been telling this specific story since the alleged assault occurred .
Therefore , it is instructive to review a few of the Washington Post ’ s headlines from their reporting on Blasey Ford to get a sense of their , ahem , “ impartiality ” : A former sex-crimes prosecutor analyzed Ford ’ s allegations against Kavanaugh .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s testimony depended heavily on exonerations that aren ’ t exactly exonerating The conservative conspiracy theory about the media and the Kavanaugh nomination has a few holes [ my personal favorite ! ]
Silent no more , Senate ’ s angry Republican men roar to Kavanaugh ’ s defense Republicans are giving some tortured explanations for moving ahead on Kavanaugh Kavanaugh nomination : Judge says he is victim of ‘ character assassination ’ as third woman comes forward That story reported on allegations from Julie Swetnick , repped by Michael Avenatti , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but got lots and lots of media love .
There are plenty more where those came from , but let ’ s get to this from the WaPo editorial board at the time of the Kavanaugh hearings as our finale : Republicans first said Christine Blasey Ford should be heard .
Then they insulted and ignored her .
I guess the same editors are probably patting themselves on the back for merely ignoring Reade — until it became impossible — rather than insulting her .
By casting their coverage to make Reade nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than take her allegations seriously , however , the Post and its editors are insulting her in the same or worse manner than they accused Republicans of doing with Blasey Ford — whose allegation had no specificity as well as no contemporaneous corroboration , even indirect .
This isn ’ t just media bias .
This is media corruption .

We’ve seen the media attempt oblique approaches before, but this effort last night from the Washington Post hits new heights in the Republicans pounce! genre. Faced with emerging new evidence that corroborates (indirectly) Tara Reade’s allegations that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her, the Post opts not to make those bolstered allegations the story. They don’t make Joe Biden the story. They don’t make Tara Reade the story.
So who is the story? “Trump allies,” and no, I am not kidding. Here’s the headline:
Trump allies highlight new claims regarding allegations against Biden
And here’s the lead:
Some allies of President Trump pointed Monday to new claims by a woman who said she was told about sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden decades ago, renewing attention to questions about the past behavior of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Apparent corroboration surfaced this week for elements of two accusations made by Biden’s former Senate aide Tara Reade, one involving harassment and the second a sexual assault. Biden has not commented on the allegations, but his campaign has denied them and pointed to his record on women’s rights and promotion of women in his offices.
Readers don’t get to the actual news until the third and fourth paragraphs:
Lynda LaCasse, who was one of Reade’s neighbors in California, where Reade moved after working for Biden, said in an interview with Business Insider published Monday that Reade told her in the mid-1990s that Biden had “put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her.” Lorraine Sanchez, a former colleague of Reade’s in the office of a California state senator, also told the news outlet that Reade told her in the mid-1990s that she “had been sexually harassed by her former boss while she was in DC and as a result of her voicing her concerns to her supervisors, she was let go, fired.” Sanchez did not recall whether Reade mentioned Biden specifically, or whether she provided further details about the allegation.
It takes readers until the second-to-last line to learn that LaCasse isn’t one of the “Trump allies” pouncing over Reade’s allegations. In fact, LaCasse “can’t stand Donald Trump,” as she told Business Insider, and still plans to vote for Biden in the general election. Given how well this parallels the Post’s feelings about Trump, it’s a wonder they didn’t make that a more prominent part of the story.
It’s true that those speaking up for Reade now only provide indirect support for her claims. None of them are “witnesses” in a direct sense, as they were not present during the alleged sexual assault. However, unlike Christine Blasey Ford, Reade’s connection to her alleged attacker has been firmly established and these women confirm that Reade has been telling this specific story since the alleged assault occurred. Therefore, it is instructive to review a few of the Washington Post’s headlines from their reporting on Blasey Ford to get a sense of their, ahem, “impartiality”:
A former sex-crimes prosecutor analyzed Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh. Here’s her take.
Kavanaugh’s testimony depended heavily on exonerations that aren’t exactly exonerating
The conservative conspiracy theory about the media and the Kavanaugh nomination has a few holes [my personal favorite!]
Silent no more, Senate’s angry Republican men roar to Kavanaugh’s defense
Republicans are giving some tortured explanations for moving ahead on Kavanaugh
Kavanaugh nomination: Judge says he is victim of ‘character assassination’ as third woman comes forward
That story reported on allegations from Julie Swetnick, repped by Michael Avenatti, which fell apart like a cheap suit but got lots and lots of media love. There are plenty more where those came from, but let’s get to this from the WaPo editorial board at the time of the Kavanaugh hearings as our finale:
Republicans first said Christine Blasey Ford should be heard. Then they insulted and ignored her.
I guess the same editors are probably patting themselves on the back for merely ignoring Reade — until it became impossible — rather than insulting her. By casting their coverage to make Reade nothing more than a pawn for Republicans rather than take her allegations seriously, however, the Post and its editors are insulting her in the same or worse manner than they accused Republicans of doing with Blasey Ford — whose allegation had no specificity as well as no contemporaneous corroboration, even indirect.
This isn’t just media bias. This is media corruption.