hotair--2020-11-28--PA state senator, retweeted by Trump, falsely claims more mail-in ballots were returned than were se

PA state senator, retweeted by Trump, falsely claims more mail-in ballots were returned than were sent out

This reminds me of the “ data analysis ” touted by Rudy Giuliani at his press conference with Sidney Powell that allegedly found many more votes cast in certain Michigan precincts than one would expect based on population .
Proof that Biden and the Democrats had rigged Michigan ’ s election after all ?
Nah .
It turned out those precincts were actually … in Minnesota .
In red-leaning areas , in fact .
In their haste to delegitimize Biden ’ s win and give Trump a face-saving claim of fraud to explain his defeat , his lawyers made an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoided with a bit of diligence .
Same goes for the tweet below from last night , which has more than 61,000 retweets 147,000 “ likes ” as I write this .
How come ?
Well , our president decided to amplify the claim not once but twice to his 88 million followers , first by retweeting it and then by tweeting it out again with a sensational accusation of fraud attached .
Whether Trump or Doug Mastriano are knowingly lying to people at this point or so intoxicated with paranoia that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim of fraud without taking two minutes to check it , we ’ ll never know .
My guess is that Mastriano ’ s a willing liar hoping to ingratiate himself to the president while Trump is operating in his usual gray zone of lunging at whatever garbage information floats past his eyeballs without caring whether it ’ s true or not .
Pause here and consider what you ’ d need to believe in order to take Mastriano ’ s claim seriously .
If 1.5 million mail-in ballots were returned but somehow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re talking about fraud to the tune of more than a million votes .
A million votes .
Mastriano presumably also believes that all or nearly all of those phony 1.1 million ballots were marked for Biden since Biden would have needed virtually all of them to overtake Trump and finish with his final margin of victory of 80,000 votes or so .
In other words , Mastriano wants us to believe that Biden received only 2.3 million legitimate votes in Pennsylvania plus the 1.1 million fraudulent votes that put him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he underperformed Hillary Clinton by 600,000 votes in the state , as she got 2.9 million in PA in 2016 .
It would also mean that Trump , who defeated Clinton in Pennsylvania by just 44,000 votes and less than a percentage point four years ago , utterly crushed Biden there this time .
Under Mastriano ’ s theory , the president won the state with something like 58 percent of the vote while Biden limped to the finish line with just 40 percent or so .
That would mean total turnout in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though turnout broke records everywhere else in America .
Does that seem plausible ?
Biden , who was born in Pennsylvania , is better liked than Hillary , and who overperformed Clinton in many other blue districts across the map , got obliterated in a purple state which Trump barely won four years ago ?
It turns out there ’ s a simpler explanation for the anomaly Mastriano identified .
The reason 2.6 million mail-in ballots were counted even though only 1.5 million mail-in ballots were returned is … Mastriano ’ s confusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There were 1.5 million mail-in ballots submitted in the Pennsylvania presidential primaries this year .
Not the general election .
Here ’ s the page : “ 2020 Primary Election Mail Ballot Requests Department of State.
” Note the word “ primary.
” Scroll down there and you ’ ll find a database of 1.82 million people who requested a mail ballot for the primary , precisely matching the number cited by Mastriano for mail-in ballots requested in the general election .
He ’ s looking at the wrong page .
As I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have caught this error .
After all , a week before the general election , the AP reported that more than three million ballots — not 1.8 million — had been mailed out to voters in Pennsylvania .
Michael McDonald , a professor at the University of Florida , was tracking mail-in ballots in all 50 states for weeks before Election Day as the state numbers were updated .
Here were his final totals for Pennsylvania : 3.1 million mail ballots requested , 2.6 million mail ballots received in the general election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” found by Mastriano is that there ’ s no discrepancy .
He was looking at the mail ballot numbers from the primary , not the general election , and spun up a completely ludicrous conspiracy theory to explain why he couldn ’ t get them to match .
It ’ s an even more embarrassing error than the Michigan/Minnesota screw-up I mentioned up top .
But it ’ s too charitable to describe it as an “ error.
” I think this is deliberate disinformation being pushed by Mastriano to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results : This tool is trying to nullify upwards of three and a half million votes for Biden by handing the state ’ s electors to Trump , apparently with the president ’ s full support : In a country less diseased than ours , their willingness to manufacture a pretense of fraud that could be debunked by a 10-year-old to justify voiding an election would render them unelectable in any future runs for office .
As it is , I assume Mastriano has his eye on running for higher office — governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that telling a brazen but pleasing lie to the president and his fans about what happened in Pennsylvania will give him a leg up in a primary .
He ’ s probably right .
Having proved his loyalty to Trump by the lengths to which he ’ s willing to go to bullsh*t the president ’ s supporters , Trump is all but guaranteed to endorse him in whatever he chooses to do next .
I ’ ll leave you with this vignette from today ’ s appearance by RNC chair Ronna McDaniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the top continues , the dicier things get for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in the upcoming Senate runoffs .

This reminds me of the “data analysis” touted by Rudy Giuliani at his press conference with Sidney Powell that allegedly found many more votes cast in certain Michigan precincts than one would expect based on population. Proof that Biden and the Democrats had rigged Michigan’s election after all? Nah. It turned out those precincts were actually … in Minnesota. In red-leaning areas, in fact. In their haste to delegitimize Biden’s win and give Trump a face-saving claim of fraud to explain his defeat, his lawyers made an error a reasonably competent eighth-grader would have avoided with a bit of diligence.
Same goes for the tweet below from last night, which has more than 61,000 retweets 147,000 “likes” as I write this. How come? Well, our president decided to amplify the claim not once but twice to his 88 million followers, first by retweeting it and then by tweeting it out again with a sensational accusation of fraud attached.
Whether Trump or Doug Mastriano are knowingly lying to people at this point or so intoxicated with paranoia that they’re willing to latch onto any claim of fraud without taking two minutes to check it, we’ll never know. My guess is that Mastriano’s a willing liar hoping to ingratiate himself to the president while Trump is operating in his usual gray zone of lunging at whatever garbage information floats past his eyeballs without caring whether it’s true or not.
This was posted on our Department of State dashboard but had since been deleted. pic.twitter.com/bDmvCK0kDB — Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) November 27, 2020
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332552283553476608
Pause here and consider what you’d need to believe in order to take Mastriano’s claim seriously. If 1.5 million mail-in ballots were returned but somehow 2.6 million mail-in ballots were counted, we’re talking about fraud to the tune of more than a million votes. A million votes. Mastriano presumably also believes that all or nearly all of those phony 1.1 million ballots were marked for Biden since Biden would have needed virtually all of them to overtake Trump and finish with his final margin of victory of 80,000 votes or so.
In other words, Mastriano wants us to believe that Biden received only 2.3 million legitimate votes in Pennsylvania plus the 1.1 million fraudulent votes that put him over the top. That would mean he underperformed Hillary Clinton by 600,000 votes in the state, as she got 2.9 million in PA in 2016. It would also mean that Trump, who defeated Clinton in Pennsylvania by just 44,000 votes and less than a percentage point four years ago, utterly crushed Biden there this time. Under Mastriano’s theory, the president won the state with something like 58 percent of the vote while Biden limped to the finish line with just 40 percent or so. That would mean total turnout in Pennsylvania *declined* this year from 2016 even though turnout broke records everywhere else in America.
Does that seem plausible? Biden, who was born in Pennsylvania, is better liked than Hillary, and who overperformed Clinton in many other blue districts across the map, got obliterated in a purple state which Trump barely won four years ago?
It turns out there’s a simpler explanation for the anomaly Mastriano identified. The reason 2.6 million mail-in ballots were counted even though only 1.5 million mail-in ballots were returned is … Mastriano’s confusing the numbers from two different elections. There were 1.5 million mail-in ballots submitted in the Pennsylvania presidential primaries this year. Not the general election.
To be really clear about it, since I’ve gotten some questions: 1.8M ballots mailed in the *primary*
1.5M ballots returned in the *primary* 2.5M ballots counted in the *general* There’s no gap between 1.5M cast and 2.5M counted. Those are from two separate elections. — Jonathan Lai 🙊 賴柏羽 (@Elaijuh) November 28, 2020
Here’s the page: “2020 Primary Election Mail Ballot Requests Department of State.” Note the word “primary.” Scroll down there and you’ll find a database of 1.82 million people who requested a mail ballot for the primary, precisely matching the number cited by Mastriano for mail-in ballots requested in the general election. He’s looking at the wrong page.
As I say, an eighth-grader capable of googling would have caught this error. After all, a week before the general election, the AP reported that more than three million ballots — not 1.8 million — had been mailed out to voters in Pennsylvania. Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida, was tracking mail-in ballots in all 50 states for weeks before Election Day as the state numbers were updated. Here were his final totals for Pennsylvania:
3.1 million mail ballots requested, 2.6 million mail ballots received in the general election. The explanation for the “discrepancy” found by Mastriano is that there’s no discrepancy. He was looking at the mail ballot numbers from the primary, not the general election, and spun up a completely ludicrous conspiracy theory to explain why he couldn’t get them to match. It’s an even more embarrassing error than the Michigan/Minnesota screw-up I mentioned up top.
But it’s too charitable to describe it as an “error.” I think this is deliberate disinformation being pushed by Mastriano to try to build grassroots support for overturning the election results:
There is mounting evidence that the PA presidential election was compromised. If this is the case, under Article II, Section 1.2 of the US Constitution, the state legislature has the sole authority to direct the manner of selecting delegates to the Electoral College. (1) — Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) November 28, 2020
Therefore, we are introducing a Resolution to exercise our obligation and authority to appoint delegates to the Electoral College. (3) — Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) November 28, 2020
This tool is trying to nullify upwards of three and a half million votes for Biden by handing the state’s electors to Trump, apparently with the president’s full support:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332713121413214208
In a country less diseased than ours, their willingness to manufacture a pretense of fraud that could be debunked by a 10-year-old to justify voiding an election would render them unelectable in any future runs for office. As it is, I assume Mastriano has his eye on running for higher office — governor, maybe? — and has calculated that telling a brazen but pleasing lie to the president and his fans about what happened in Pennsylvania will give him a leg up in a primary. He’s probably right. Having proved his loyalty to Trump by the lengths to which he’s willing to go to bullsh*t the president’s supporters, Trump is all but guaranteed to endorse him in whatever he chooses to do next.
I’ll leave you with this vignette from today’s appearance by RNC chair Ronna McDaniel in Georgia. The more the crankery from the top continues, the dicier things get for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in the upcoming Senate runoffs.
Another person asks- “Why should we vote in this election when we know it’s already decided?”
McDaniel responded- “It’s not!”
(This btw.. is the GOP’s worst nightmare in Georgia). — Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) November 28, 2020


hotair--2020-11-28--Progressive cri de coeur: Is this the "collapse of the Cuomosexual"?

He ’ s an irascible New Yorker who can ’ t abide criticism , delivers diktats in an imperious manner , and whose ego often overrules his good sense .
Thanks to his continuing meltdowns in 2020 , his party seems to be abandoning him .
No , it ’ s not that New Yorker — it ’ s Andrew Cuomo , who has gotten so bad that even The Nation has chucked him under the patchouli-powered bus .
Alexis Grenell tears into the New York governor in the pages of the venerable progressive magazine , derisively calling Cuomo “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ snarling attack dog who gaslights fellow Democrats.
” His “ Trump-style tantrum ” the day before Thanksgiving was the last straw , apparently : In the middle of one of his now Emmy Award–winning ( apparently for using “ television to inform and calm people around the world ” ) Red Room press conferences , the governor blew a gasket .
The trouble started when Jimmy Vielkind from The Wall Street Journal asked the obvious question that every New York City public school parent wanted to know : Will schools be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( years , really ) of pissing all over Mayor Bill de Blasio have naturally caused confusion over who owns this loser of a decision , compounded by the fact that the city ( 3 percent ) and state ’ s ( 2.5 percent ) data on infection rates don ’ t align .
So rather than give a straight answer , the self-described “ cool dude in a loose mood , ” threw a Trump-style tantrum .
… Cuomo undeniably offered a vision of competent , humane government at the height of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is the rest of the time .
It ’ s why he and his staff reflexively insult anyone who criticizes his handling of the pandemic or insists on returning to the normal system of democratic governance as Jefferson envisioned it .
People like the relentlessly honest Bill Hammond from the Empire Center for Public Policy , who ’ s currently suing the administration to force it to disclose the real number of Covid-related nursing home deaths ( “ yet another publicity stunt from an arm of the far-right advocacy industrial complex ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for suggesting that the governor acted against the public interest in letting his state be one of the two that grant hospitals and nursing homes broad corporate immunity ( “ politically motivated ” ) .
Or Democratic and Republican lawmakers who want to curtail the governor ’ s emergency powers after granting them in March , and return to their role as a co-equal branch of government ( “ stupid ” and “ completely political ” ) .
It all boils down to this : Any dissent is a partisan attack on our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our only hope .
To solidify the narrative , he ’ s even written a self-congratulatory book at what he calls “ half-time ” in the crisis .
Kind of like how every coach puts out a press release mid-game and Winston Churchill wrote the history of World War II in 1943 .
Oh , wait… Indeed , St. Andrew , our savior of the spring , is now milking his 15 minutes of fame for an extra 30 .
Ask the people in nursing homes about Cuomo ’ s status as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , indeed , although Grenell to her credit makes the same point now .
What , you may ask , is a “ Cuomosexual ” ?
It ’ s an identity bestowed by Hollywood on Cuomo ’ s devotees , including Trevor Noah and Ellen DeGeneres : Progressives rallied to Cuomo in the same way that conservo-populists rallied to Donald Trump in the early days of the COVID-19 crisis .
At times , they seemed to occupy the two competing poles on the crisis , which itself was deceptive as both men had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which played out on a grand scale .
For Trump , Operation Warp Speed and the travel shutdowns were the grand successes , while masks and testing were the grand failures .
For Cuomo , pushing the shutdown more quickly than Bill de Blasio was the success , while the nursing home policies — for which he ’ s still refusing accountability — was the ghastly and vast error .
Both men have insisted on taking victory laps ever since , even though the crisis is far from over .
Still , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Trumpasexual ” on the Right .
This was the media elite ’ s way of taking sides in the fight in the weirdest way possible .
They fed Cuomo ’ s ego to the point where he ’ s become the Mr. Creosote of politics , easily surpassing the exiting president as the most egotistical and imperious-minded leader in the US .
Kudos to Grenell and The Nation for declaring that the Emperor of the Empire State has no clothes , but perhaps if the Left hadn ’ t turned him into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Trump , they might have noticed that in , oh , May .
As for this being the collapse of the Cuomosexual , don ’ t bet on it — yet .
Cuomo ’ s not running for office , so there ’ s not a lot of polling on his job approval lately .
The most recent one I could dig up comes from October ’ s Ipsos survey , which shows Cuomo at 71/21 and de Blasio at 49/43 .
New Yorkers even approve of Cuomo ’ s nursing home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t release the relevant data about just how many nursing home residents died from the policies he imposed to force those facilities to readmit COVID-19 positive residents .
Maybe that will change now that the media will be forced to cover Cuomo on his own as opposed to their anti-Trump idol , but it will take a while to undo all that gaslighting from Hollywood — including that grotesque Emmy award .

He’s an irascible New Yorker who can’t abide criticism, delivers diktats in an imperious manner, and whose ego often overrules his good sense. Thanks to his continuing meltdowns in 2020, his party seems to be abandoning him. No, it’s not that New Yorker — it’s Andrew Cuomo, who has gotten so bad that even The Nation has chucked him under the patchouli-powered bus.
Alexis Grenell tears into the New York governor in the pages of the venerable progressive magazine, derisively calling Cuomo “St. Andrew of Covid” and a “snarling attack dog who gaslights fellow Democrats.” His “Trump-style tantrum” the day before Thanksgiving was the last straw, apparently:
In the middle of one of his now Emmy Award–winning (apparently for using “television to inform and calm people around the world”) Red Room press conferences, the governor blew a gasket. The trouble started when Jimmy Vielkind from The Wall Street Journal asked the obvious question that every New York City public school parent wanted to know: Will schools be open tomorrow? Cuomo’s months (years, really) of pissing all over Mayor Bill de Blasio have naturally caused confusion over who owns this loser of a decision, compounded by the fact that the city (3 percent) and state’s (2.5 percent) data on infection rates don’t align. So rather than give a straight answer, the self-described “cool dude in a loose mood,” threw a Trump-style tantrum. … Cuomo undeniably offered a vision of competent, humane government at the height of the crisis, but this is who he is the rest of the time. It’s why he and his staff reflexively insult anyone who criticizes his handling of the pandemic or insists on returning to the normal system of democratic governance as Jefferson envisioned it. People like the relentlessly honest Bill Hammond from the Empire Center for Public Policy, who’s currently suing the administration to force it to disclose the real number of Covid-related nursing home deaths (“yet another publicity stunt from an arm of the far-right advocacy industrial complex”). Or Assembly member Ron Kim for suggesting that the governor acted against the public interest in letting his state be one of the two that grant hospitals and nursing homes broad corporate immunity (“politically motivated”). Or Democratic and Republican lawmakers who want to curtail the governor’s emergency powers after granting them in March, and return to their role as a co-equal branch of government (“stupid” and “completely political”). It all boils down to this: Any dissent is a partisan attack on our very lives, and Andrew Cuomo is our only hope. To solidify the narrative, he’s even written a self-congratulatory book at what he calls “half-time” in the crisis. Kind of like how every coach puts out a press release mid-game and Winston Churchill wrote the history of World War II in 1943. Oh, wait… Indeed, St. Andrew, our savior of the spring, is now milking his 15 minutes of fame for an extra 30.
Ask the people in nursing homes about Cuomo’s status as “savior of the spring.” Oh wait, indeed, although Grenell to her credit makes the same point now.
What, you may ask, is a “Cuomosexual”? It’s an identity bestowed by Hollywood on Cuomo’s devotees, including Trevor Noah and Ellen DeGeneres:
https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow/status/1254869199224266758?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1254869199224266758%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fentertainment-arts%2Fstory%2F2020-04-28%2Fandrew-cuomo-sexual-ellen-degeneres-youtube
Progressives rallied to Cuomo in the same way that conservo-populists rallied to Donald Trump in the early days of the COVID-19 crisis. At times, they seemed to occupy the two competing poles on the crisis, which itself was deceptive as both men had initial successes and failures, all of which played out on a grand scale. For Trump, Operation Warp Speed and the travel shutdowns were the grand successes, while masks and testing were the grand failures. For Cuomo, pushing the shutdown more quickly than Bill de Blasio was the success, while the nursing home policies — for which he’s still refusing accountability — was the ghastly and vast error. Both men have insisted on taking victory laps ever since, even though the crisis is far from over.
Still, no one’s ever suggested the term “Trumpasexual” on the Right. This was the media elite’s way of taking sides in the fight in the weirdest way possible. They fed Cuomo’s ego to the point where he’s become the Mr. Creosote of politics, easily surpassing the exiting president as the most egotistical and imperious-minded leader in the US. Kudos to Grenell and The Nation for declaring that the Emperor of the Empire State has no clothes, but perhaps if the Left hadn’t turned him into a sexual idol in its passionate hatred for Trump, they might have noticed that in, oh, May.
As for this being the collapse of the Cuomosexual, don’t bet on it — yet. Cuomo’s not running for office, so there’s not a lot of polling on his job approval lately. The most recent one I could dig up comes from October’s Ipsos survey, which shows Cuomo at 71/21 and de Blasio at 49/43. New Yorkers even approve of Cuomo’s nursing home policies, 58/30, mainly because Cuomo won’t release the relevant data about just how many nursing home residents died from the policies he imposed to force those facilities to readmit COVID-19 positive residents. Maybe that will change now that the media will be forced to cover Cuomo on his own as opposed to their anti-Trump idol, but it will take a while to undo all that gaslighting from Hollywood — including that grotesque Emmy award.


hotair--2020-11-28--Clyburn: Agriculture Department too focused on white Midwestern states, needs a diversity pick as Se

Clyburn: Agriculture Department too focused on white Midwestern states, needs a diversity pick as Secretary

Rep. James Clyburn thinks American farmers need a black woman as the next Secretary of Agriculture .
He ’ s tired of white Midwestern states getting all the attention when it comes to the public ’ s perception of farmers .
It is reported that Clyburn is going to bat for Rep. Marcia Fudge to be chosen as the pick for Biden ’ s cabinet .
Who knew that this cabinet position would cause in-fighting among the Democrats ?
Clyburn , credited with saving Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign with his support for the candidate in the South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the incoming administration for more black picks .
The irony in Clyburn ’ s demand that Biden chooses Fudge is that she ’ s an Ohioan herself .
While Clyburn complains that the Midwest gets too much attention , at the expense of states with large black populations like those in the South , his choice is a Midwesterner herself .
She ticks the box for a black choice , chosen for the color of her skin , and probably for her gender , too .
Clyburn and other Democrats credit a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s win .
The shortlist of candidates under consideration for Secretary of Agriculture are reported to be Rep. Fudge , former North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp , and Tom Vilsack ( Iowa ) , who already had the job in the Obama-Biden administration .
Fudge is the progressive candidate in this group .
She ’ s a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and Clyburn says Biden needs to skip recycled choices from Obama ’ s administration .
Clyburn wants Biden to shake things up , not go with the status quo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint that has already arisen by the progressive left – Biden is too focused on more moderate choices .
Fudge is currently Chair of the Nutrition Subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee .
This isn ’ t normally a cabinet position that creates a lot of attention .
This time , though , it is seen as a proxy battle between the moderate wing of the Democrat Party and the progressive wing .
It ’ s easy to understand that Vilsack probably isn ’ t the best choice since he ’ d play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration is the third term of the Obama administration .
It will be , of course , but Biden wants you to think he is his own man and his administration will be the most progressive ever , as promised during the campaign .
The problem with that is that Joe is a status quo kind of guy , a creature of The Swamp for almost fifty years .
He is not a man to shake things up .
Remember , he was chosen by the DNC as their guy in the large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as the boring , safe choice .
Heidi Heitkamp is a moderate Democrat .
The suggestion that she be picked is giving progressives the vapors .
She is seen as too friendly to the fossil fuel industry and corporate agribusiness .
Both she and Vilsack are treading lightly as Clyburn lobbies for Fudge .
“ This is a choice that only Joe Biden can make , and he will make it understanding the unique challenges of rural America and what needs to happen in rural America moving forward , ” said Ms. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 after serving as attorney general and then senator in one of the most sparsely populated states in the country .
Recalling her campaign efforts on behalf of Mr. Biden ’ s “ great rural plan , ” Ms. Heitkamp predicted the president-elect would “ pick the person who can implement that rural plan.
” Mr. Clyburn , though , said the Agriculture Department had for too long seemed “ to favor big farming interests ” over less wealthy people , whether they be “ little farmers in Clarendon County , S.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ohio , ” Ms. Fudge ’ s hometown .
Mr. Clyburn did not mention Ms. Heitkamp , but he bridled at the prospect of Mr. Vilsack reclaiming the department he had led for all eight years of the Obama administration .
“ I don ’ t know why we ’ ve got to be recycling , ” Mr. Clyburn said , echoing complaints that Mr. Biden only represents Mr. Obama ’ s third term .
“ There ’ s a strong feeling that Black farmers didn ’ t get a fair shake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Mr. Vilsack did not respond in kind .
He said he had “ all the respect in the world for Representative Clyburn ” and that he had learned from him .
The far-left wants to use the Department of Agriculture to promote progressive policies on everything from climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to making agriculture more ‘ socially just ’ .
More than 150 far-left groups have come together to oppose Heitkamp .
In stark contrast , Heitkamp ’ s legislative record is so troubling that more than 150 groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urging Biden to withdraw her name from consideration : “ Heitkamp is the wrong choice for the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) because she has aligned herself with corporate agribusiness against small farmers , supports fossil fuel interests and holds conservative views that are out of step with the Democratic Party and the majority of Americans.
” We can not afford an old-school agriculture secretary who maintains today ’ s disastrous status quo when the job calls for a bold change agent .
Industrial farming generates at least 10 percent ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s greenhouse gas emissions , while degrading our air , water and soil resources .
We need a leader who ’ s serious about making our food system more sustainable and resilient .
The next agriculture secretary must also create real economic opportunities for small and mid-scale farmers and rural communities that have been decimated by increasing corporate concentration and control over the food system .
Heitkamp voted with Republicans to block a carbon tax bill in 2013 and helped lead an effort to lift a 40-year ban on U.S. oil exports .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies .
Clearly , she must be denied this cabinet position , if the far left has anything to say about it .
Progressive groups tout Fudge as “ a champion who has a record of taking on powerful interests in the name of ecological sustainability and social equity.
” Biden ’ s laudable goals deserve a champion who has a record of taking on powerful interests in the name of ecological sustainability and social equity .
Instead of Heitkamp , who has no record of fighting for these values , Fudge coauthored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ to protect worker , food , and animal safety at meatpacking plants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
” While Fudge has strongly defended food stamps and nutrition aid for the poor , Heitkamp voted in 2013 to kill an amendment to protect these funds by reining in corporate crop insurance subsidies .
And as Politico reported , Fudge has been a strong proponent of boosting USDA ’ s conservation programs , leading a push during the 2018 farm bill to protect water quality from agricultural runoff and improve soil health.
” Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 93 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters .
Also of great importance to Fudge ’ s far-left supporters , she would be the first African-American Secretary of Agriculture .
Above all else , Biden has made promises to minority communities and they are cashing in on that .
The party of identity politics is beholden to these activists .
Fudge ’ s nomination would be a two-fer – an African-American woman .
So far , Biden has made a point of noting his cabinet choices as historical firsts in their positions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice will likely fall into that category .

Rep. James Clyburn thinks American farmers need a black woman as the next Secretary of Agriculture. He’s tired of white Midwestern states getting all the attention when it comes to the public’s perception of farmers. It is reported that Clyburn is going to bat for Rep. Marcia Fudge to be chosen as the pick for Biden’s cabinet.
Who knew that this cabinet position would cause in-fighting among the Democrats? Clyburn, credited with saving Joe Biden’s presidential campaign with his support for the candidate in the South Carolina primary race, is putting pressure on the incoming administration for more black picks. The irony in Clyburn’s demand that Biden chooses Fudge is that she’s an Ohioan herself. While Clyburn complains that the Midwest gets too much attention, at the expense of states with large black populations like those in the South, his choice is a Midwesterner herself. She ticks the box for a black choice, chosen for the color of her skin, and probably for her gender, too. Clyburn and other Democrats credit a large turn-out of African-American women voters for Biden’s win.
The shortlist of candidates under consideration for Secretary of Agriculture are reported to be Rep. Fudge, former North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, and Tom Vilsack (Iowa), who already had the job in the Obama-Biden administration. Fudge is the progressive candidate in this group. She’s a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and Clyburn says Biden needs to skip recycled choices from Obama’s administration. Clyburn wants Biden to shake things up, not go with the status quo type of choice. That is a complaint that has already arisen by the progressive left – Biden is too focused on more moderate choices. Fudge is currently Chair of the Nutrition Subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee.
“I feel very strongly,” Mr. Clyburn said in an interview on Wednesday about Ms. Fudge, who leads the nutrition and oversight subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee. “It’s time for Democrats to treat the Department of Agriculture as the kind of department it purports to be,” he added, noting that much of the budget “deals with consumer issues and nutrition and things that affect people’s day-to-day lives.”
This isn’t normally a cabinet position that creates a lot of attention. This time, though, it is seen as a proxy battle between the moderate wing of the Democrat Party and the progressive wing. It’s easy to understand that Vilsack probably isn’t the best choice since he’d play into the criticism that Biden’s administration is the third term of the Obama administration. It will be, of course, but Biden wants you to think he is his own man and his administration will be the most progressive ever, as promised during the campaign. The problem with that is that Joe is a status quo kind of guy, a creature of The Swamp for almost fifty years. He is not a man to shake things up. Remember, he was chosen by the DNC as their guy in the large Democrat field in 2019 because he was seen as the boring, safe choice.
Heidi Heitkamp is a moderate Democrat. The suggestion that she be picked is giving progressives the vapors. She is seen as too friendly to the fossil fuel industry and corporate agribusiness. Both she and Vilsack are treading lightly as Clyburn lobbies for Fudge.
“This is a choice that only Joe Biden can make, and he will make it understanding the unique challenges of rural America and what needs to happen in rural America moving forward,” said Ms. Heitkamp, a moderate who was defeated in 2018 after serving as attorney general and then senator in one of the most sparsely populated states in the country. Recalling her campaign efforts on behalf of Mr. Biden’s “great rural plan,” Ms. Heitkamp predicted the president-elect would “pick the person who can implement that rural plan.” Mr. Clyburn, though, said the Agriculture Department had for too long seemed “to favor big farming interests” over less wealthy people, whether they be “little farmers in Clarendon County, S.C., or food stamp recipients in Cleveland, Ohio,” Ms. Fudge’s hometown. Mr. Clyburn did not mention Ms. Heitkamp, but he bridled at the prospect of Mr. Vilsack reclaiming the department he had led for all eight years of the Obama administration. “I don’t know why we’ve got to be recycling,” Mr. Clyburn said, echoing complaints that Mr. Biden only represents Mr. Obama’s third term. “There’s a strong feeling that Black farmers didn’t get a fair shake” under Mr. Vilsack, Mr. Clyburn said. Mr. Vilsack did not respond in kind. He said he had “all the respect in the world for Representative Clyburn” and that he had learned from him.
The far-left wants to use the Department of Agriculture to promote progressive policies on everything from climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to making agriculture more ‘socially just’. More than 150 far-left groups have come together to oppose Heitkamp.
In stark contrast, Heitkamp’s legislative record is so troubling that more than 150 groups across the nation have signed a letter urging Biden to withdraw her name from consideration: “Heitkamp is the wrong choice for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because she has aligned herself with corporate agribusiness against small farmers, supports fossil fuel interests and holds conservative views that are out of step with the Democratic Party and the majority of Americans.” We cannot afford an old-school agriculture secretary who maintains today’s disastrous status quo when the job calls for a bold change agent. Industrial farming generates at least 10 percent (likely more) of this country’s greenhouse gas emissions, while degrading our air, water and soil resources. We need a leader who’s serious about making our food system more sustainable and resilient. The next agriculture secretary must also create real economic opportunities for small and mid-scale farmers and rural communities that have been decimated by increasing corporate concentration and control over the food system.
Heitkamp voted with Republicans to block a carbon tax bill in 2013 and helped lead an effort to lift a 40-year ban on U.S. oil exports. She took campaign donations from fossil fuel companies. Clearly, she must be denied this cabinet position, if the far left has anything to say about it. Progressive groups tout Fudge as “a champion who has a record of taking on powerful interests in the name of ecological sustainability and social equity.”
Biden’s laudable goals deserve a champion who has a record of taking on powerful interests in the name of ecological sustainability and social equity. Instead of Heitkamp, who has no record of fighting for these values, Fudge coauthored the Safe Line Speeds in COVID-19 Act, “to protect worker, food, and animal safety at meatpacking plants during the COVID-19 pandemic.” While Fudge has strongly defended food stamps and nutrition aid for the poor, Heitkamp voted in 2013 to kill an amendment to protect these funds by reining in corporate crop insurance subsidies. And as Politico reported, Fudge has been a strong proponent of boosting USDA’s conservation programs, leading a push during the 2018 farm bill to protect water quality from agricultural runoff and improve soil health.” Her strong environmental record has earned her a 93 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters.
Also of great importance to Fudge’s far-left supporters, she would be the first African-American Secretary of Agriculture. Above all else, Biden has made promises to minority communities and they are cashing in on that. The party of identity politics is beholden to these activists. Fudge’s nomination would be a two-fer – an African-American woman. So far, Biden has made a point of noting his cabinet choices as historical firsts in their positions, if they are confirmed. This choice will likely fall into that category.


hotair--2020-11-28--Hmmm: PA judge's stay order on certification argues mail-in ballots challenge "a viable claim"; <spa

Hmmm: PA judge's stay order on certification argues mail-in ballots challenge "a viable claim"; Update: Laches doctrine in play?

A glimmer of hope for Donald Trump et al , or yet another oncoming train ?
The judge who ordered Pennsylvania to halt its election certification processes on Wednesday filed an opinion backing up the action yesterday .
Judge Patricia McCullough argued that the plaintiffs ’ argument that mass mail-in voting violates the state constitution is “ viable , ” and that a short delay won ’ t hurt while courts sort out the challenge .
The case has been somewhat under the radar , because it doesn ’ t involve claims of fraud .
It appears to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief .
The issue in this case is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution .
It ’ s not clear what the relief would be ; the petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections .
Earlier in the week , Judge Patricia McCollough issued a temporary halt to the certification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal to the PA Supreme Court .
The Judge issued this Opinion to extend that halt pending further hearings , and to set forth the basis for the injunction , which could be relevant to the appeal [ . ]
This might already be a moot point , as the stay ordered by Judge McCullough on Wednesday has apparently been eclipsed by an automatic counter-stay at the Pennsylvania supreme court .
This case hasn ’ t received a lot of attention , but the Washington Post did cover it Wednesday evening after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That touched off an automatic stay of the stay , it seems : Republicans faced another procedural setback in a Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to invalidate more than 2.5 million votes , as a temporary order blocking further certification of election results was stayed on appeal from state officials who had already formalized President-elect Joe Biden ’ s win the day before .
… In the Pennsylvania case , Republican plaintiffs are retroactively challenging the state ’ s mail-voting system , calling into question virtually every contest that took place there on Nov. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unprecedented step of voiding election results across the state .
On Wednesday morning , Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia A. McCullough , who was elected as a Republican in 2009 , placed a hold on the certification process for down-ballot races pending an evidentiary hearing .
State officials appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later Wednesday , which triggered an automatic stay of McCullough ’ s order .
They then asked the state high court to step in and dismiss the case altogether .
“ The Commonwealth Court ’ s Order threatens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 general election ; foreclose the seating of elected representatives ; indefinitely postpone the December 1 start of the General Assembly ’ s term ; undermine the will of the voters ; and cast a wholly unwarranted cloud over Pennsylvania ’ s election results , ” lawyers for the state wrote in a filing .
McCullough ’ s thirteen-page order serves as a response of sorts to that appeal and dismissal motion .
In her memorandum opinion ( published by Jacobson ) , McCullough argued that plaintiffs have “ a viable claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed for mass mail-in balloting violates the state constitution .
McCullough believes they have a “ likelihood to succeed ” in proving that claim , too : As long as this gets resolved before the Safe Harbor deadline of December 8 , McCullough notes , then no one suffers any harm with a stay .
If certification proceeds and relief is then required , McCullough argues , then irreparable harm will have been done to the plaintiffs — none of whom , we should note , are Donald Trump or his campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this isn ’ t a ruling on the merits .
It ’ s a defense of McCullough ’ s decision to issue the stay on certification , intended to set a marker for the appeal to the state supreme court .
They will need that as a record for their hearing , presumably to take place in the next couple of days .
Even if the plaintiffs succeed on the merits , McCullough ’ s not sure what the remedy would be .
She seems to lean toward Trump ’ s favored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That being said , this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election .
Specifically , Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College .
However , as noted , the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8 , the “ Federal Safe Harbor ” date for certifying results for presidential electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred , if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method , as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77 .
However , this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair and free election .
Hence , Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief , than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election .
McCullough seems to be hinting that the legislature might well end up picking the electors .
That will no doubt raise some eyebrows at the state supreme court , and might make them even more likely to dispose of this case rather than leaving it with McCullough .
If so , that would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a good argument about the unconstitutionality of the mass mail-in process .
However , they have a bigger problem that is likely to leave them without immediate remedy — the fact that they waited over a year to challenge it .
The state legislature authorized this system on Halloween 2019 ( pre-pandemic ! )
, giving those who truly objected on the basis of constitutional insult many months to sue before Pennsylvania voters relied on that process , emphasis mine : McCullough might not consider this an issue , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To succeed in a challenge like this , especially when seeking such a drastic remedy , plaintiffs have to challenge a violation immediately .
In this case , it looks very much like the plaintiffs didn ’ t formally object by suing the state until it appeared that they lost .
By delaying their challenge in that manner , the plaintiffs participated in the system to which they now object — and allowed Pennsylvania voters to rely on that system to cast their ballots .
It ’ s a little late for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either throwing out their mail-in ballots , or by the even more extraordinary remedy of throwing out everyone ’ s ballots and handing the power to select electors to the legislature rather than the people .
The best remedy available now would probably be revoking the authority to conduct mass mail-in voting .
That would be valuable in itself , as mass mail-in voting is very problematic and hardly the best method of ensuring votes succeed .
It seems very doubtful that even McCullough would order any other relief , let alone the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where any order to invalidate mass numbers of ballots or ignore election results will get immediate and highly skeptical attention .
Update : The “ laches ” doctrine may well apply in this case .
Having raised no objection before the election , the plaintiffs have participated in the alleged violation , which would impact their standing to demand relief : In this case , however , there is still the continuing question of whether to allow such ballot processes in the future absent an amendment to the state constitution .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjudicated , but not with the remedies sought by the plaintiffs or envisioned by McCullough .
Update : Also in regard to the laches doctrine , don ’ t forget that Pennsylvania also used this system in its June 2 primary .
Allahpundit touches on that in another context in an upcoming post , but 1.5 million Pennsylvania voters used mail-in ballots in the June contest ( 1.82 million requested such ballots ) .
Why didn ’ t these plaintiffs object before the primary ?
And why didn ’ t they object immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice in the system to which they now object , which may not impact its constitutionality but will almost certainly impact the remedy a court would be willing to provide even in a successful challenge .
Update : A Twitter follower wondered whether the laches doctrine has ever been used in an issue of constitutionality .
Indeed it has — and in fact , on election matters to boot .
In 2012 , several Republican presidential candidates sued Virginia over their exclusion from the primary ballot , arguing that the residency requirement for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although both the district court and the Fourth Circuit felt that challenge was otherwise viable , they threw the case out on the basis that the plaintiffs had waited too long in the process to challenge the constitutionality of that law : We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in denying this motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis of the equitable doctrine of laches .
It is too late in the day to grant Movant ’ s requested emergency relief upon appeal .
We do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Movant ’ s constitutional challenge to Virginia ’ s circulator residency requirement because as the district court noted , “ a decision on laches resolves the motion ” due to the fact that it operates as an affirmative defense .
For even if we assumed for purposes of argument that the residency requirement violated the First Amendment , laches would still preclude us from granting the emergency relief that Movant seeks .
For the reasons expressed herein , the court denies Movant ’ s request for an injunction ordering respondents either to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to refrain from printing or mailing ballots until the conclusion of these proceedings .
This case , Perry et al v Virginia Board of Electors , took place in another federal circuit , so it doesn ’ t have explicit precedential weight in Pennsylvania .
Nonetheless , courts in Pennsylvania will no doubt be reminded of this , especially since the plaintiffs in this case had a full year and an intervening exercise of this system to raise their objections .
Worth noting : Allahpundit wrote about this decision at the time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applied in a constitutional issue .
It will be fascinating to see whether it plays out in this case , and how .

A glimmer of hope for Donald Trump et al, or yet another oncoming train? The judge who ordered Pennsylvania to halt its election certification processes on Wednesday filed an opinion backing up the action yesterday. Judge Patricia McCullough argued that the plaintiffs’ argument that mass mail-in voting violates the state constitution is “viable,” and that a short delay won’t hurt while courts sort out the challenge.
Legal Insurrection’s William Jacobson reports on the filing:
The case has been somewhat under the radar, because it doesn’t involve claims of fraud. It appears to be a pretty straight legal argument. This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief. The issue in this case is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. It’s not clear what the relief would be; the petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the electoral college selections. Earlier in the week, Judge Patricia McCollough issued a temporary halt to the certification process, and that now is on appeal to the PA Supreme Court. The Judge issued this Opinion to extend that halt pending further hearings, and to set forth the basis for the injunction, which could be relevant to the appeal[.]
This might already be a moot point, as the stay ordered by Judge McCullough on Wednesday has apparently been eclipsed by an automatic counter-stay at the Pennsylvania supreme court. This case hasn’t received a lot of attention, but the Washington Post did cover it Wednesday evening after the state immediately appealed McCullough’s decision. That touched off an automatic stay of the stay, it seems:
Republicans faced another procedural setback in a Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to invalidate more than 2.5 million votes, as a temporary order blocking further certification of election results was stayed on appeal from state officials who had already formalized President-elect Joe Biden’s win the day before. … In the Pennsylvania case, Republican plaintiffs are retroactively challenging the state’s mail-voting system, calling into question virtually every contest that took place there on Nov. 3 and asking for judges to take the unprecedented step of voiding election results across the state. On Wednesday morning, Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia A. McCullough, who was elected as a Republican in 2009, placed a hold on the certification process for down-ballot races pending an evidentiary hearing. State officials appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court later Wednesday, which triggered an automatic stay of McCullough’s order. They then asked the state high court to step in and dismiss the case altogether. “The Commonwealth Court’s Order threatens to disrupt the certification of every race in the 2020 general election; foreclose the seating of elected representatives; indefinitely postpone the December 1 start of the General Assembly’s term; undermine the will of the voters; and cast a wholly unwarranted cloud over Pennsylvania’s election results,” lawyers for the state wrote in a filing.
McCullough’s thirteen-page order serves as a response of sorts to that appeal and dismissal motion. In her memorandum opinion (published by Jacobson), McCullough argued that plaintiffs have “a viable claim” that the October 2019 law that allowed for mass mail-in balloting violates the state constitution. McCullough believes they have a “likelihood to succeed” in proving that claim, too:
Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.
As long as this gets resolved before the Safe Harbor deadline of December 8, McCullough notes, then no one suffers any harm with a stay. If certification proceeds and relief is then required, McCullough argues, then irreparable harm will have been done to the plaintiffs — none of whom, we should note, are Donald Trump or his campaign.
However, as Prof. Jacobson points out, this isn’t a ruling on the merits. It’s a defense of McCullough’s decision to issue the stay on certification, intended to set a marker for the appeal to the state supreme court. They will need that as a record for their hearing, presumably to take place in the next couple of days.
Even if the plaintiffs succeed on the merits, McCullough’s not sure what the remedy would be. She seems to lean toward Trump’s favored option, emphases in the original:
That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors. The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.
McCullough seems to be hinting that the legislature might well end up picking the electors. That will no doubt raise some eyebrows at the state supreme court, and might make them even more likely to dispose of this case rather than leaving it with McCullough.
If so, that would be a shame, because the petitioners do seem to have a good argument about the unconstitutionality of the mass mail-in process. However, they have a bigger problem that is likely to leave them without immediate remedy — the fact that they waited over a year to challenge it. The state legislature authorized this system on Halloween 2019 (pre-pandemic!), giving those who truly objected on the basis of constitutional insult many months to sue before Pennsylvania voters relied on that process, emphasis mine:
In the Petition, Petitioners allege that the Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77 (Act 77), which added and amended various absentee and mail-in voting provisions in the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code),1 is unconstitutional and void ab initio because it purportedly contravenes the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Petitioners allege that Article VII, section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides two exclusive mechanisms by which a qualified elector may cast his or her vote in an election: (1) by submitting his or her vote in propria persona at the polling place on election day; and (2) by submitting an absentee ballot, but only if the qualified voter satisfies the conditions precedent to meet the requirements of one of the four, limited exclusive circumstances under which absentee voting is authorized under the Pennsylvania constitution. (Petition, ¶16.) Petitioners allege that mail-in voting in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal, no-excuse, mail-in voting absent any constitutional authority.
McCullough might not consider this an issue, but the state supreme court most certainly will. To succeed in a challenge like this, especially when seeking such a drastic remedy, plaintiffs have to challenge a violation immediately. In this case, it looks very much like the plaintiffs didn’t formally object by suing the state until it appeared that they lost. By delaying their challenge in that manner, the plaintiffs participated in the system to which they now object — and allowed Pennsylvania voters to rely on that system to cast their ballots. It’s a little late for a relief that unjustly penalizes those voters by either throwing out their mail-in ballots, or by the even more extraordinary remedy of throwing out everyone’s ballots and handing the power to select electors to the legislature rather than the people.
The best remedy available now would probably be revoking the authority to conduct mass mail-in voting. That would be valuable in itself, as mass mail-in voting is very problematic and hardly the best method of ensuring votes succeed. It seems very doubtful that even McCullough would order any other relief, let alone the state supreme court or the federal courts, where any order to invalidate mass numbers of ballots or ignore election results will get immediate and highly skeptical attention.
Update: The “laches” doctrine may well apply in this case. Having raised no objection before the election, the plaintiffs have participated in the alleged violation, which would impact their standing to demand relief:
The theory behind allowing the defense is that the law shouldn’t aid those who “sleep on their rights”. For a defense of laches to succeed, it must be proven that the party invoking the doctrine has changed its position as a result of the delay, resulting in being in a worse position now than at the time the claim should have been brought. For example, the delay in bringing the claim may have caused much larger potential damages to be awarded; the ability to pay the claim is lacking due to assets being otherwise used in the meantime; the property sought to be recovered has already been sold; or evidence or testimony may no longer be available to defend against the claim.
In this case, however, there is still the continuing question of whether to allow such ballot processes in the future absent an amendment to the state constitution. For that reason, the case should be adjudicated, but not with the remedies sought by the plaintiffs or envisioned by McCullough.
Update: Also in regard to the laches doctrine, don’t forget that Pennsylvania also used this system in its June 2 primary. Allahpundit touches on that in another context in an upcoming post, but 1.5 million Pennsylvania voters used mail-in ballots in the June contest (1.82 million requested such ballots). Why didn’t these plaintiffs object before the primary? And why didn’t they object immediately after the primary? They instead participated twice in the system to which they now object, which may not impact its constitutionality but will almost certainly impact the remedy a court would be willing to provide even in a successful challenge.
Update: A Twitter follower wondered whether the laches doctrine has ever been used in an issue of constitutionality. Indeed it has — and in fact, on election matters to boot. In 2012, several Republican presidential candidates sued Virginia over their exclusion from the primary ballot, arguing that the residency requirement for petition circulators violated the First Amendment. Although both the district court and the Fourth Circuit felt that challenge was otherwise viable, they threw the case out on the basis that the plaintiffs had waited too long in the process to challenge the constitutionality of that law:
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in denying this motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis of the equitable doctrine of laches. It is too late in the day to grant Movant’s requested emergency relief upon appeal. We do not address in any fashion the merits of Movant’s constitutional challenge to Virginia’s circulator residency requirement because as the district court noted, “a decision on laches resolves the motion” due to the fact that it operates as an affirmative defense. For even if we assumed for purposes of argument that the residency requirement violated the First Amendment, laches would still preclude us from granting the emergency relief that Movant seeks. For the reasons expressed herein, the court denies Movant’s request for an injunction ordering respondents either to place his name on the ballot or to refrain from printing or mailing ballots until the conclusion of these proceedings.
This case, Perry et al v Virginia Board of Electors, took place in another federal circuit, so it doesn’t have explicit precedential weight in Pennsylvania. Nonetheless, courts in Pennsylvania will no doubt be reminded of this, especially since the plaintiffs in this case had a full year and an intervening exercise of this system to raise their objections.
Worth noting: Allahpundit wrote about this decision at the time, and was somewhat surprised to see laches applied in a constitutional issue. It will be fascinating to see whether it plays out in this case, and how.


hotair--2020-11-28--New stay at home order issued for Los Angeles County as coronavirus cases surge

Los Angeles County is under a new stay at home order issued by the L.A. County Department of Public Health .
The order goes into effect on Monday and will last for three weeks , until Dec. 20 .
Perhaps if all goes well , Santa Claus will be allowed to make his deliveries on Christmas Eve .
There is a new spike in coronavirus cases in Los Angeles County which has caused the county to take action .
An increase in hospitalizations is causing local authorities to sound the alarm .
On Friday , Public Health confirmed 24 new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Currently , the five-day average of new cases is 4,751 .
Since that number exceeds 4500 new cases , the latest order kicks in to try to mitigate the spread of the virus .
For perspective , there are 1,893 people with COVID-19 currently hospitalized in the county and 24 % of these people are in the ICU .
On October 27 , one month ago , there were 747 people hospitalized with COVID-19 .
On November 17 , Los Angeles County established thresholds for additional actions if the five-day average of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more than 2,000 per day .
A new Health Officer Order would be issued for three weeks that offered additional safety modifications while allowing essential and emergency workers and those securing or providing essential and permitted services to leave their homes .
In the new Order that goes into effect on Monday , residents are advised to stay home as much as possible and always wear a face covering over their nose and mouth when they are outside their household and around others .
The order tells people to stay home as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , breweries , and wineries remain closed for in-person dining and drinking because customers don ’ t wear face masks , and the risk of transmission of the virus increases .
Restaurants , wineries , and breweries are allowed to continue to stay open for delivery , pick-up , and take-out services .
Breweries and wineries can remain open for retail sales at 20 % occupancy .
Public Health reminds everyone to stay home as much as possible and avoid seeing people you don ’ t live with , even if you don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also reminded to wear a face covering over their nose and mouth whenever they are outside their home and around others , as COVID-19 can be unintentionally spread to other people .
We can also reduce transmission by keeping a physical distance of at least 6-feet when outside and around others .
Taking these simple safety precautions , in addition to washing your hands frequently , will save lives .
Additionally , it is very important that if you are even mildly sick or think you were exposed to someone with COVID-19 that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , especially those at greater risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 and consider being tested for COVID-19 .
To date , Public Health identified 387,793 positive cases of COVID-19 across all areas of L.A. County and a total of 7,604 deaths .
Testing results are available for more than 3,681,714 individuals with 10 % of all people testing positive .
“ To those who recently lost loved ones from COVID-19 , we send you wishes for healing and peace , ” said Barbara Ferrer , PhD , MPH , MEd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recent surge of COVID-19 across our community , we must take additional safety measures to reduce the risk of illness and death from this terrible virus and protect our healthcare system .
These targeted measures are in effect for the next three weeks and still allow for many essential and non-essential activities where residents are always masked and distanced .
We know we are asking a lot from so many who have been sacrificing for months on end and we hope that L.A. County residents continue following Public Health safety measures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Acting with collective urgency right now is essential if we want to put a stop to this surge .
Please remain home as much as possible and do not gather with others not in your household for the next three weeks.
” It sounds so simple , right ?
Just hunker down for three weeks and then the county officials will allow you to go back to a more normal life , maybe .
This all assumes , of course , that small businesses like the neighborhood bar or your favorite restaurant in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain financially viable for another mandatory closure .
Will they be able to reopen when the government allows them to do so ?
And , employees will be laid off from their jobs .
There are to be no private gatherings that do not involve members of your immediate household .
The only public gatherings allowed are in churches and for protests .
It ’ s 2020 and protests are considered essential activities , just like church services .
It is hard to avoid rolling my eyes over that reality .
Those two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights ” in the statement issued by the L.A. County Department of Public Health .
Occupancy rate mandates and other restrictions are as arbitrary as those in other cities and counties across the country .
Fortunately for the sake of the children , schools will remain open as will day camps .
The Public Health director issued a statement acknowledging the hardship she is placing on those living in the county .
She sounds like public officials sounded like when lockdowns first began at the beginning of the pandemic .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is flattened , they said .
So we did and it was but here we are again .
It ’ s a vicious cycle – cases are reported , hospitalizations increase , medical professionals sound the alarm , and another period of shutdowns begins .
There has not been herd immunity established and the cycle will continue until everyone is vaccinated when the vaccines become available .
“ We know we are asking a lot from so many who have been sacrificing for months on end and we hope that L.A. County residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know can slow the spread , ” Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said .
“ Acting with collective urgency right now is essential if we want to put a stop to this surge .
Please remain home as much as possible and do not gather with others not in your household for the next three weeks.
” Public health officials are concerned that the Thanksgiving holiday weekend will be a superspreader time period around the country .
There ’ s no doubt this weighed into L.A. County ’ s decision to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Good luck to the small businesses barely hanging on right now .

Los Angeles County is under a new stay at home order issued by the L.A. County Department of Public Health. The order goes into effect on Monday and will last for three weeks, until Dec. 20. Perhaps if all goes well, Santa Claus will be allowed to make his deliveries on Christmas Eve.
There is a new spike in coronavirus cases in Los Angeles County which has caused the county to take action. An increase in hospitalizations is causing local authorities to sound the alarm. On Friday, Public Health confirmed 24 new deaths and 4,544 new cases of COVID-19. Currently, the five-day average of new cases is 4,751. Since that number exceeds 4500 new cases, the latest order kicks in to try to mitigate the spread of the virus. For perspective, there are 1,893 people with COVID-19 currently hospitalized in the county and 24% of these people are in the ICU. On October 27, one month ago, there were 747 people hospitalized with COVID-19.
On November 17, Los Angeles County established thresholds for additional actions if the five-day average of cases is 4,500 or more or hospitalizations are more than 2,000 per day. A new Health Officer Order would be issued for three weeks that offered additional safety modifications while allowing essential and emergency workers and those securing or providing essential and permitted services to leave their homes. In the new Order that goes into effect on Monday, residents are advised to stay home as much as possible and always wear a face covering over their nose and mouth when they are outside their household and around others.
The order tells people to stay home as much as possible. Restaurants, bars, breweries, and wineries remain closed for in-person dining and drinking because customers don’t wear face masks, and the risk of transmission of the virus increases. Restaurants, wineries, and breweries are allowed to continue to stay open for delivery, pick-up, and take-out services. Breweries and wineries can remain open for retail sales at 20% occupancy.
Public Health reminds everyone to stay home as much as possible and avoid seeing people you don’t live with, even if you don’t feel sick. Residents are also reminded to wear a face covering over their nose and mouth whenever they are outside their home and around others, as COVID-19 can be unintentionally spread to other people. We can also reduce transmission by keeping a physical distance of at least 6-feet when outside and around others. Taking these simple safety precautions, in addition to washing your hands frequently, will save lives. Additionally, it is very important that if you are even mildly sick or think you were exposed to someone with COVID-19 that you stay home and away from other people, especially those at greater risk of becoming seriously ill from COVID-19 and consider being tested for COVID-19. To date, Public Health identified 387,793 positive cases of COVID-19 across all areas of L.A. County and a total of 7,604 deaths. Testing results are available for more than 3,681,714 individuals with 10% of all people testing positive. “To those who recently lost loved ones from COVID-19, we send you wishes for healing and peace,” said Barbara Ferrer, PhD, MPH, MEd, Director of Public Health. “With the recent surge of COVID-19 across our community, we must take additional safety measures to reduce the risk of illness and death from this terrible virus and protect our healthcare system. These targeted measures are in effect for the next three weeks and still allow for many essential and non-essential activities where residents are always masked and distanced. We know we are asking a lot from so many who have been sacrificing for months on end and we hope that L.A. County residents continue following Public Health safety measures that we know can slow the spread. Acting with collective urgency right now is essential if we want to put a stop to this surge. Please remain home as much as possible and do not gather with others not in your household for the next three weeks.”
It sounds so simple, right? Just hunker down for three weeks and then the county officials will allow you to go back to a more normal life, maybe. This all assumes, of course, that small businesses like the neighborhood bar or your favorite restaurant in your suburb’s strip mall can remain financially viable for another mandatory closure. Will they be able to reopen when the government allows them to do so? And, employees will be laid off from their jobs.
There are to be no private gatherings that do not involve members of your immediate household. The only public gatherings allowed are in churches and for protests. It’s 2020 and protests are considered essential activities, just like church services. It is hard to avoid rolling my eyes over that reality. Those two exceptions are labeled as “constitutionally protected rights” in the statement issued by the L.A. County Department of Public Health.
Occupancy rate mandates and other restrictions are as arbitrary as those in other cities and counties across the country.
Occupancy limits were issued for various businesses. Fitness centers, museums, galleries and zoos can operate at a 50 percent maximum occupancy. Essential retail can remain open at 35 percent capacity, compared to 20 percent occupancy for non-essential retail including indoor malls. Nail salons and personal care services must remain below 20 percent occupancy. Public playgrounds will be closed but beaches, trails, and parks will remain open.
Fortunately for the sake of the children, schools will remain open as will day camps. The Public Health director issued a statement acknowledging the hardship she is placing on those living in the county. She sounds like public officials sounded like when lockdowns first began at the beginning of the pandemic. Let’s just all stay home until the curve is flattened, they said. So we did and it was but here we are again. It’s a vicious cycle – cases are reported, hospitalizations increase, medical professionals sound the alarm, and another period of shutdowns begins. There has not been herd immunity established and the cycle will continue until everyone is vaccinated when the vaccines become available.
“We know we are asking a lot from so many who have been sacrificing for months on end and we hope that L.A. County residents continue following public health safety measures that we know can slow the spread,” Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer said. “Acting with collective urgency right now is essential if we want to put a stop to this surge. Please remain home as much as possible and do not gather with others not in your household for the next three weeks.”
Public health officials are concerned that the Thanksgiving holiday weekend will be a superspreader time period around the country. There’s no doubt this weighed into L.A. County’s decision to go ahead and lock its residents down now. Good luck to the small businesses barely hanging on right now.


hotair--2020-11-27--U.S. women's soccer team is back and they are sporting a BLM message

A 2019 World Cup final rematch is scheduled on Friday between the U.S. women ’ s soccer team and the Netherlands team .
It is the first match the U.S. women ’ s soccer team will play in more than 200 days .
The coronavirus pandemic shut down the team ’ s international competition .
Also returning is the team ’ s commitment to being social justice activists .
Just like other professional sports teams , they will show their support for Black Lives Matter by wearing it on their clothing .
The Black Lives Matter slogan will be on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warm-up jackets have been made with the slogan on the front for each team member .
The jackets are intended to send a message as the team goes out onto the field .
We wear Black Lives Matter to affirm human decency .
This is not political , it ’ s a statement on human rights .
As a team , we work towards a society where the American ideals are upheld , and Black lives are no longer systemically targeted .
We collectively acknowledge injustice , as that is the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To honor the words of the great John Lewis : “ When you see something that is not right , not fair , not just , say something , do something , get in trouble , good trouble , necessary trouble !
” The message isn ’ t meant to be a political one , you know , but the press release quotes and honors the words of a Democrat politician .
One of the team players released a message on social media .
She says it is the team ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is no word from the team ’ s management , though , on whether or not that duty is written into each player ’ s contract .
Professional athletes are no longer only athletes , they are political activists .
You would think that shrinking ratings of games would wake the woke players but not so far .
“ We love our country , and it is a true honor to represent America .
It is also our duty to demand that the liberties and freedoms that our country was founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement read .
“ Today , we wear Black Lives Matter to affirm human decency .
We protest against racial injustice and police brutality against Black people .
We protest against the racist infrastructures that do not provide equal opportunity for black and brown people to fulfill their dreams , including playing on this team .
“ As the United States Women ’ s National team players , we collectively work toward a society where the American ideas are upheld , and Black lives are no longer systematically targeted .
Last June , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to repeal their policy of requiring the women players to stand during the National Anthem .
It caved to pressure after the death of George Floyd and the protests/riots that followed .
The 23-player roster includes 14 players who currently play in the National Women ’ s Soccer League , seven who are playing in Europe and two college players .
Lindsey Horan of the NWSL ’ s Portland Thorns tested positive for COVID-19 and was replaced by Jaelin Howell , who plays for Florida State and became the second college player on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catarina Macario ) .
USWNT coach Vlatko Andonovski , who replaced two-time World Cup-winning coach Jill Ellis , has won each of his first 10 games at the helm , tying a record for best start as U.S. women ’ s national team head coach .
I ’ ll note here that it looks like the women who are all about social justice issues , including gender issues , are coached by a man now .
Now Jill Ellis , who stepped down as head coach in October 2019 after the World Cup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States Soccer Federation , overseeing the national youth teams development program .
That ’ s an interesting twist .
The women are not the only soccer players allowed to kneel and wear their social justice messages on their clothing .
The U.S. Soccer Federation supported the men players wearing an assortment of messages on the back of their warm-up jackets before a match with Wales a couple of weeks ago .
They also participated in a bit of theatre – a walkout before the game began .
The players wore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in blue on red backgrounds , and several others wore individual messages on the back of them .
Some of the phrases included : “ Stop Racism , ” “ Believe to Achieve , ” “ Unite in Truth , ” “ Spread Love Not Hate , ” “ Black Lives Matter ” and “ For Social Justice.
” “ During the walkout and anthem in advance of the match against Wales today , the U.S. men ’ s national team players took advantage of the moment to send and spread a meaningful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in a statement .
“ With the goal of inspiring action on social justice issues , all of the players had ‘ Be the Change ’ adorned on the front of their anthem jackets .
The spirit of their message is that each and every person has the ability , opportunity and responsibility to make a difference in our own way.
” The men ’ s coach , Gregg Berhalter , says he is proud of the players .
The men ’ s game against Wales ended in a draw .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the various messages worn by the players HERE .

A 2019 World Cup final rematch is scheduled on Friday between the U.S. women’s soccer team and the Netherlands team. It is the first match the U.S. women’s soccer team will play in more than 200 days. The coronavirus pandemic shut down the team’s international competition. Also returning is the team’s commitment to being social justice activists. Just like other professional sports teams, they will show their support for Black Lives Matter by wearing it on their clothing.
The Black Lives Matter slogan will be on their warm-up clothing worn before the game. Warm-up jackets have been made with the slogan on the front for each team member. The jackets are intended to send a message as the team goes out onto the field.
We wear Black Lives Matter to affirm human decency. This is not political, it’s a statement on human rights. pic.twitter.com/QHDAx4iv7k — U.S. Soccer WNT (@USWNT) November 27, 2020
We wear Black Lives Matter to affirm human decency. This is not political, it’s a statement on human rights. As a team, we work towards a society where the American ideals are upheld, and Black lives are no longer systemically targeted. We collectively acknowledge injustice, as that is the first step in working towards correcting it. To honor the words of the great John Lewis: “When you see something that is not right,
not fair,
not just,
say something,
do something,
get in trouble, good trouble, necessary trouble!”
The message isn’t meant to be a political one, you know, but the press release quotes and honors the words of a Democrat politician. One of the team players released a message on social media. She says it is the team’s “duty” to make such political statements. There is no word from the team’s management, though, on whether or not that duty is written into each player’s contract. Professional athletes are no longer only athletes, they are political activists. You would think that shrinking ratings of games would wake the woke players but not so far.
“We love our country, and it is a true honor to represent America. It is also our duty to demand that the liberties and freedoms that our country was founded on extend to everyone,” the statement read. “Today, we wear Black Lives Matter to affirm human decency. We protest against racial injustice and police brutality against Black people. We protest against the racist infrastructures that do not provide equal opportunity for black and brown people to fulfill their dreams, including playing on this team. “As the United States Women’s National team players, we collectively work toward a society where the American ideas are upheld, and Black lives are no longer systematically targeted. “Black Lives Matter.”
Last June, the U.S. Soccer board of directors voted to repeal their policy of requiring the women players to stand during the National Anthem. It caved to pressure after the death of George Floyd and the protests/riots that followed.
The 23-player roster includes 14 players who currently play in the National Women’s Soccer League, seven who are playing in Europe and two college players. Lindsey Horan of the NWSL’s Portland Thorns tested positive for COVID-19 and was replaced by Jaelin Howell, who plays for Florida State and became the second college player on the roster (following Stanford’s Catarina Macario). USWNT coach Vlatko Andonovski, who replaced two-time World Cup-winning coach Jill Ellis, has won each of his first 10 games at the helm, tying a record for best start as U.S. women’s national team head coach.
I’ll note here that it looks like the women who are all about social justice issues, including gender issues, are coached by a man now. Now Jill Ellis, who stepped down as head coach in October 2019 after the World Cup win, works as the development director of the United States Soccer Federation, overseeing the national youth teams development program. That’s an interesting twist.
The women are not the only soccer players allowed to kneel and wear their social justice messages on their clothing. The U.S. Soccer Federation supported the men players wearing an assortment of messages on the back of their warm-up jackets before a match with Wales a couple of weeks ago. They also participated in a bit of theatre – a walkout before the game began.
The players wore the message “Be the Change” in blue on red backgrounds, and several others wore individual messages on the back of them. Some of the phrases included: “Stop Racism,” “Believe to Achieve,” “Unite in Truth,” “Spread Love Not Hate,” “Black Lives Matter” and “For Social Justice.” “During the walkout and anthem in advance of the match against Wales today, the U.S. men’s national team players took advantage of the moment to send and spread a meaningful message,” the U.S. Soccer Federation said in a statement. “With the goal of inspiring action on social justice issues, all of the players had ‘Be the Change’ adorned on the front of their anthem jackets. The spirit of their message is that each and every person has the ability, opportunity and responsibility to make a difference in our own way.”
The men’s coach, Gregg Berhalter, says he is proud of the players.
“I am also proud of the fact the players came together and thought about how to activate for social justice with ‘Be The Change,’” he said. “When you saw the line up at the anthems and the jackets, we want change and I was really proud of the guys.”
The men’s game against Wales ended in a draw. The score was 0-0.
You can see the various messages worn by the players HERE.


hotair--2020-11-29--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

Another Sunday is set to come and go with no one from the White House or the Trump campaign scheduled to discuss the president ’ s legal effort to overturn the election .
I wonder if that ’ s because of reluctance by staffers to talk or reluctance by the shows ’ booking teams to have them on to spew conspiracy theories .
Both , I assume : Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis aren ’ t camera-shy and would doubtless accept an offer to appear if one were made , so it must be that one wasn ’ t made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer *has* been made to more respectable figures around Trump like Mark Meadows and Bill Stepien , yet Meadows and Stepien aren ’ t booked .
Go figure that people who still have a bit of credibility don ’ t want to squander it answering awkward questions about “ the Kraken ” as they transition to post-Trump life .
With no election-related guests to interview the shows will turn instead to our deepening COVID national catastrophe .
Anthony Fauci is set for “ This Week ” and “ Meet the Press ” while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nation ” about what sort of daily death tolls we might expect in December and January now that millions of Americans have seeded new outbreaks by insisting on gathering on Thanksgiving .
Sixty thousand deaths over 30 days seems all but assured .
One hundred thousand deaths in 30 days may not be completely out of the question .
White House testing czar Brett Giroir will also be on with “ State of the Union ” to answer the thorny question of how useful testing is at a moment when pretty much everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two retired admirals will chat about withdrawal from Afghanistan and the prospects of war with Iran before Trump leaves office .
William McRaven will speak with “ This Week ” while Mike Mullen talks to “ Meet the Press.
” The full line-up is at the AP .

Another Sunday is set to come and go with no one from the White House or the Trump campaign scheduled to discuss the president’s legal effort to overturn the election. I wonder if that’s because of reluctance by staffers to talk or reluctance by the shows’ booking teams to have them on to spew conspiracy theories. Both, I assume: Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis aren’t camera-shy and would doubtless accept an offer to appear if one were made, so it must be that one wasn’t made. But I’d bet an offer *has* been made to more respectable figures around Trump like Mark Meadows and Bill Stepien, yet Meadows and Stepien aren’t booked. Go figure that people who still have a bit of credibility don’t want to squander it answering awkward questions about “the Kraken” as they transition to post-Trump life.
With no election-related guests to interview the shows will turn instead to our deepening COVID national catastrophe. Anthony Fauci is set for “This Week” and “Meet the Press” while Deborah Birx chats with “Face the Nation” about what sort of daily death tolls we might expect in December and January now that millions of Americans have seeded new outbreaks by insisting on gathering on Thanksgiving. Sixty thousand deaths over 30 days seems all but assured. One hundred thousand deaths in 30 days may not be completely out of the question. White House testing czar Brett Giroir will also be on with “State of the Union” to answer the thorny question of how useful testing is at a moment when pretty much everyone is infected.
Elsewhere this morning, two retired admirals will chat about withdrawal from Afghanistan and the prospects of war with Iran before Trump leaves office. William McRaven will speak with “This Week” while Mike Mullen talks to “Meet the Press.” The full line-up is at the AP.