hotair--2020-05-08--Turley: McCabe's "bizarre" defense notwithstanding, the FBI had no business targeting Flynn

How will the former upper echelons of the FBI answer for themselves in the wake of the withdrawal of charges against Michael Flynn ?
If former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe gives us any indication , it will be a full-frontal defense and an attack on the present leadership of the Department of Justice .
“ General Flynn was not targeted , ” McCabe told CNN ’ s John Berman , “ he was properly investigated in a well predicated case.
” A brief part of the conversation is below , but McCabe goes on to say that the reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn was that he had “ surreptitious ” meetings with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak while on Donald Trump ’ s transition team .
That claim is “ bizarre , ” CBS News legal analyst Jonathan Turley wrote , as was practically the entirety of McCabe ’ s rebuttal : Turley expanded on his thoughts later this morning at his blog .
Not only did McCabe completely mischaracterize Flynn ’ s actions in claiming that as a predicate , the rest of his interview with Berman was “ revisionist history that quickly crossed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , the FBI ’ s Washington Field Office issued a “ Closing Communication ” indicating that the bureau was terminating “ CROSSFIRE RAZOR ” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn .
CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “ was directed and controlled by ” or “ coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security ” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws .
The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in FBI holdings.
” Due to this conclusion , the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “ was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.
” After Strzok intervened to stop the closure of the investigation , he texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page “ Razor still open .
: @ but serendipitously good , I guess .
You want those chips and Oreos ?
” Page replied “ Phew .
But yeah that ’ s amazing that he is still open .
Good , I guess.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ utter incompetence actually helps us .
20 % of the time , I ’ m guessing : ) ” So McCabe was left unchallenged in saying that at that time there was a close question as to whether to close Crossfire Razor when his investigators found nothing .
Nothing .
That made it a close question for McCabe whether to continue to investigate the incoming Trump National Security Adviser .
William Barr raised this same point in his interview with CBS News ’ Catherine Herridge .
The FBI had taken a look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national-security issues , and the probe was about to be closed .
Peter Strzok used Flynn ’ s conversation with Kislyak as a pretext to keep the probe open , even though it is perfectly normal for presidential transition officials to have contact with foreign diplomats .
That is the entire purpose of transition teams — to bring an incoming president and his team up to speed and ready to assume office on Inauguration Day .
The claim that this was “ surreptitious ” is not just bizarre , Turley argues , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next was truly incredible .
He told Berman that he then learned that Flynn has arranged “ surreptitious meetings ” with the Russians .
He explained that this was akin to investigating someone for drug dealing and then learning about his meeting with drug dealers .
The problem is that there was no evidence of a crime of any kind against Flynn .
Moreover , this was not a “ surreptitious ” meeting .
There was no reason for McCabe to know about the communications of the incoming National Security Adviser with foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Flynn reportedly told the transition team about the call and that the Russians wanted to talk after the newly imposed sanctions against them .
It is not “ surreptitious ” just because McCabe did not know about it and he did not reach out to the Transition Team .
It was perfectly legal ( and unsurprising ) that the Russians spoke to the incoming National Security Adviser after the imposition of sanctions .
Trump had stated publicly that he wanted to reframe the relations with the Russians and indicated that the review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was both lawful and consistent with the position of the incoming Administration .
Furthermore , Turley continues , why did Berman not question McCabe on his own track record at the FBI ?
Berman “ allowed [ McCabe ] to rage against Trump , Barr , and Flynn ” without informing viewers that McCabe was fired for lying about this investigation — and nearly prosecuted for it , too .
McCabe also argued that Flynn had potentially violated the Logan Act , which has never been used to successfully prosecute anyone in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bothered to raise , either .
Andy McCarthy also takes on the Logan Act point in his column at the New York Post .
The use of that hoary , discredited act makes it clear that the Obama-era DoJ and FBI were looking for pretexts to go after Flynn for political purposes , not for any real concern over national security : There was no basis to believe Flynn , a decorated former US combat commander , would ever be Moscow ’ s mole , much less that he had committed a crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could nail him for violating the Logan Act .
On the books since 1799 , this provision purports to make it a crime to engage freelance diplomacy without government authorization .
It is almost certainly unconstitutional , no one has ever been successfully prosecuted for violating it , and the government hasn ’ t even tried to indict anyone on it since before the Civil War .
It would be absurd to try to apply it to any American , but to contemplate doing it against a transition official slated to become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet the FBI used it pretextually as a basis to conduct a perjury-trap interview of Flynn at the White House in his second day on the job .
Knowing its investigation was baseless , the bureau did not seek the required permission from the White House to grill a member of the president ’ s staff .
Former FBI director James Comey has weirdly bragged that , against protocol , he sent two agents to Flynn ’ s office — after Comey ’ s then-deputy , Andrew McCabe , called to discourage Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads-up to the White House counsel .
… The case was troubling enough that Attorney General Bill Barr appointed US Attorney Jeff Jensen of St. Louis to review it .
This has recently resulted in eye-popping disclosures : Indications that there was an agreement not to prosecute Flynn ’ s son ( which was not disclosed to the court ) ; the withholding of exculpatory evidence , including the FBI ’ s perjury trap deliberations ; and evidence that the bureau improperly edited its report summarizing its ambush interview of Flynn .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s likely that we haven ’ t heard the last of it .
That makes Turley ’ s second theme even more important .
Why does CNN pay McCabe as an analyst and then allow him to comment from that position about matters where there is a clear conflict of interest ?
McCabe was directly involved in what looks to be at least underhanded behavior in the Flynn case , if not outright misconduct .
Why didn ’ t Berman ask about it — or at least offer a disclosure about McCabe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this story ?

How will the former upper echelons of the FBI answer for themselves in the wake of the withdrawal of charges against Michael Flynn? If former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe gives us any indication, it will be a full-frontal defense and an attack on the present leadership of the Department of Justice. “General Flynn was not targeted,” McCabe told CNN’s John Berman, “he was properly investigated in a well predicated case.”
A brief part of the conversation is below, but McCabe goes on to say that the reason the FBI conducted a veiled interrogation of Flynn was that he had “surreptitious” meetings with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak while on Donald Trump’s transition team. That claim is “bizarre,” CBS News legal analyst Jonathan Turley wrote, as was practically the entirety of McCabe’s rebuttal:
The claim that this was "surreptitious" is bizarre. Flynn told the transition team about the call. It is not "surreptitious" because McCabe did not know about it and did not ask Trump official about a legal call with the Russians by the incoming National Security Adviser. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 8, 2020
Turley expanded on his thoughts later this morning at his blog. Not only did McCabe completely mischaracterize Flynn’s actions in claiming that as a predicate, the rest of his interview with Berman was “revisionist history that quickly crossed into fantasy”:
On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.” After Strzok intervened to stop the closure of the investigation, he texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)” So McCabe was left unchallenged in saying that at that time there was a close question as to whether to close Crossfire Razor when his investigators found nothing. Nothing. That made it a close question for McCabe whether to continue to investigate the incoming Trump National Security Adviser.
William Barr raised this same point in his interview with CBS News’ Catherine Herridge. The FBI had taken a look at Flynn’s activities but found no national-security issues, and the probe was about to be closed. Peter Strzok used Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak as a pretext to keep the probe open, even though it is perfectly normal for presidential transition officials to have contact with foreign diplomats. That is the entire purpose of transition teams — to bring an incoming president and his team up to speed and ready to assume office on Inauguration Day.
The claim that this was “surreptitious” is not just bizarre, Turley argues, it’s laughable:
What McCabe stated next was truly incredible. He told Berman that he then learned that Flynn has arranged “surreptitious meetings” with the Russians. He explained that this was akin to investigating someone for drug dealing and then learning about his meeting with drug dealers. The problem is that there was no evidence of a crime of any kind against Flynn. Moreover, this was not a “surreptitious” meeting. There was no reason for McCabe to know about the communications of the incoming National Security Adviser with foreign officials. It was not “surreptitious.” Flynn reportedly told the transition team about the call and that the Russians wanted to talk after the newly imposed sanctions against them. It is not “surreptitious” just because McCabe did not know about it and he did not reach out to the Transition Team. It was perfectly legal (and unsurprising) that the Russians spoke to the incoming National Security Adviser after the imposition of sanctions. Trump had stated publicly that he wanted to reframe the relations with the Russians and indicated that the review would include the sanctions. The conversation was both lawful and consistent with the position of the incoming Administration.
Furthermore, Turley continues, why did Berman not question McCabe on his own track record at the FBI? Berman “allowed [McCabe] to rage against Trump, Barr, and Flynn” without informing viewers that McCabe was fired for lying about this investigation — and nearly prosecuted for it, too. McCabe also argued that Flynn had potentially violated the Logan Act, which has never been used to successfully prosecute anyone in its 200-year-plus history, a point Berman never bothered to raise, either.
Andy McCarthy also takes on the Logan Act point in his column at the New York Post. The use of that hoary, discredited act makes it clear that the Obama-era DoJ and FBI were looking for pretexts to go after Flynn for political purposes, not for any real concern over national security:
There was no basis to believe Flynn, a decorated former US combat commander, would ever be Moscow’s mole, much less that he had committed a crime. But Obama officials speculated that perhaps they could nail him for violating the Logan Act. On the books since 1799, this provision purports to make it a crime to engage freelance diplomacy without government authorization. It is almost certainly unconstitutional, no one has ever been successfully prosecuted for violating it, and the government hasn’t even tried to indict anyone on it since before the Civil War. It would be absurd to try to apply it to any American, but to contemplate doing it against a transition official slated to become national security adviser was particularly ludicrous. Yet the FBI used it pretextually as a basis to conduct a perjury-trap interview of Flynn at the White House in his second day on the job. Knowing its investigation was baseless, the bureau did not seek the required permission from the White House to grill a member of the president’s staff. Former FBI director James Comey has weirdly bragged that, against protocol, he sent two agents to Flynn’s office — after Comey’s then-deputy, Andrew McCabe, called to discourage Flynn from getting a lawyer or giving a heads-up to the White House counsel. … The case was troubling enough that Attorney General Bill Barr appointed US Attorney Jeff Jensen of St. Louis to review it. This has recently resulted in eye-popping disclosures: Indications that there was an agreement not to prosecute Flynn’s son (which was not disclosed to the court); the withholding of exculpatory evidence, including the FBI’s perjury trap deliberations; and evidence that the bureau improperly edited its report summarizing its ambush interview of Flynn.
This was a crooked prosecution, and it’s likely that we haven’t heard the last of it. That makes Turley’s second theme even more important. Why does CNN pay McCabe as an analyst and then allow him to comment from that position about matters where there is a clear conflict of interest? McCabe was directly involved in what looks to be at least underhanded behavior in the Flynn case, if not outright misconduct. Why didn’t Berman ask about it — or at least offer a disclosure about McCabe’s conflict of interest in discussing this story?


hotair--2020-05-08--Two new polls: Something like 20-25% of the public won't get the coronavirus vaccine once it's avail

Two new polls: Something like 20-25% of the public won't get the coronavirus vaccine once it's available

If only there were a way to safely administer the vaccine to people who are immunocompromised .
Because if we could stop them from being infected by anti-vaxxers , what we ’ d have here is a solution in search of a problem .
A thought I frequently have while reading news stories in the coronavirus era is , “ I wonder which viral YouTube conspiracy theory video led people to believe this.
” A vaccine is the only thing that ’ ll rid us of this plague of death and economic ruin , yet of course — of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t want it .
I ’ m guessing there ’ s a clip out there with 25 million views about how Bill Gates is planning to turn us all into pedophiles via the combination of an arm jab and widespread 5G .
New from Yahoo News and YouGov : Asked whether they plan to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if and when a vaccine arrives , a majority of Americans ( 55 percent ) say yes .
The rest — a significant minority — say they won ’ t get vaccinated ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sure ( 26 percent ) .
If those results were to hold , tens or even hundreds of millions of unimmunized Americans could ultimately undermine any vaccine ’ s ability to stop the spread of the virus .
Believe it or not , that ’ s the optimistic poll of the two new ones out today .
ABC/Ipsos found this : My guess was that those numbers skewed Republican .
Not because anti-vaxxers generally lean right ; there are plenty of New-Agers on the left who reject vaccinations as “ unnatural.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skepticism was a subset of skepticism about the extent of the threat from coronavirus , and coronavirus skepticism is largely a right-wing phenomenon .
For instance , polls show huge percentages of Democrats have begun wearing masks and are reluctant to reopen the economy for business .
Republicans are more standoffish about masks and most have come to oppose lockdowns .
Righty media outlets are also far more likely than left-wing ones to believe that coronavirus deaths are being overcounted .
Anti-vaxxers have begun turning up at right-wing anti-lockdown protests too .
Put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason that if you don ’ t think COVID-19 is as dangerous as scientists say , you ’ ll be less inclined to get vaccinated for it .
But that assumption is incorrect .
According to ABC , there isn ’ t a partisan split here , with “ equal proportions of Democrats and Republicans saying they were likely to get the vaccine.
” ( Yahoo News/YouGov didn ’ t provide partisan numbers . )
This appears to be old-fashioned anti-vaccination paranoia at work , not anything to do with coronavirus in particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that there are a ton of polls out today showing how skeptical the public is about reopening soon .
Sixty-four percent of Americans told ABC/Ipsos that reopening now isn ’ t worth it because it ’ ll mean more lives being lost .
( Among Dems , 92 percent ( ! )
said so versus 35 percent of Republicans . )
Yahoo News found 59 percent who agreed that Georgia , Florida , Minnesota and Texas are reopening too soon , with 73 percent saying they ’ ll “ voluntarily continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are lifted.
” Pew offers this : Yet another poll finds 71 percent worried that states will lift restrictions too quickly versus 29 percent who worry that they ’ ll do it too slowly .
And although the share of Americans who say it ’ s right for states to tell people to stay home is decreasing , HuffPost notes that “ An overwhelming 83 % majority say they ’ re trying to stay home as much as possible , down only slightly from a high of 89 % at the start of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together and you come away with two surprising conclusions .
One : For a population that ’ s been in lockdown for nearly two months with cataclysmic economic repercussions , Americans remain highly reluctant to reopen right now .
They ’ re scared .
And two : Although there are obvious partisan differences , both Democrats and Republicans are more skeptical of reopening than you might think .
I would not have guessed that a huge supermajority of Dems would oppose it in mid-May ; they need to pay the bills too , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have guessed that so many Republicans would continue to resist Trump ’ s daily efforts to support getting back to work .
He ’ s wearing them down , but six weeks of daily “ we need our economy back ” rhetoric from the president hasn ’ t yet made this a 50/50 blue/red issue .
I wonder if that ’ s because right-leaning senior citizens know what sort of special risk awaits them in a second wave of the epidemic .
And whether they ’ ll hold it against Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lives that it won ’ t materialize .
Anyway , the point is this : A public that ’ s as anxious about the virus as Americans are should be gung ho for a vaccine as its salvation , one would think .
If you ’ re so afraid to go shopping that you ’ re willing to accept 20 million people out of work as the price of that , the natural reaction is to crave that vaccine as if it ’ s the holy grail , your release from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a quarter of the public shrugging and saying , “ No thanks.
” What ’ s their play here ?
Are they counting on herd immunity and the giant body count that would require to deliver them instead ?
Or are they just planning to free-ride on the herd immunity of the rest of us once we ’ re all vaccinated ?

If only there were a way to safely administer the vaccine to people who are immunocompromised.
Because if we could stop them from being infected by anti-vaxxers, what we’d have here is a solution in search of a problem.
A thought I frequently have while reading news stories in the coronavirus era is, “I wonder which viral YouTube conspiracy theory video led people to believe this.” A vaccine is the only thing that’ll rid us of this plague of death and economic ruin, yet of course — of course — a gigantic percentage of the public doesn’t want it. I’m guessing there’s a clip out there with 25 million views about how Bill Gates is planning to turn us all into pedophiles via the combination of an arm jab and widespread 5G. New from Yahoo News and YouGov:
Asked whether they plan to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if and when a vaccine arrives, a majority of Americans (55 percent) say yes. The rest — a significant minority — say they won’t get vaccinated (19 percent) or they’re not sure (26 percent). If those results were to hold, tens or even hundreds of millions of unimmunized Americans could ultimately undermine any vaccine’s ability to stop the spread of the virus.
Believe it or not, that’s the optimistic poll of the two new ones out today. ABC/Ipsos found this:
My guess was that those numbers skewed Republican. Not because anti-vaxxers generally lean right; there are plenty of New-Agers on the left who reject vaccinations as “unnatural.” I assumed that in this case vaccine skepticism was a subset of skepticism about the extent of the threat from coronavirus, and coronavirus skepticism is largely a right-wing phenomenon. For instance, polls show huge percentages of Democrats have begun wearing masks and are reluctant to reopen the economy for business. Republicans are more standoffish about masks and most have come to oppose lockdowns. Righty media outlets are also far more likely than left-wing ones to believe that coronavirus deaths are being overcounted. Anti-vaxxers have begun turning up at right-wing anti-lockdown protests too. Put it all together and it stands to reason that if you don’t think COVID-19 is as dangerous as scientists say, you’ll be less inclined to get vaccinated for it.
But that assumption is incorrect. According to ABC, there isn’t a partisan split here, with “equal proportions of Democrats and Republicans saying they were likely to get the vaccine.” (Yahoo News/YouGov didn’t provide partisan numbers.) This appears to be old-fashioned anti-vaccination paranoia at work, not anything to do with coronavirus in particular.
What’s strange about this is that there are a ton of polls out today showing how skeptical the public is about reopening soon. Sixty-four percent of Americans told ABC/Ipsos that reopening now isn’t worth it because it’ll mean more lives being lost. (Among Dems, 92 percent(!) said so versus 35 percent of Republicans.) Yahoo News found 59 percent who agreed that Georgia, Florida, Minnesota and Texas are reopening too soon, with 73 percent saying they’ll “voluntarily continue to practice social distancing even after official restrictions are lifted.” Pew offers this:
Yet another poll finds 71 percent worried that states will lift restrictions too quickly versus 29 percent who worry that they’ll do it too slowly. And although the share of Americans who say it’s right for states to tell people to stay home is decreasing, HuffPost notes that “An overwhelming 83% majority say they’re trying to stay home as much as possible, down only slightly from a high of 89% at the start of April.” Put all of that data together and you come away with two surprising conclusions. One: For a population that’s been in lockdown for nearly two months with cataclysmic economic repercussions, Americans remain highly reluctant to reopen right now. They’re scared. And two: Although there are obvious partisan differences, both Democrats and Republicans are more skeptical of reopening than you might think. I would not have guessed that a huge supermajority of Dems would oppose it in mid-May; they need to pay the bills too, after all. But I also wouldn’t have guessed that so many Republicans would continue to resist Trump’s daily efforts to support getting back to work. He’s wearing them down, but six weeks of daily “we need our economy back” rhetoric from the president hasn’t yet made this a 50/50 blue/red issue.
I wonder if that’s because right-leaning senior citizens know what sort of special risk awaits them in a second wave of the epidemic. And whether they’ll hold it against Trump this fall for being willing to bet their lives that it won’t materialize.
Anyway, the point is this: A public that’s as anxious about the virus as Americans are should be gung ho for a vaccine as its salvation, one would think. If you’re so afraid to go shopping that you’re willing to accept 20 million people out of work as the price of that, the natural reaction is to crave that vaccine as if it’s the holy grail, your release from the bondage of virus-inspired terror. Instead we have a quarter of the public shrugging and saying, “No thanks.” What’s their play here? Are they counting on herd immunity and the giant body count that would require to deliver them instead? Or are they just planning to free-ride on the herd immunity of the rest of us once we’re all vaccinated?


hotair--2020-05-08--New York placed an $86 million order for ventilators with an engineer with no history in medical pro

New York placed an $86 million order for ventilators with an engineer with no history in medical procurement

The story from New York officials is that the contract was terminated because by that point they realized they wouldn ’ t need nearly as many ventilators as they had expected .
But the NY Times reports that the pandemic , “ may have clouded a decision that placed millions of taxpayer dollars at risk.
” Just over a week ago , Buzzfeed reported that Oren-Pines got the contract after tweeting to President Trump that he could deliver ventilators : But the Times reports that the deal was moving along before the tweet : The tweet by Mr. Oren-Pines was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article that suggested that the Twitter post to the president may have been connected to the New York State contract .
Mr. Oren-Pines , however , had been in touch with federal officials days before he posted his sales pitch on Twitter .
There is a federal connection though .
The tip to New York about Oren-Pines offer came from FEMA volunteers , a group put together by Jared Kushner .
New Jersey received the same referral but thought that Oren-Pines ’ non-negotiable up-front payments seemed a little sketchy , so they never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bank froze his funds he managed to remove $ 10 million of the total money the state had given him .
After the state realized it couldn ’ t verify the existence of any of the ventilators Oren-Pines claimed were available , they took back $ 59 million they had paid him ( the frozen funds ) .
The remaining $ 10 million is apparently part of ongoing negotiations .
Oren-Pines refused to speak with the NY Times but his lawyer told them , “ They worked tirelessly to begin delivery of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the terms of the contract if the state hadn ’ t abruptly canceled it before they were able to deliver the first set of 150 ventilators .
”

The story from New York officials is that the contract was terminated because by that point they realized they wouldn’t need nearly as many ventilators as they had expected. But the NY Times reports that the pandemic, “may have clouded a decision that placed millions of taxpayer dollars at risk.”
Just over a week ago, Buzzfeed reported that Oren-Pines got the contract after tweeting to President Trump that he could deliver ventilators:
But the Times reports that the deal was moving along before the tweet:
The tweet by Mr. Oren-Pines was reported last week in a BuzzFeed News article that suggested that the Twitter post to the president may have been connected to the New York State contract. Mr. Oren-Pines, however, had been in touch with federal officials days before he posted his sales pitch on Twitter.
There is a federal connection though. The tip to New York about Oren-Pines offer came from FEMA volunteers, a group put together by Jared Kushner. New Jersey received the same referral but thought that Oren-Pines’ non-negotiable up-front payments seemed a little sketchy, so they never placed an order.
Before Oren-Pines’ bank froze his funds he managed to remove $10 million of the total money the state had given him. After the state realized it couldn’t verify the existence of any of the ventilators Oren-Pines claimed were available, they took back $59 million they had paid him (the frozen funds). The remaining $10 million is apparently part of ongoing negotiations.
Oren-Pines refused to speak with the NY Times but his lawyer told them, “They worked tirelessly to begin delivery of the promised ventilators and they would have fulfilled the terms of the contract if the state hadn’t abruptly canceled it before they were able to deliver the first set of 150 ventilators.”


hotair--2020-05-08--Jimmy Kimmel's fake news about Mike Pence went viral thanks to blue check progressives (Update: Kimm

Jimmy Kimmel's fake news about Mike Pence went viral thanks to blue check progressives (Update: Kimmel apologizes)

So the story here is that Mike Pence gave a speech at a rehabilitation center in Virginia and , before the speech , he was part of a photo op unloading some boxes of PPE from a van and bringing them to the door of the center .
At one point after unloading the van , he returned and there were still several boxes inside .
Before Pence reached for them , someone there with him said , “ Those are empty , sir .
We ’ re good to go.
” Pence replied , “ Well , can I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the camera ?
” Jimmy Kimmel took that part of the clip and made it part of his online show saying , “ Mike Pence pretending to carry empty boxes of PPEs into a hospital is the perfect metaphor for who he is and what he ’ s doing : A big box of nothing delivering another box of nothing.
” The clip of the Kimmel segment was then shared by a pollster named Matt McDermott .
As I write this , the clip has been liked more than 105,000 times and retrweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this claim that Pence was delivering empty boxes for show : Raw Story devoted a whole post to this titled , “ BUSTED : Mike Pence caught on hot mic asking to deliver ’ empty ’ PPE boxes into a nursing home ‘ for the camera ’ .
” And it wasn ’ t just random people on the internet liking and sharing this , it was blue-checkmarked journalists and progressives : MSNBC ’ s Andrea Mitchell , Aaron Rupar and Matt Yglesias from Vox , Tommy Vietor , NY Times columnist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ etc .
This clip was very , very popular with the same set of people who were certain that high school kid Nick Sandmann was a villain .
But just like the Nick Sandmann situation , it turns out they all jumped on this without seeing what really happened .
If you watch the full clip , you ’ ll see that immediately after making the joke about carrying the empty boxes ( you can hear people laughing ) , Pence closed the doors of the van and then moved on with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including David Mack of Buzzfeed .
And Jerry Dunleavy from the Washington Examiner posted a video ( apparently pulled by Breitbart ) showing what really happened : So you have people left , right , and center saying this is bogus .
Kimmel apparently pulled down his copy of the clip but hasn ’ t apologized yet .
Pollster Matt McDermott whose tweet of the clip went viral added this “ additional context ” after learning it was bogus : Andrew Kaczynski pointed out that McDermott had a similar viral tweet about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then he claimed Trump hadn ’ t spent Easter at church .
It turned out that Trump had gone to services that same day but McDermott refused to delete his inaccurate tweet because “ it wasn ’ t factually inaccurate when it was posted.
” What he meant was , he didn ’ t know he was wrong at the time .
Bottom line , this guy is a hack ’ s hack and is not going to delete his Pence tweet even though it ’ s clearly wrong .
Just since I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another 23,000 likes and 5,000 retweets .
Finally , here ’ s the C-Span coverage of VP Pence ’ s appearance at the rehab center .
Her original retweet with comment has itself been retweeted 4,400 times and liked 13,000 times .
The correction will get a tiny fraction of that .
Notice that the clip of Pence Kimmel used had the C-Span logo .
He or his staff must have had the full clip all along ( or known where to find it ) .
They cut it before Pence closed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re pretending to be surprised by the truth .
He ’ s lying and he ’ s not sorry .
Update : The retweet above is missing because Joe finally figured it out .

So the story here is that Mike Pence gave a speech at a rehabilitation center in Virginia and, before the speech, he was part of a photo op unloading some boxes of PPE from a van and bringing them to the door of the center. At one point after unloading the van, he returned and there were still several boxes inside. Before Pence reached for them, someone there with him said, “Those are empty, sir. We’re good to go.”
Pence replied, “Well, can I carry the empty ones? Just for the camera?”
“Absolutely, they’re a lot easier,” came the reply.
Jimmy Kimmel took that part of the clip and made it part of his online show saying, “Mike Pence pretending to carry empty boxes of PPEs into a hospital is the perfect metaphor for who he is and what he’s doing: A big box of nothing delivering another box of nothing.” The clip of the Kimmel segment was then shared by a pollster named Matt McDermott. As I write this, the clip has been liked more than 105,000 times and retrweeted nearly 50,000 times.
Mike Pence caught on hot mic delivering empty boxes of PPE for a PR stunt. pic.twitter.com/IduvGhiPwj — Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) May 8, 2020
McDermott really piled on this claim that Pence was delivering empty boxes for show:
No better example of the institutional failures that have happened during this crisis than the Vice President delivering empty boxes of masks to a nursing home before a gawking press. — Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) May 8, 2020
Raw Story devoted a whole post to this titled, “BUSTED: Mike Pence caught on hot mic asking to deliver ’empty’ PPE boxes into a nursing home ‘for the camera’.”
And it wasn’t just random people on the internet liking and sharing this, it was blue-checkmarked journalists and progressives: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Aaron Rupar and Matt Yglesias from Vox, Tommy Vietor, NY Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, expert Tom Nichols, etc. This clip was very, very popular with the same set of people who were certain that high school kid Nick Sandmann was a villain.
And that was just quote tweets, here are some of the people who gave it a straight up retweet: pic.twitter.com/D0j1NQBBxo — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) May 8, 2020
But just like the Nick Sandmann situation, it turns out they all jumped on this without seeing what really happened. If you watch the full clip, you’ll see that immediately after making the joke about carrying the empty boxes (you can hear people laughing), Pence closed the doors of the van and then moved on with the event. Several people pointed this out, including David Mack of Buzzfeed.
This isn't true. The clip cuts out at a selective point. When you watch the CSPAN footage (9 min in), Pence makes the crack about carrying the empty ones and the guy says "Absolutely. They're a lot easier!" Pence laughs then immediately shuts the van door. https://t.co/SOD5KAAPkH https://t.co/1ZODmvg2PG — David Mack (@davidmackau) May 8, 2020
VP Pence’s communications person:
https://twitter.com/JonThompsonDC/status/1258776949381619712
CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski:
51K RTs but this viral clip isn't true. Mike Pence carried a bunch of loaded boxes in and then made a joke about carrying the empty ones. And he never actually carried them and closes the van door.https://t.co/kffkAD9mxfhttps://t.co/eBXgCKw2Op — andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) May 8, 2020
And Jerry Dunleavy from the Washington Examiner posted a video (apparently pulled by Breitbart) showing what really happened:
Here's an unedited version of @VP Pence delivering PPE to Woodbine Rehab Center. The clip from @JimmyKimmel and sent viral by @mattmfm & others is quite deceptive. Pence is clearly joking when he talks about empty boxes for the camera, & shuts the van doors right after the quip. pic.twitter.com/HyV8iBiljS — Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) May 8, 2020
So you have people left, right, and center saying this is bogus. Kimmel apparently pulled down his copy of the clip but hasn’t apologized yet. Pollster Matt McDermott whose tweet of the clip went viral added this “additional context” after learning it was bogus:
Additional context to @jimmykimmel segment. With 75,000 Americans dead, Pence is joking about about empty boxes of PPE during a publicity stunt, after the White House press secretary said they had no time for "publicity stunts" in the middle of a crisis. https://t.co/hFeSp83lJs — Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) May 8, 2020
Andrew Kaczynski pointed out that McDermott had a similar viral tweet about President Trump back in 2017. Back then he claimed Trump hadn’t spent Easter at church. It turned out that Trump had gone to services that same day but McDermott refused to delete his inaccurate tweet because “it wasn’t factually inaccurate when it was posted.” What he meant was, he didn’t know he was wrong at the time.
Bottom line, this guy is a hack’s hack and is not going to delete his Pence tweet even though it’s clearly wrong. Just since I started writing this it has racked up another 23,000 likes and 5,000 retweets.
Finally, here’s the C-Span coverage of VP Pence’s appearance at the rehab center.
Update: Oops!
Glad we asked…turns out he was joking! We checked the original tape. Reporter on scene says @VP did deliver PPE https://t.co/XkZJsVaOWR — Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) May 8, 2020
Her original retweet with comment has itself been retweeted 4,400 times and liked 13,000 times. The correction will get a tiny fraction of that.
Update: Here’s Kimmel’s snarky correction.
it would appear that @vp was joking about carrying empty boxes for a staged publicity stunt. The full video reveals that he was carrying full boxes for a staged publicity stunt. My apologies. I know how dearly this administration values truth. https://t.co/hI9cO4lxcX — Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) May 8, 2020
Notice that the clip of Pence Kimmel used had the C-Span logo. He or his staff must have had the full clip all along (or known where to find it). They cut it before Pence closed the van doors on purpose. Now they’re pretending to be surprised by the truth. He’s lying and he’s not sorry.
Update: Joe Scarborough just retweeted the bogus video.
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1258848363136659457
Update: The retweet above is missing because Joe finally figured it out.


hotair--2020-05-08--Ted Cruz on anti-First Amendment city council resolution: "This is NUTS"

San Antonio must be fresh out of problems for the city council to address .
Mayor Ron Nirenberg sent a letter to the members of the city council saying the city must stand against COVID-19 hate speech .
He attached a resolution with the letter and asked the city council to adopt the resolution at their next meeting .
“ This coronavirus has held no regard for race , religion , creed , or political boundary .
As such , our efforts must meet the indiscriminate nature of COVID-19 with empathy and compassion for all our neighbors , ” writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider adopting the attached resolution – which declares that our COVID-19 response efforts will be free of hate and discrimination – at the next Council A-Session.
” Nirenberg ’ s letter adds that terms like ‘ Chinese virus ’ and ‘ Kung Fu Virus ’ only encourage hate crimes and incidents against Asian communities ; and that the Jewish community has also been targeted with blame and conspiracy theories regarding coronavirus .
And just like that , the city council voted unanimously to stifle the First Amendment rights of San Antonio residents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ action , and the “ spread of misinformation related to COVID-19.
” Violent action ?
Ok .
The hate speech part , along with the concern about spreading misinformation is very troubling though .
Is there a special police force available to monitor private conversations or public speeches in group settings ?
How exactly is this resolution an enforceable one ?
The resolution also lumps in a stated opposition to anti-semitic behavior during the coronavirus outbreak against the Jewish community and goes on to condemn Islamophobia , Sinophobia , and racism .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution included every group he could think of , careful not to leave anyone out , though it is supposed to specifically address actions against the Asian community .
Got it .
WHEREAS , each individual has the ability to promote inclusiveness , celebrate diversity , support all fellow community members , prevent the spread of misinformation , and reject hate and bias in all forms ; and WHEREAS , hate crimes , discrimination and aggression against Asians and Jews are on the rise throughout the country as these groups are being blamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and WHEREAS , as our history has shown , times of great fear , uncertainty and unrest can lead to the demonization , blaming , and scapegoating of groups as the “ other ; ” and WHEREAS , extremists are taking advantage of COVID-19 to spread their hateful ideologies , including antisemitism , racism , Islamophobia , and Sinophobia ; and WHEREAS , amid the growing spread of COVID-19 , there are surging reports of bias-motivated incidents targeting members of the Asian and Pacific Islander community in the U.S. ; and WHEREAS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a racial , religious or ethnic one , and the deliberate use of terms such as “ Chinese virus ” or “ Kung Fu virus ” to describe COVID-19 only encourages hate crimes and incidents against Asians and further spreads misinformation at a time when communities should be working together to get through this crisis ; and That ’ s all standard reasoning for a resolution that approves the limiting of personal rights – be nice and don ’ t say bad things to anyone .
The First Amendment is there to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just nice speech .
People can say whatever nasty thing they want to say , within reason , ( no yelling “ fire !
” in a crowded theatre ) and that speech is protected .
Even what is considered bad speech is protected .
The mayor ’ s resolution also contained some Communist Chinese propaganda and that is a bridge too far .
In order to justify condemning terms like “ Chinese virus ” and “ Kung Fu virus ” the resolution spouts the mantra of the W.H.O .
– the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes , it infects all nationalities but there is no question from where the coronavirus originated .
The answer is China .
Especially if it does prove to be true that the virus was created in a Chinese lab , for whatever reason , it is very much a virus that originated in China .
It ’ s too bad that the Democrat-led San Antonio city council allowed itself to be patsies for the Communist government in China .
Senator Ted Cruz wasn ’ t pleased with the city council ’ s exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He had a reasonable reaction – “ This is nuts ” – mostly about the investigative portion of the resolution .
Yeah , this is the same city council that objected to Chic-fil-A opening up in the San Antonio airport .
The mayor tried to say that this resolution wasn ’ t overreaching into First Amendment rights and pointed to all the other minorities the resolution includes .
What he did , though , was to magnify how that is exactly what the resolution does .
Tossing in the Jewish community , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that he was including others to justify his action .
Nirenberg said he was aware of several examples of hate speech and subsequent actions taken against people in the city .
He added the resolution wasn ’ t directed at constitutionally protected free speech , as guaranteed by the First Amendment .
“ Oh no , not at all .
What this is , is a statement of values , as we say we ’ re a compassionate community , ” the mayor said , according to WOAI-TV .
The resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community , which it says have been targeted with “ blame , hate , antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories about their creating , spreading and profiting from COVID-19.
” Also , note that this tweet by a reporter says that the resolution encourages people to snitch on others .
This follows the Democrat playbook of embracing authoritarian actions during the coronavirus pandemic .
The Communist Chinese overlords would be proud .

San Antonio must be fresh out of problems for the city council to address. Mayor Ron Nirenberg sent a letter to the members of the city council saying the city must stand against COVID-19 hate speech. He attached a resolution with the letter and asked the city council to adopt the resolution at their next meeting.
“This coronavirus has held no regard for race, religion, creed, or political boundary. As such, our efforts must meet the indiscriminate nature of COVID-19 with empathy and compassion for all our neighbors,” writes Nirenberg. “I ask that you consider adopting the attached resolution – which declares that our COVID-19 response efforts will be free of hate and discrimination – at the next Council A-Session.” Nirenberg’s letter adds that terms like ‘Chinese virus’ and ‘Kung Fu Virus’ only encourage hate crimes and incidents against Asian communities; and that the Jewish community has also been targeted with blame and conspiracy theories regarding coronavirus.
And just like that, the city council voted unanimously to stifle the First Amendment rights of San Antonio residents. The resolution covers hate speech, violent action, and the “spread of misinformation related to COVID-19.” Violent action? Ok. The hate speech part, along with the concern about spreading misinformation is very troubling though. Is there a special police force available to monitor private conversations or public speeches in group settings? How exactly is this resolution an enforceable one? The resolution also lumps in a stated opposition to anti-semitic behavior during the coronavirus outbreak against the Jewish community and goes on to condemn Islamophobia, Sinophobia, and racism. In other words, the mayor’s resolution included every group he could think of, careful not to leave anyone out, though it is supposed to specifically address actions against the Asian community. Got it.
WHEREAS, each individual has the ability to promote inclusiveness, celebrate diversity, support
all fellow community members, prevent the spread of misinformation, and reject hate and bias in
all forms; and WHEREAS, hate crimes, discrimination and aggression against Asians and Jews are on the rise
throughout the country as these groups are being blamed for the COVID-19 outbreak and spread; and WHEREAS, as our history has shown, times of great fear, uncertainty and unrest can lead to the
demonization, blaming, and scapegoating of groups as the “other;” and WHEREAS, extremists are taking advantage of COVID-19 to spread their hateful ideologies,
including antisemitism, racism, Islamophobia, and Sinophobia; and WHEREAS, amid the growing spread of COVID-19, there are surging reports of bias-motivated
incidents targeting members of the Asian and Pacific Islander community in the U.S.; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 is a public health issue, not a racial, religious or ethnic one, and the
deliberate use of terms such as “Chinese virus” or “Kung Fu virus” to describe COVID-19 only
encourages hate crimes and incidents against Asians and further spreads misinformation at a time
when communities should be working together to get through this crisis; and
That’s all standard reasoning for a resolution that approves the limiting of personal rights – be nice and don’t say bad things to anyone. The First Amendment is there to protect all speech, though, not just nice speech. People can say whatever nasty thing they want to say, within reason, (no yelling “fire!” in a crowded theatre) and that speech is protected. Even what is considered bad speech is protected.
The mayor’s resolution also contained some Communist Chinese propaganda and that is a bridge too far. In order to justify condemning terms like “Chinese virus” and “Kung Fu virus” the resolution spouts the mantra of the W.H.O. – the virus isn’t a Chinese one. Yes, it infects all nationalities but there is no question from where the coronavirus originated. The answer is China.
WHEREAS, COVID-19 will not be stopped by political boundaries and was not created or caused
by any race, nationality or ethnicity, and the World Health Organization has cautioned against
using geographic descriptors that can fuel ethnic and racial discrimination; and
Especially if it does prove to be true that the virus was created in a Chinese lab, for whatever reason, it is very much a virus that originated in China. It’s too bad that the Democrat-led San Antonio city council allowed itself to be patsies for the Communist government in China.
Senator Ted Cruz wasn’t pleased with the city council’s exercise in such a politically correct feel-good resolution. He had a reasonable reaction – “This is nuts” – mostly about the investigative portion of the resolution.
This is NUTS. SA City Council behaving like a lefty college faculty lounge, triggered by Chick-fil-A & the words “Wuhan virus.” If they want to investigate someone, start with NYT & CNN who both repeatedly (and rightly) referred to it as “the Chinese coronavirus.” #NoSpeechPolice https://t.co/a10BZAvleQ — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) May 7, 2020
Yeah, this is the same city council that objected to Chic-fil-A opening up in the San Antonio airport.
The mayor tried to say that this resolution wasn’t overreaching into First Amendment rights and pointed to all the other minorities the resolution includes. What he did, though, was to magnify how that is exactly what the resolution does. Tossing in the Jewish community, for example, doesn’t negate the fact that he was including others to justify his action.
Nirenberg said he was aware of several examples of hate speech and subsequent actions taken against people in the city. He added the resolution wasn’t directed at constitutionally protected free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. “Oh no, not at all. What this is, is a statement of values, as we say we’re a compassionate community,” the mayor said, according to WOAI-TV. The resolution also includes speech directed at the Jewish community, which it says have been targeted with “blame, hate, antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories about their creating, spreading and profiting from COVID-19.”
Also, note that this tweet by a reporter says that the resolution encourages people to snitch on others. This follows the Democrat playbook of embracing authoritarian actions during the coronavirus pandemic.
https://twitter.com/JaieAvila/status/1258407235048398848
The Communist Chinese overlords would be proud.


hotair--2020-05-08--AOC: "Seems as though something has happened" between Biden and Reade, huh?

Yes it certainly does , but that argument also seems a bit surprising coming from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
Speaking to NPR yesterday , the firebrand frosh House member declared that Tara Reade needs to be heard and Democrats might risk their credibility by ignoring her , even though she also affirmed that she still planned to vote for Joe Biden .
It ’ s clear , though , that Ocasio-Cortez isn ’ t entirely buying Biden ’ s denials , and thinks that her fellow Democrats don ’ t have an appreciation for just how much this “ is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-N.Y. , says an accusation of sexual assault against former Vice President Joe Biden is “ not clear-cut , ” but that it remains of great importance to listen to survivors and allow for proper due process in such cases .
Speaking to NPR ’ s Morning Edition , Ocasio-Cortez said , “ There have been investigative journalists that have corroborated certain aspects of her account — that is undeniable — [ and ] have raised questions about other aspects of her account.
” She is concerned , though , that an early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from her party and potentially alienate victims of sexual violence .
“ It certainly seems as though something has happened .
I ’ m not sure , ” she said , later adding , “ Frankly , this is a messy moment , and I think we need to acknowledge that — that it is not clear-cut.
” That ’ s quite a tone change from other Democrats , who have rushed to claim that Biden ’ s denial completely suffices — a standard they refused to apply to Brett Kavanaugh .
John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double standard in that regard yesterday , in which Feinstein claimed that Reade ’ s refusal to go public while Biden ran for other offices or ran the Judiciary Committee amounted to a conclusory credibility destroyer : Feinstein didn ’ t apply that standard to Christine Blasey Ford , however , even though Brett Kavanaugh had gone through a contentious confirmation hearing for his appointment to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals more than a decade earlier .
Furthermore , Blasey Ford had none of the contemporaneous indirect corroborators that Reade has ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up denying her claims , in fact .
And now that a court record of Reade ’ s story has emerged from 1996 in an unrelated case , the evidentiary balance has tipped far over — making the hypocrisy from Feinstein and other Democrats all the more apparent .
Ocasio-Cortez wants to play it a little cagier , it seems .
While telling NPR that she still plans to vote for Biden , she also won ’ t “ endorse ” him for the moment .
She wants Reade to get her story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ocasio-Cortez thinks Reade really wants : Ocasio-Cortez , 30 , said it appears Reade – who told her ex-husband about the allegations , according to a 1996 court document obtained Thursday – wants to get her story out .
“ If anything , it sounds like she simply wants to be heard , ” she said .
“ It seems as though she does not feel she ’ s been heard yet.
” Gee , I wonder why that might be ?
Thus far , the national media has covered the story … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death , that is .
Reade ’ s interview with Megyn Kelly was the most significant time she has had to tell her story , and that was a New Media publication .
Julie Swetnick got more air time and sympathetic coverage for her utterly insane allegation against Kavanaugh than national media outlets have afforded Reade .
The media coverage has been so bad that Washington Post media analyst Erik Wemple lamented on Wednesday that his industry is forcing him to agree with Tucker Carlson : So why is Ocasio-Cortez deviating from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s still sore over Bernie Sanders ’ defeat and hopes that the scandal gives the candidate she did endorse another shot at the nomination .
Ocasio-Cortez lamented that “ people are fast forwarding to the political implications , ” but the circled wagons of her own party make it clear that ’ s already happening .
Ocasio-Cortez might also be mindful that her particular constituency runs a lot younger and more socialist/activist than Biden ’ s and the Democrats as a whole , and that they may not forgive Ocasio-Cortez for abandoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promote the party .
However , she ’ s still signaling some support for Biden to keep the party support and money flowing into her own race .
It is indeed “ a messy moment , ” but only because Democrats , activists , and the national media constructed a model based on the Salem witch trials as a cudgel to beat Republicans .
Had they insisted on due process and the proper burden of proof during the Kavanaugh hearings , we never would have heard from Blasey Ford at all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier on everyone .

Yes it certainly does, but that argument also seems a bit surprising coming from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Speaking to NPR yesterday, the firebrand frosh House member declared that Tara Reade needs to be heard and Democrats might risk their credibility by ignoring her, even though she also affirmed that she still planned to vote for Joe Biden. It’s clear, though, that Ocasio-Cortez isn’t entirely buying Biden’s denials, and thinks that her fellow Democrats don’t have an appreciation for just how much this “is not clear-cut”:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., says an accusation of sexual assault against former Vice President Joe Biden is “not clear-cut,” but that it remains of great importance to listen to survivors and allow for proper due process in such cases. Speaking to NPR’s Morning Edition, Ocasio-Cortez said, “There have been investigative journalists that have corroborated certain aspects of her account — that is undeniable — [and] have raised questions about other aspects of her account.” She is concerned, though, that an early rush to take sides could signal hypocrisy from her party and potentially alienate victims of sexual violence. “It certainly seems as though something has happened. I’m not sure,” she said, later adding, “Frankly, this is a messy moment, and I think we need to acknowledge that — that it is not clear-cut.”
That’s quite a tone change from other Democrats, who have rushed to claim that Biden’s denial completely suffices — a standard they refused to apply to Brett Kavanaugh. John wrote about Dianne Feinstein’s explicit double standard in that regard yesterday, in which Feinstein claimed that Reade’s refusal to go public while Biden ran for other offices or ran the Judiciary Committee amounted to a conclusory credibility destroyer:
"Why didn't she say something — you know when he was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee or after that?" Feinstein rejected the notion of a Dem double standard and argued the situation isn’t “comparable” to Kavanaugh — Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 7, 2020
Feinstein didn’t apply that standard to Christine Blasey Ford, however, even though Brett Kavanaugh had gone through a contentious confirmation hearing for his appointment to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals more than a decade earlier. Furthermore, Blasey Ford had none of the contemporaneous indirect corroborators that Reade has; the four named by Blasey Ford ended up denying her claims, in fact. And now that a court record of Reade’s story has emerged from 1996 in an unrelated case, the evidentiary balance has tipped far over — making the hypocrisy from Feinstein and other Democrats all the more apparent.
Ocasio-Cortez wants to play it a little cagier, it seems. While telling NPR that she still plans to vote for Biden, she also won’t “endorse” him for the moment. She wants Reade to get her story fully out first, which is what Ocasio-Cortez thinks Reade really wants:
Ocasio-Cortez, 30, said it appears Reade – who told her ex-husband about the allegations, according to a 1996 court document obtained Thursday – wants to get her story out. “If anything, it sounds like she simply wants to be heard,” she said. “It seems as though she does not feel she’s been heard yet.”
Gee, I wonder why that might be? Thus far, the national media has covered the story … in the sense of smothering it to death, that is. Reade’s interview with Megyn Kelly was the most significant time she has had to tell her story, and that was a New Media publication. Julie Swetnick got more air time and sympathetic coverage for her utterly insane allegation against Kavanaugh than national media outlets have afforded Reade.
The media coverage has been so bad that Washington Post media analyst Erik Wemple lamented on Wednesday that his industry is forcing him to agree with Tucker Carlson:
So why is Ocasio-Cortez deviating from the party line on Biden? Perhaps she’s still sore over Bernie Sanders’ defeat and hopes that the scandal gives the candidate she did endorse another shot at the nomination. Ocasio-Cortez lamented that “people are fast forwarding to the political implications,” but the circled wagons of her own party make it clear that’s already happening. Ocasio-Cortez might also be mindful that her particular constituency runs a lot younger and more socialist/activist than Biden’s and the Democrats as a whole, and that they may not forgive Ocasio-Cortez for abandoning a “Believe All Women” just to promote the party. However, she’s still signaling some support for Biden to keep the party support and money flowing into her own race.
It is indeed “a messy moment,” but only because Democrats, activists, and the national media constructed a model based on the Salem witch trials as a cudgel to beat Republicans. Had they insisted on due process and the proper burden of proof during the Kavanaugh hearings, we never would have heard from Blasey Ford at all, and defending Biden would have been much easier on everyone.


hotair--2020-05-08--Both McMichaels charged with murder, aggravated assault for killing Ahmaud Arbery

“ This should have occurred the day it happened , ” said one of Arbery ’ s friends to the AP after the news came down last night .
“ There ’ s no way without the video this would have occurred.
” That ’ s half-right .
There ’ s no way this would have occurred without the video leaking .
Remember , local cops and the DA ’ s office had the footage the whole time .
It ’ s just that they somehow failed to see that the McMichaels were the aggressors in the confrontation until the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world had to politely point it out to them .
In a way , it ’ s worse than that .
The video may have actually gotten the McMichaels off the hook initially .
The raw facts of the case are very bad for them : An unarmed man lay dead in the road after the McMichaels , brandishing guns , and a friend went looking for him .
That ’ s alarming and suspicious , worthy of a skeptical investigative eye .
But the now-recused DA looked at the same clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Oh , I see .
Arbery , who was chased down by two vehicles and then confronted by men with firearms , was the aggressor here.
” In a better world he ’ d be charged with something too .
Gregory McMichael , 64 , and his son , Travis McMichael , 34 , were arrested on Thursday evening and were booked into the Glynn County Jail .
“ Based on our involvement in this case…within 36 hours we secured warrants , that speaks volumes for itself to the probable cause in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Director Vic Reynolds at a press conference on Friday morning… “ I don ’ t think I ’ ll ever be in a mental state where I can actually watch the video .
I had others that watched it that shared what they saw and that just was enough , ” Wanda Cooper-Jones told ABC News in an interview that aired Thursday morning on “ Good Morning America.
” The GBI wasn ’ t brought into the case until Tuesday , when the new DA in charge requested their help .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find probable cause after local cops couldn ’ t find any in two months .
“ Probable cause was clear to our agents pretty quickly , ” said the head of the GBI , pointedly .
“ I ’ m very comfortable in telling you there ’ s more than sufficient probable cause in charging felony murder.
” Whether they would have moved as nimbly without the public outcry over the video is a separate question .
Presumably they wouldn ’ t have been involved at all .
My first reaction after hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Uh oh .
Did they overcharge ?
” Without seeing the statute I didn ’ t know how Georgia law defined “ murder.
” The McMichaels are guilty of an awful lot but proving premeditated intent to kill would have been difficult given the facts as we know them .
But it turns out the statute doesn ’ t require premeditation .
It ’ s broad : ( a ) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought , either express or implied , causes the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof .
Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart .
( c ) A person also commits the offense of murder when , in the commission of a felony , he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice .
We could have a long debate about whether the McMichaels ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we don ’ t need to .
The felony murder charge here is straightforward .
The Georgia statute on aggravated assault defines that offense as assault with a deadly weapon .
That ’ s a felony , of course .
Kill a man in the course of committing a separate felony and you ’ re on the hook for his murder .
I think they also could have been charged with false imprisonment : “ A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when , in violation of the personal liberty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or detains such person without legal authority.
” The GBI may have concluded that it wasn ’ t worth fighting that battle since the defense could have argued that Arbery was never actually confined or detained .
The McMichaels tried to confine him by having their friend cut Arbery off with his car on one part of the road and then cutting him off with their own truck in the other direction .
They tried to detain him by demanding that he stop and speak to them while brandishing weapons .
But they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the option to run past the truck and continue down the road .
Which would have been ludicrous .
His attempts to choose flight over fight had been thwarted several times — the friend cutting him off , Travis McMichael stepping out of the truck to block him in the road , then McMichael coming around towards the front of the truck to confront Arbery again as he ran past on the passenger side .
But they ’ re desperate for a defense so they might have resorted to it .
GBI probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that felony when they could choose the much less controversial felony of aggravated assault instead .
The McMichaels will presumably argue at trial that this wasn ’ t assault , it was a lawful citizen ’ s arrest .
It wasn ’ t , for reasons I ’ ve already explained , but it ’ s their best shot .
It ’ s worth thinking about what a meritorious citizen ’ s arrest would look like as a contrast with what the McMichaels did , though .
Yesterday I gave the example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a teller and being tackled and detained by someone behind him in line .
Why do we grant special legal authority to a private citizen to detain another private citizen in a case like that ?
For two reasons .
One : There ’ s zero doubt about whether the suspect is guilty .
The citizen making the arrest has witnessed the crime personally .
And two , importantly : The police aren ’ t available .
Not only aren ’ t the police available , the police can ’ t even be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dial 911 when an armed robber is holding up a bank six feet in front of you and you ’ re apt to get your head blown off .
We allow citizens to make an arrest in that situation because we don ’ t want the bank robber to waltz out of the bank and escape .
If you ’ re willing to take the risk of stopping him , the law has your back .
Those two criteria , zero doubt about guilt and the police being unavailable , are the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ d never witnessed Arbery committing a crime ; they thought he looked like a suspect in an earlier offense .
And the police very much were available .
They could have dialed 911 , told the sheriff that they thought they ’ d spotted a wanted man , and let the police handle the rest .
If they were worried about Arbery disappearing before the sheriff reached the scene , they could have followed him from a distance in their truck .
Standard neighborhood-watch stuff .
No need for confrontation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday .
Charges haven ’ t been filed against their friend , but that could change .
Exit quotation from the GBI chief : “ We ’ re investigating everyone involved in the case , including the individual who shot the video.
” Update : Trump has seen the video too and pronounced it “ very disturbing .
”

“This should have occurred the day it happened,” said one of Arbery’s friends to the AP after the news came down last night. “There’s no way without the video this would have occurred.”
That’s half-right. There’s no way this would have occurred without the video leaking. Remember, local cops and the DA’s office had the footage the whole time. It’s just that they somehow failed to see that the McMichaels were the aggressors in the confrontation until the clip went public and the rest of the world had to politely point it out to them.
In a way, it’s worse than that. The video may have actually gotten the McMichaels off the hook initially. The raw facts of the case are very bad for them: An unarmed man lay dead in the road after the McMichaels, brandishing guns, and a friend went looking for him. That’s alarming and suspicious, worthy of a skeptical investigative eye.
But the now-recused DA looked at the same clip you and I watched and thought, “Oh, I see. Arbery, who was chased down by two vehicles and then confronted by men with firearms, was the aggressor here.”
In a better world he’d be charged with something too.
Gregory McMichael, 64, and his son, Travis McMichael, 34, were arrested on Thursday evening and were booked into the Glynn County Jail. “Based on our involvement in this case…within 36 hours we secured warrants, that speaks volumes for itself to the probable cause in this case,” said GBI’s Director Vic Reynolds at a press conference on Friday morning… “I don’t think I’ll ever be in a mental state where I can actually watch the video. I had others that watched it that shared what they saw and that just was enough,” Wanda Cooper-Jones told ABC News in an interview that aired Thursday morning on “Good Morning America.”
The GBI wasn’t brought into the case until Tuesday, when the new DA in charge requested their help. It took them less than two days to find probable cause after local cops couldn’t find any in two months. “Probable cause was clear to our agents pretty quickly,” said the head of the GBI, pointedly. “I’m very comfortable in telling you there’s more than sufficient probable cause in charging felony murder.” Whether they would have moved as nimbly without the public outcry over the video is a separate question. Presumably they wouldn’t have been involved at all.
My first reaction after hearing the news last night was, “Uh oh. Did they overcharge?” Without seeing the statute I didn’t know how Georgia law defined “murder.” The McMichaels are guilty of an awful lot but proving premeditated intent to kill would have been difficult given the facts as we know them. But it turns out the statute doesn’t require premeditation. It’s broad:
(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. (b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. (c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.
We could have a long debate about whether the McMichaels’ actions showed “implied” malice, but we don’t need to. The felony murder charge here is straightforward. The Georgia statute on aggravated assault defines that offense as assault with a deadly weapon. That’s a felony, of course. Kill a man in the course of committing a separate felony and you’re on the hook for his murder.
I think they also could have been charged with false imprisonment: “A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.” The GBI may have concluded that it wasn’t worth fighting that battle since the defense could have argued that Arbery was never actually confined or detained. The McMichaels tried to confine him by having their friend cut Arbery off with his car on one part of the road and then cutting him off with their own truck in the other direction. They tried to detain him by demanding that he stop and speak to them while brandishing weapons. But they could have argued that Arbery still had the option to run past the truck and continue down the road.
Which would have been ludicrous. His attempts to choose flight over fight had been thwarted several times — the friend cutting him off, Travis McMichael stepping out of the truck to block him in the road, then McMichael coming around towards the front of the truck to confront Arbery again as he ran past on the passenger side. But they’re desperate for a defense so they might have resorted to it. GBI probably figured that it was silly to press that felony when they could choose the much less controversial felony of aggravated assault instead.
The McMichaels will presumably argue at trial that this wasn’t assault, it was a lawful citizen’s arrest. It wasn’t, for reasons I’ve already explained, but it’s their best shot. It’s worth thinking about what a meritorious citizen’s arrest would look like as a contrast with what the McMichaels did, though. Yesterday I gave the example of a bank robber pulling a gun on a teller and being tackled and detained by someone behind him in line. Why do we grant special legal authority to a private citizen to detain another private citizen in a case like that? For two reasons. One: There’s zero doubt about whether the suspect is guilty. The citizen making the arrest has witnessed the crime personally. And two, importantly: The police aren’t available. Not only aren’t the police available, the police can’t even be summoned. Whip out your phone to dial 911 when an armed robber is holding up a bank six feet in front of you and you’re apt to get your head blown off. We allow citizens to make an arrest in that situation because we don’t want the bank robber to waltz out of the bank and escape. If you’re willing to take the risk of stopping him, the law has your back.
Those two criteria, zero doubt about guilt and the police being unavailable, are the opposite of the situation faced by the McMichaels. They’d never witnessed Arbery committing a crime; they thought he looked like a suspect in an earlier offense. And the police very much were available. They could have dialed 911, told the sheriff that they thought they’d spotted a wanted man, and let the police handle the rest. If they were worried about Arbery disappearing before the sheriff reached the scene, they could have followed him from a distance in their truck. Standard neighborhood-watch stuff. No need for confrontation.
Here they are being carted away yesterday. Charges haven’t been filed against their friend, but that could change. Exit quotation from the GBI chief: “We’re investigating everyone involved in the case, including the individual who shot the video.”
Update: Trump has seen the video too and pronounced it “very disturbing.”


hotair--2020-05-08--CNBC: China scored highest from its citizens on COVID-19 response, you know

Say , does anyone remember the credulous media reports on Saddam Hussein ’ s normal margins of victory in Iraqi “ elections ” ?
They ’ re back , baby .
CNBC helpfully informed its readers and viewers that the governments that took the top three slots in a global survey of citizen approval on the COVID-19 outbreak were , uh … two communist regimes and a totalitarian emirate .
And guess which communist regime came out on top ?
Yes , the one that just got done disappearing anyone who dared to criticize it : Citizens from just seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ coronavirus containment measures as broadly positive , based on the “ Global Crisis Perceptions ” index released Wednesday by insights agencies Blackbox Research and Toluna .
The research , which surveyed approximately 12,500 people across 23 countries between April 3 and 19 , asked respondents to rate their nations across four key indicators : national political leadership , corporate leadership , community and media .
China , where the virus is thought to have originated , ranked highest in the citizens ’ survey , with a score of 85 out of 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was followed by Vietnam ( 77 ) , the United Arab Emirates ( 59 ) and India ( 59 ) , in a list which saw Asian countries take the top spots .
Come on , man .
No US media outlet could be this dense when discussing approval ratings in oppressive regimes , could they ?
The amazing part of this is how China managed to score as low as it did .
They ’ re at least thirteen points shy of the Saddam standard .
Vietnam may not be as oppressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a controlling communist regime , with not much patience for dissent and criticism .
The UAE might be friendlier to the US , but it ’ s far from being free , and dissent is punished , harshly at times .
And for that matter , at # 5 , Malaysia has its own issues on dissent , specifically on COVID-19 .
That ’ s not to boost the US ’ approval rating , which is middling at best even after removing the oppressive regimes and their propaganda-driven outcomes from the list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 36 , however . )
Americans and Germans have the same level of approval for their governments , with Brits being slightly more disapproving and Australians slightly more sunny about their government ’ s response .
Part of these results reflect the fact that we ’ re still in the middle of massive disruptions , which tend to make people much less inclined to be satisfied .
It didn ’ t take long for social media to dunk on CNBC for this credulous take , Mediaite noticed .
Charlie Nash did a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stinging rebukes : This once again highlights a depressing trend of credulous treatment among American media outlets of China ’ s propaganda and cooked data .
I ’ m just wondering if their own approval ratings of Beijing outstrip even these numbers .

Say, does anyone remember the credulous media reports on Saddam Hussein’s normal margins of victory in Iraqi “elections”? They’re back, baby. CNBC helpfully informed its readers and viewers that the governments that took the top three slots in a global survey of citizen approval on the COVID-19 outbreak were, uh … two communist regimes and a totalitarian emirate.
And guess which communist regime came out on top? Yes, the one that just got done disappearing anyone who dared to criticize it:
Citizens from just seven out of 23 countries rate their governments’ coronavirus containment measures as broadly positive, based on the “Global Crisis Perceptions” index released Wednesday by insights agencies Blackbox Research and Toluna. The research, which surveyed approximately 12,500 people across 23 countries between April 3 and 19, asked respondents to rate their nations across four key indicators: national political leadership, corporate leadership, community and media. China, where the virus is thought to have originated, ranked highest in the citizens’ survey, with a score of 85 out of 100. The world’s second-largest economy was followed by Vietnam (77), the United Arab Emirates (59) and India (59), in a list which saw Asian countries take the top spots.
Come on, man. No US media outlet could be this dense when discussing approval ratings in oppressive regimes, could they? The amazing part of this is how China managed to score as low as it did. They’re at least thirteen points shy of the Saddam standard. Vietnam may not be as oppressive as China, but it’s also a controlling communist regime, with not much patience for dissent and criticism. The UAE might be friendlier to the US, but it’s far from being free, and dissent is punished, harshly at times. And for that matter, at #5, Malaysia has its own issues on dissent, specifically on COVID-19.
That’s not to boost the US’ approval rating, which is middling at best even after removing the oppressive regimes and their propaganda-driven outcomes from the list. (Interestingly, Iran only scores a 36, however.) Americans and Germans have the same level of approval for their governments, with Brits being slightly more disapproving and Australians slightly more sunny about their government’s response. Part of these results reflect the fact that we’re still in the middle of massive disruptions, which tend to make people much less inclined to be satisfied.
It didn’t take long for social media to dunk on CNBC for this credulous take, Mediaite noticed. Charlie Nash did a Twitter round-up of some of the more stinging rebukes:
And you should see the results from the last Chinese election! Absolute landslide. https://t.co/HHxMRIx0SD — Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) May 7, 2020
This funny thing happens when you run a country so brutally that citizens know that criticizing their government can result in their disappearance. But, please, media, continue with your very serious news report. https://t.co/FQBiKnELQX — Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) May 7, 2020
I wonder if news organizations with parent companies investing in China run a certain number of these pieces just so that when Beijing complains to the parent companies, they can argue that they “show both sides." https://t.co/cH5ynrdPw1 — Jim Geraghty (@jimgeraghty) May 7, 2020
This once again highlights a depressing trend of credulous treatment among American media outlets of China’s propaganda and cooked data. I’m just wondering if their own approval ratings of Beijing outstrip even these numbers.


hotair--2020-05-08--Crater: Unemployment rate 14.7%, 20.5 million jobs vaporized in April

The ADP employment projection of 20.2 million jobs lost turned out to be a near-bullseye , under the circumstances .
The Bureau of Labor Statistics gave the worst jobs report in its history , tallying up the COVID-19 pandemic toll on the labor market at 20.5 million jobs in April .
The unemployment rate jumped more than ten full points to hit 14.7 % , both new records in the 72-year series : Total nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million in April , and the unemployment rate rose to 14.7 percent , the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflect the effects of the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) pandemic and efforts to contain it .
Employment fell sharply in all major industry sectors , with particularly heavy job losses in leisure and hospitality .
… In April , the unemployment rate increased by 10.3 percentage points to 14.7 percent .
This is the highest rate and the largest over-the-month increase in the history of the series ( seasonally adjusted data are available back to January 1948 ) .
The number of unemployed persons rose by 15.9 million to 23.1 million in April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflect the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and efforts to contain it .
( See table A-1 .
For more information about how the household survey and its measures were affected by the coronavirus pandemic , see the box note on page 5 . )
In April , unemployment rates rose sharply among all major worker groups .
The rate was 13.0 percent for adult men , 15.5 percent for adult women , 31.9 percent for teenagers , 14.2 percent for Whites , 16.7 percent for Blacks , 14.5 percent for Asians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates for all of these groups , with the exception of Blacks , represent record highs for their respective series .
( See tables A-1 , A-2 , and A-3 . )
This might not be quite as bad as expected .
Over 33 million jobless claims got filed in March and April , so this represents slightly under two-thirds that number .
Some of those filers might have either found another job or got recalled to their previous employers , but clearly not most of them — and the jobless number might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s because this data comes with a big caveat .
For those who do not already know this , BLS compiles this data through two surveys , both essentially polls , although with very large sample sizes .
Thanks to the pandemic , the data collection for April was significantly impacted , with the BLS estimating a shrinkage of 13 % in the Household Survey sample .
For the Establishment survey , the challenge came in attempting to discover whether businesses were still alive : There was a change to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for April .
Business births and deaths can not be adequately captured by the establishment survey as they occur .
Therefore , the establishment survey estimates use a model to account for the relatively stable net employment change generated by business births and deaths .
Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic , the relationship between the two was no longer stable in April .
Therefore , the establishment survey made modifications to the birth-death model .
Even in the Household model , where the calculations are simpler , the issue of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a shutdown .
BLS settled on a definition of having been paid on or before April 12 , the usual marker for Household surveys , but that ’ s going to be a problem in this report .
Much of the meltdown had already taken place by that point , but several million more jobless claims flowed in the weeks after that too .
This might only represent about two-thirds of the meltdown , in other words , and the hangover might last into the May jobs report even if we see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after the 12th or so .
In a disastrous downturn of this scope , the component data is much less meaningful .
However , there are a few points to note in the BLS breakdown .
First off , the combined number of unemployed ( 15.9 million ) and those leaving the workforce ( 6.6 million ) outstrip the job losses .
There might be some overlap between the two , but it ’ s more likely that recent re-entrants have become discouraged and have re-exited the workforce .
The Household numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20.5 million , which means people are more likely to report their jobs as destroyed than their employers are .
In the establishment survey , every single industry gets hammered , even those one might suppose would benefit .
Health care and social assistance dropped over two million jobs , likely from the bar on non-essential services and surgeries .
The least impacted industry turned out to be utilities , which only lost 3300 jobs in April , but is clearly one of the most essential of all industry classifications .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy political application .
We knew that the need to shut down economic activity would take a heavy toll ; this is just the bill coming due , and likely not the last one we ’ ll see , either .
Donald Trump emphasized that point when asked about the jobs report this morning , and argued that he won ’ t be judged on the losses but on how he responds to them .
That ’ s almost certainly true , and one reason among many why Trump has been pushing the @ @ @ @ @ @

The ADP employment projection of 20.2 million jobs lost turned out to be a near-bullseye, under the circumstances. The Bureau of Labor Statistics gave the worst jobs report in its history, tallying up the COVID-19 pandemic toll on the labor market at 20.5 million jobs in April. The unemployment rate jumped more than ten full points to hit 14.7%, both new records in the 72-year series:
Total nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million in April, and the unemployment rate rose to 14.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The changes in these measures reflect the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. Employment fell sharply in all major industry sectors, with particularly heavy job losses in leisure and hospitality. … In April, the unemployment rate increased by 10.3 percentage points to 14.7 percent. This is the highest rate and the largest over-the-month increase in the history of the series (seasonally adjusted data are available back to January 1948). The number of unemployed persons rose by 15.9 million to 23.1 million in April. The sharp increases in these measures reflect the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and efforts to contain it. (See table A-1. For more information about how the household survey and its measures were affected by the coronavirus pandemic, see the box note on page 5.) In April, unemployment rates rose sharply among all major worker groups. The rate was 13.0 percent for adult men, 15.5 percent for adult women, 31.9 percent for teenagers, 14.2 percent for Whites, 16.7 percent for Blacks, 14.5 percent for Asians, and 18.9 percent for Hispanics. The rates for all of these groups, with the exception of Blacks, represent record highs for their respective series. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
This might not be quite as bad as expected. Over 33 million jobless claims got filed in March and April, so this represents slightly under two-thirds that number. Some of those filers might have either found another job or got recalled to their previous employers, but clearly not most of them — and the jobless number might still be underestimated by this report.
That’s because this data comes with a big caveat. For those who do not already know this, BLS compiles this data through two surveys, both essentially polls, although with very large sample sizes. Thanks to the pandemic, the data collection for April was significantly impacted, with the BLS estimating a shrinkage of 13% in the Household Survey sample. For the Establishment survey, the challenge came in attempting to discover whether businesses were still alive:
There was a change to the estimation method used in the establishment survey for April. Business births and deaths cannot be adequately captured by the establishment survey as they occur. Therefore, the establishment survey estimates use a model to account for the relatively stable net employment change generated by business births and deaths. Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the relationship between the two was no longer stable in April. Therefore, the establishment survey made modifications to the birth-death model.
Even in the Household model, where the calculations are simpler, the issue of determining “employed” status gets complicated in a shutdown. BLS settled on a definition of having been paid on or before April 12, the usual marker for Household surveys, but that’s going to be a problem in this report. Much of the meltdown had already taken place by that point, but several million more jobless claims flowed in the weeks after that too. This might only represent about two-thirds of the meltdown, in other words, and the hangover might last into the May jobs report even if we see a rebound later this months … say, after the 12th or so.
In a disastrous downturn of this scope, the component data is much less meaningful. However, there are a few points to note in the BLS breakdown. First off, the combined number of unemployed (15.9 million) and those leaving the workforce (6.6 million) outstrip the job losses. There might be some overlap between the two, but it’s more likely that recent re-entrants have become discouraged and have re-exited the workforce. The Household numbers of employed dropped 22.4 million, not 20.5 million, which means people are more likely to report their jobs as destroyed than their employers are.
In the establishment survey, every single industry gets hammered, even those one might suppose would benefit. Health care and social assistance dropped over two million jobs, likely from the bar on non-essential services and surgeries. The least impacted industry turned out to be utilities, which only lost 3300 jobs in April, but is clearly one of the most essential of all industry classifications.
This is such a black-swan event that it defies easy political application. We knew that the need to shut down economic activity would take a heavy toll; this is just the bill coming due, and likely not the last one we’ll see, either. Donald Trump emphasized that point when asked about the jobs report this morning, and argued that he won’t be judged on the losses but on how he responds to them. That’s almost certainly true, and one reason among many why Trump has been pushing the need to reopen the economy.