hotair--2020-04-30--Trump to Acosta: I sure hope CNN will cover what these FBI "dirty cops" did to Flynn

Call this the live version of Donald Trump ’ s Twitter feed .
CNN ’ s Jim Acosta tried to ask Donald Trump if he regretted firing Michael Flynn after Trump declared him vindicated if not exonerated last night and this morning .
Trump had a couple of choice words to say about CNN in particular , along the same lines as this tweet : Trump did tell Acosta that he regretted not having all the information before firing Flynn , but most of the rest of this response is a challenge to get CNN to cover Flynn ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As far as Trump-Acosta exchanges go , Mediaite points out , this one ’ s surprisingly friendly , but no less pointed : Trump wouldn ’ t say whether he stands by that statement , deflecting instead to how Flynn was “ tormented ” by “ dirty cops.
” After he also called the Roger Stone case a “ disgrace , ” Trump pivoted to blast CNN by accusing them of being part of Flynn ’ s “ torment.
” “ CNN tormented him , in all fairness…I hope to see that CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should , but just cover it fairly .
Because he is in the process of being exonerated .
If you look at those notes from yesterday , that was total exoneration .
These were dirty , filthy cops at the top of the FBI .
They were dishonest people .
Now we have to see what ’ s going to happen .
General Flynn was treated like nobody should.
” … Acosta followed up by asking Trump if it was a “ mistake ” firing Flynn , which the president indirectly answered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were out to get him , ” the prosecution was a “ disgrace , ” and Flynn is “ essentially exonerated.
” That certainly sounds like someone who ’ s prepared for some executive clemency action , and not just for Flynn .
Trump also brings up Roger Stone as someone unfairly prosecuted , which makes it look as though Trump ’ s preparing the grounds for a pardon there as well .
Flynn will likely not need any such action after yesterday ’ s disclosures to the court , and Flynn will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway .
Had he not fought this ( belatedly , of course ) to the end , the cloud would have hung over Flynn the rest of his life .
As for the FBI , the “ dirty cops ” epithet has to sting … but they seem to have earned it .
Trump ’ s got an idea about where this started too , one which will surprise no one .

Call this the live version of Donald Trump’s Twitter feed. CNN’s Jim Acosta tried to ask Donald Trump if he regretted firing Michael Flynn after Trump declared him vindicated if not exonerated last night and this morning. Trump had a couple of choice words to say about CNN in particular, along the same lines as this tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1255706636972363776
Trump did tell Acosta that he regretted not having all the information before firing Flynn, but most of the rest of this response is a challenge to get CNN to cover Flynn’s vindication as fully as his prosecution. As far as Trump-Acosta exchanges go, Mediaite points out, this one’s surprisingly friendly, but no less pointed:
Trump wouldn’t say whether he stands by that statement, deflecting instead to how Flynn was “tormented” by “dirty cops.” After he also called the Roger Stone case a “disgrace,” Trump pivoted to blast CNN by accusing them of being part of Flynn’s “torment.” “CNN tormented him, in all fairness…I hope to see that CNN will — not even apologize, which they should, but just cover it fairly. Because he is in the process of being exonerated. If you look at those notes from yesterday, that was total exoneration. These were dirty, filthy cops at the top of the FBI. They were dishonest people. Now we have to see what’s going to happen. General Flynn was treated like nobody should.” … Acosta followed up by asking Trump if it was a “mistake” firing Flynn, which the president indirectly answered with a response about how “they were out to get him,” the prosecution was a “disgrace,” and Flynn is “essentially exonerated.”
That certainly sounds like someone who’s prepared for some executive clemency action, and not just for Flynn. Trump also brings up Roger Stone as someone unfairly prosecuted, which makes it look as though Trump’s preparing the grounds for a pardon there as well. Flynn will likely not need any such action after yesterday’s disclosures to the court, and Flynn will likely prefer outright dismissal over a pardon anyway. Had he not fought this (belatedly, of course) to the end, the cloud would have hung over Flynn the rest of his life.
As for the FBI, the “dirty cops” epithet has to sting … but they seem to have earned it. Trump’s got an idea about where this started too, one which will surprise no one.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1255832117583495169


hotair--2020-04-30--Gov. Newsom orders all CA beaches closed after crowds formed last weekend <span class='red'>(Update:

Gov. Newsom orders all CA beaches closed after crowds formed last weekend (Update: Closes OC beaches only)

We all remember those images of Florida beaches that were packed with people even as the state was starting to issue stay-at-home orders last month .
Something similar happened in California over the weekend and it has created a battle between local government and the governor .
Specifically , it happened in Orange County not far from my house .
We had a very warm weekend and this is what Newport Beach looked like .
Photos like that ricocheted around the internet and caused some people to worry this would cause the virus to spread .
In response to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lengthy statement Monday criticizing beach goers , specifically those in Orange County and Ventura County .
The video of his statement is below but he said in part , “ I want to just confront the topic that is top of mind and those are the images we saw over the weekend , the images down in Orange County and Ventura County on our beaches , ” he said .
He continued , “ Those images are an example of what not to see , people , what not to do if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progress that we ’ ve made in the last few weeks extend into the next number of weeks.
” He added , “ This virus doesn ’ t take the weekends off.
” Despite being called out by the governor , Newport Beach officials voted the following day to keep the beaches open .
That was apparently the last straw for Gov .
Newsom who made plans to announce Thursday that all beaches and state parks will be shut down as of Friday : But that ’ s far from the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a slight majority of Republicans now think it ’ s time for people to get back to work even as a majority of Democrats say no .
And this is where the political geography of California comes into play .
Gov .
Newsom is a progressive who was formerly the Mayor of San Francisco .
Orange County , which is in southern California , isn ’ t as conservative as it once was but there are still a lot of Republicans here who are thinking it ’ s time to start opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s true of people on the street who say they want the beaches open : It ’ s also true of some elected officials who pushed back on the planned shut down by the governor .
The Mayor of Newport Beach put out this statement , complete with photos from a police helicopter , disputing the claim that beaches were overcrowded last weekend .
It reads in part , “ We understand photos captured some individuals who were not social distancing .
However , the photos included below , taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day of attendance…reflect what we saw along much of the City ’ s seven miles of ocean beaches this past weekend.
” An Orange County supervisor named Don Wagner put out his own statement saying that while the governor had the authority to close the beaches it was not a good idea .
“ I fear that this overreaction from the state will undermine that cooperative attitude and our collective efforts to fight the disease , ” he wrote .
Notice the person below who sent her own beach photo in response .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in northern Humboldt county , has said he will not enforce the governor ’ s order : So here ’ s the video of Gov .
Newsom scolding people Monday .
It appears he is going to shut down the beaches but I wonder if law enforcement in Orange County will enforce that order .
California Gov .
Gavin Newsom said he plans to close state and local beaches in Orange County , calling the images of huge crowds that occupied the beaches over the weekend “ disturbing.
” “ Orange County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern and they ’ ve done a wonderful job down there , I just think we can tighten that up a little bit .
So we ’ re going to have a temporary pause down there , ” Newsom said at a press conference on Thursday… Previous reports before Newsom ’ s order indicated he planned to close all of the state ’ s beaches , which drew widespread criticism from some state officials .
When asked what changed his mind on closing all state beaches , Newsom said that they “ never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were having.
” Newsom is claiming that he never planned to close all beaches and parks as was widely reported earlier by dozens of media outlets .
That story was based on the following memo sent out by the California Police Chiefs Association which plainly said the order would apply to all beaches and parks : During his announcement Newsom said , “ That was their memo .
And that memo never got to me.
” So did the Police Chiefs Association get this wrong ?
Not according to the Chief of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : So Newsom did change his mind and then was “ less than honest ” about it : In keeping with the idea that Newsom changed his mind , the Mayor of San Diego claimed his push back ( “ the Governor heard us ” ) had helped change things and keep San Diego beaches open : Will anyone else come forward on this or will they just fall in line ?
The question now , even more than before is whether local authorities in Orange County will enforce this .
Update : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diego just confirmed it .

We all remember those images of Florida beaches that were packed with people even as the state was starting to issue stay-at-home orders last month.
Last night Florida reported that the state has 4,246 active cases of coronavirus. There will be many more reported tonight. This is a photo of New Smyrna Beach this afternoon. Why are there people there? Because @GovRonDeSantis still won’t shut down the state. Any questions? pic.twitter.com/4Ncdni9bMP — Andrew Weinstein (@Weinsteinlaw) March 29, 2020
Something similar happened in California over the weekend and it has created a battle between local government and the governor. Specifically, it happened in Orange County not far from my house. We had a very warm weekend and this is what Newport Beach looked like.
Photo taken from the Newport Beach Pier on 4/25/20 with a 300mm lens at 3:30 pm. Photo by: Mindy Schauer/scng #NewportBeach #coronavirus #beachcrowds @ocregister pic.twitter.com/x7HANtktFV — Mindy Schauer (@themindyschauer) April 26, 2020
Photos like that ricocheted around the internet and caused some people to worry this would cause the virus to spread.
This is the scene in Newport Beach, CA as the #COVID19 death toll surges in Southern California pic.twitter.com/pAnvYoalHI — Peter Miller (@peter_miller) April 26, 2020
In response to those images Gov. Newsom to make a lengthy statement Monday criticizing beach goers, specifically those in Orange County and Ventura County. The video of his statement is below but he said in part, “I want to just confront the topic that is top of mind and those are the images we saw over the weekend, the images down in Orange County and Ventura County on our beaches,” he said. He continued, “Those images are an example of what not to see, people, what not to do if we’re going to make the meaningful progress that we’ve made in the last few weeks extend into the next number of weeks.” He added, “This virus doesn’t take the weekends off.”
Despite being called out by the governor, Newport Beach officials voted the following day to keep the beaches open. That was apparently the last straw for Gov. Newsom who made plans to announce Thursday that all beaches and state parks will be shut down as of Friday:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will order all beaches and state parks closed starting Friday after people thronged the seashore last weekend despite his social distancing order that aims to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
But that’s far from the end of this. Yesterday an NPR/Marist poll showed that a slight majority of Republicans now think it’s time for people to get back to work even as a majority of Democrats say no. And this is where the political geography of California comes into play. Gov. Newsom is a progressive who was formerly the Mayor of San Francisco. Orange County, which is in southern California, isn’t as conservative as it once was but there are still a lot of Republicans here who are thinking it’s time to start opening things up rather than shut them down. That’s true of people on the street who say they want the beaches open:
“It’s time to move on,” Huntington Beach resident Jim Puro, 59, said Thursday. “We need to start opening up and I can’t think of a better way than to be out in the sun.” The beaches are expansive, he argued. “There is more than enough space for people to socially distance themselves,” he said.
It’s also true of some elected officials who pushed back on the planned shut down by the governor. The Mayor of Newport Beach put out this statement, complete with photos from a police helicopter, disputing the claim that beaches were overcrowded last weekend. It reads in part, “We understand photos captured some individuals who were not social distancing. However, the photos included below, taken from out police helicopter on the peak day of attendance…reflect what we saw along much of the City’s seven miles of ocean beaches this past weekend.”
Newport Beach Police Chief Jon Lewis and Newport Beach Fire Chief Jeff Boyles have issued a statement commenting on what they and their public safety personnel saw this past weekend in Newport Beach. Pictures taken by our Police Chief from the police helicopter are included. pic.twitter.com/HyF4lof2H9 — Will O'Neill (@RealWillONeill) April 30, 2020
Here’s a larger view of those photos:
An Orange County supervisor named Don Wagner put out his own statement saying that while the governor had the authority to close the beaches it was not a good idea. “I fear that this overreaction from the state will undermine that cooperative attitude and our collective efforts to fight the disease,” he wrote. Notice the person below who sent her own beach photo in response.
https://twitter.com/ndonoso11/status/1255741312445239296
At least one Sheriff in the state, in northern Humboldt county, has said he will not enforce the governor’s order:
“As Sheriff, I am the protector of constitutional rights in Humboldt County, and if an order is issued that I believe violates our constitutional rights, I will not enforce it,” said Sheriff William Honsal.
So here’s the video of Gov. Newsom scolding people Monday. It appears he is going to shut down the beaches but I wonder if law enforcement in Orange County will enforce that order.
Update: Newsom decided to close just Orange County beaches.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he plans to close state and local beaches in Orange County, calling the images of huge crowds that occupied the beaches over the weekend “disturbing.” “Orange County has been on our list of health concern and they’ve done a wonderful job down there, I just think we can tighten that up a little bit. So we’re going to have a temporary pause down there,” Newsom said at a press conference on Thursday… Previous reports before Newsom’s order indicated he planned to close all of the state’s beaches, which drew widespread criticism from some state officials. When asked what changed his mind on closing all state beaches, Newsom said that they “never did and this is exactly the conversations we were having.”
Newsom is claiming that he never planned to close all beaches and parks as was widely reported earlier by dozens of media outlets. That story was based on the following memo sent out by the California Police Chiefs Association which plainly said the order would apply to all beaches and parks:
BREAKING: A source has provided me with this bulletin that will be sent out to all California police chiefs notifying them that tomorrow, Governor Newsom will announce the closure of ALL beaches and state parks effective May 1st in response to recent beach crowds in OC . @FOXLA pic.twitter.com/RG53HhmySf — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) April 30, 2020
During his announcement Newsom said, “That was their memo. And that memo never got to me.” So did the Police Chiefs Association get this wrong? Not according to the Chief of Staff for the Mayor of San Diego:
For the record, last night Mayor Faulconer’s administration was notified by Governor Newsom’s administration that he would be announcing the closure of ALL CA beaches. Minutes before today’s press announcement Mayor’s office was notified this would only apply to Orange County. — Aimee Faucett (@aimeefaucett) April 30, 2020
So Newsom did change his mind and then was “less than honest” about it:
Oh. So according to the San Diego mayor’s chief of staff, Governor Newsom was less than honest with us on TV a short time ago. https://t.co/BxHIP1srTM — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) April 30, 2020
In keeping with the idea that Newsom changed his mind, the Mayor of San Diego claimed his push back (“the Governor heard us”) had helped change things and keep San Diego beaches open:
Great news: the Governor heard us. San Diego beaches WILL STAY OPEN under our plan approved by lifeguards and health officials. In a time of great crisis we don't need knee-jerk policies. We need to keep a steady hand. It’s the only way to keep the public’s trust. Keep it up, SD! — Kevin Faulconer (@Kevin_Faulconer) April 30, 2020
Will anyone else come forward on this or will they just fall in line? The question now, even more than before is whether local authorities in Orange County will enforce this.
Update: Newsom lied. The Mayor of San Diego just confirmed it.


hotair--2020-04-30--Deep Dem thoughts on Biden-Reade allegation: #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen was an "overcorrection," yo

Deep Dem thoughts on Biden-Reade allegation: #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen was an "overcorrection," you know

Do we , now ?
How convenient to have discovered this “ overcorrection ” at just the precise moment that it endangers a Democrat politician .
Politico ’ s Marc Caputo talked with four Democrat advisers to potential running-mate candidates for Joe Biden , and they seem to have suddenly found a whole lotta nuance in their previously comprehensive standard to “ believe all women.
” Nineteen months ago , when Brett Kavanaugh vehemently denied ambiguous and uncorroborated allegations of assault as a teenager , Joe Biden himself declared a new standard : Former vice president Joe Biden , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harassment allegations made in Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ’ s 1991 Senate confirmation hearings , said Monday night that any woman ’ s public claims of assault should be presumed to be true .
… Speaking generally , Biden added , “ For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus , nationally , you ’ ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she ’ s talking about is real , whether or not she forgets facts , whether or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better over time .
But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.
” That was then , and that was a Republican .
This is now , and it ’ s the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency — and perhaps their client ’ s big brass ring , too .
Suddenly , these Democrats think that they have overcorrected on # MeToo and want to endorse due process instead .
It ’ s a little late for that , no ?
No , they argue : Advisers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke to POLITICO — none of whom would go on record — expressed what they described as a sense of frustration that accusations against Biden are being examined more intensely than the more numerous allegations against President Trump .
The advisers all said they hoped Biden would speak out soon , but conceded there ’ s no way he — or those in contention to be his running mate — can continue to avoid the subject as they run for office or jockey to be on the Democratic ticket .
“ ‘ Believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe all women , all the time .
But this is an era of slogans and we ’ re paying the price for that , ” said an adviser to one of the women under consideration , noting Reade ’ s story changed over the time .
“ The # MeToo movement was an over-correction to decades of ignoring women and not believing them .
And what we ’ re seeing now is a result of that over-correction , ” the adviser said .
“ It ’ s not ideal .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about.
” That ’ s actually an accurate statement , but the belated enlightenment on due process is also hypocritical and self-serving .
Democrats from Joe Biden on down established that “ believe all women all the time ” was indeed the proper meaning of their approach .
Biden himself made that clear even outside of the sloganeering .
To do less would be to attack victims/survivors and silence them .
Indeed , as Caputo recalls , one of the presumed contenders for the Biden ticket explicitly declared that to be her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh debacle , just a month after Biden ’ s demand to believe all women : [ Kamala ] Harris told reporters that in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings , her “ biggest fear is that there will be a group of people who retreat , right ?
That ’ s my biggest fear , that there will be people who will decide that if they speak out it doesn ’ t matter , and will feel deflated by what happened in a way that causes them to recede.
” She said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why I ’ m here today : to remind people that their voices really do matter , and they have to speak , and speak out and speak up and that they matter.
” Later , Harris called the Kavanaugh hearings “ a denial of justice for the women of this country and sexual assault survivors — men and women — in this country.
” Now what does Harris think ?
Er … Harris told The Chronicle that Reade “ has a right to tell her story .
And I believe that and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too.
” Harris said the case raises “ a bigger structural issue , frankly , which is that women must be able to speak without fear of retaliation.
” The senator said she could “ only speak to the Joe Biden I know .
He ’ s been a lifelong fighter , in terms of stopping violence against women.
” She pointed to his lead role in passing the Violence Against Women Act in the Senate in 1994 .
“ The Joe Biden I know is somebody who really has fought for women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s equality and rights , ” Harris said .
That ’ s a far cry from Believe All Women .
No one ever disputed that women had a right to speak in public to accuse politicians of sexually assaulting them .
That wasn ’ t the standard Harris , Biden , and other Democrats wanted applied in September 2018 , however .
They demanded that everyone believe those claims even absent any evidence and deny office to those who couldn ’ t adequately prove that it never happened .
They wanted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salem Witch Trials — at least until now , when it ’ s a Democrat in the dock .
Just how craven and hypocritical has this sudden embrace of due process and presumption of innocence become ?
Even CNN ’ s Alisyn Camerota can ’ t quite let Nancy Pelosi off the hook when she claims to have been “ satisfied ” by Biden ’ s response .
“ To be clear , ” Camerota replies , “ he hasn ’ t addressed it — his campaign has addressed it , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he directly , publicly address it ?
” Pelosi never directly answers that question , instead preferring to lie that no one ever accused Biden of a pattern of such behavior — and then changes the subject .
Get used to that .

Do we, now? How convenient to have discovered this “overcorrection” at just the precise moment that it endangers a Democrat politician. Politico’s Marc Caputo talked with four Democrat advisers to potential running-mate candidates for Joe Biden, and they seem to have suddenly found a whole lotta nuance in their previously comprehensive standard to “believe all women.” Nineteen months ago, when Brett Kavanaugh vehemently denied ambiguous and uncorroborated allegations of assault as a teenager, Joe Biden himself declared a new standard:
Former vice president Joe Biden, who was scrutinized for his handling of sexual harassment allegations made in Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s 1991 Senate confirmation hearings, said Monday night that any woman’s public claims of assault should be presumed to be true. … Speaking generally, Biden added, “For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron.”
That was then, and that was a Republican. This is now, and it’s the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency — and perhaps their client’s big brass ring, too. Suddenly, these Democrats think that they have overcorrected on #MeToo and want to endorse due process instead.
It’s a little late for that, no? No, they argue:
Advisers to four of the potential candidates who spoke to POLITICO — none of whom would go on record — expressed what they described as a sense of frustration that accusations against Biden are being examined more intensely than the more numerous allegations against President Trump. The advisers all said they hoped Biden would speak out soon, but conceded there’s no way he — or those in contention to be his running mate — can continue to avoid the subject as they run for office or jockey to be on the Democratic ticket. “‘Believe the woman’ didn’t mean believe all women, all the time. But this is an era of slogans and we’re paying the price for that,” said an adviser to one of the women under consideration, noting Reade’s story changed over the time. “The #MeToo movement was an over-correction to decades of ignoring women and not believing them. And what we’re seeing now is a result of that over-correction,” the adviser said. “It’s not ideal. It’s not what we want to be talking about.”
That’s actually an accurate statement, but the belated enlightenment on due process is also hypocritical and self-serving. Democrats from Joe Biden on down established that “believe all women all the time” was indeed the proper meaning of their approach. Biden himself made that clear even outside of the sloganeering. To do less would be to attack victims/survivors and silence them. Indeed, as Caputo recalls, one of the presumed contenders for the Biden ticket explicitly declared that to be her biggest fear in the wake of the Kavanaugh debacle, just a month after Biden’s demand to believe all women:
[Kamala] Harris told reporters that in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings, her “biggest fear is that there will be a group of people who retreat, right? That’s my biggest fear, that there will be people who will decide that if they speak out it doesn’t matter, and will feel deflated by what happened in a way that causes them to recede.” She said, “That’s part of why I’m here today: to remind people that their voices really do matter, and they have to speak, and speak out and speak up and that they matter.” Later, Harris called the Kavanaugh hearings “a denial of justice for the women of this country and sexual assault survivors — men and women — in this country.”
Now what does Harris think? Er …
Harris told The Chronicle that Reade “has a right to tell her story. And I believe that and I believe Joe Biden believes that, too.” Harris said the case raises “a bigger structural issue, frankly, which is that women must be able to speak without fear of retaliation.” The senator said she could “only speak to the Joe Biden I know. He’s been a lifelong fighter, in terms of stopping violence against women.” She pointed to his lead role in passing the Violence Against Women Act in the Senate in 1994. “The Joe Biden I know is somebody who really has fought for women and empowerment of women and for women’s equality and rights,” Harris said.
That’s a far cry from Believe All Women. No one ever disputed that women had a right to speak in public to accuse politicians of sexually assaulting them. That wasn’t the standard Harris, Biden, and other Democrats wanted applied in September 2018, however. They demanded that everyone believe those claims even absent any evidence and deny office to those who couldn’t adequately prove that it never happened. They wanted the same burden of proof seen at the Salem Witch Trials — at least until now, when it’s a Democrat in the dock.
Just how craven and hypocritical has this sudden embrace of due process and presumption of innocence become? Even CNN’s Alisyn Camerota can’t quite let Nancy Pelosi off the hook when she claims to have been “satisfied” by Biden’s response. “To be clear,” Camerota replies, “he hasn’t addressed it — his campaign has addressed it, but he has not directly addressed it. Should he directly, publicly address it?” Pelosi never directly answers that question, instead preferring to lie that no one ever accused Biden of a pattern of such behavior — and then changes the subject. Get used to that.


hotair--2020-04-30--Fire Chris Hayes? Some liberals want MSNBC host gone for ... covering Tara Reade's allegations

Am I right that he ’ s the first MSNBC anchor to devote meaningful time to this story ?
He ’ s an opinion host .
Doesn ’ t that network have a news bureau ?
Wanting a guy fired for displaying a modicum of intellectual integrity is extremely on-brand for 2020 .
Hayes stands accused of the crime of believing that # MeToo allegations against a powerful politician are newsworthy even when that politician ’ s not a Republican .
He looks guilty to me .
MSNBC host Chris Hayes sparked backlash from the left when he became the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover a former aide ’ s sexual assault allegations against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , with the hashtag # FireChrisHayes trending on Twitter .
The “ All-In ” host welcomed New York magazine ’ s Rebecca Traister to his program Wednesday night after she penned an essay , titled “ The Biden Trap , ” that critical of the former vice president for not addressing Tara Reade ’ s allegations in any interviews , thereby leaving Democratic women supporting his candidacy to answer questions about the allegations for him… “ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a perfect storm where the women who are being asked to support his opponent are now being asked to answer for these charges , ” Traister told Hayes .
“ In part because of the vacuum created by Joe Biden who is not yet really directly answering these questions , and certainly , not doing what I wish he would , which is to say : ‘ Please direct your questions about these allegations to me , and not the women that are out there offering their support to my candidacy.
’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to relate the allegations , make the pedestrian observation that Reade ’ s claims seem more credible now that they ’ ve received some contemporaneous corroboration , and marvel at the predicament in which Biden ’ s all-women VP shortlisters now find themselves .
Because Biden won ’ t forthrightly address Reade ’ s charges reporters have taken to asking his veep contenders for comment , knowing how awkward it is for a progressive feminist woman to play attack dog against another woman accusing a man of sexual assault .
But that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running mate ( and to a lesser extent all Democratic pols , especially women ) will be tasked with , especially if he won ’ t step up and take the heat himself .
Some will do it eagerly , because they ’ re just that desperate for power .
Others less so .
And yet , merely noticing this apparently amounts to an ideological sin worthy of its very own hashtag-shaming on Twitter .
Funny thing .
The Times reports today that , with one predictable exception , Reade isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news networks for interviews .
Despite the potentially game-changing effect of her claims on a presidential election , she ’ s a subject of low media interest .
Ms. Reade told me Wednesday that the only offers she ’ s had to appear on television have come from Fox News , including a call from the prime time host Sean Hannity .
She has so far turned them down .
“ I ’ ve been trying to just kind of wait to get someone in the middle , ” she said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to be pigeonholed as a progressive , I don ’ t want to be pigeonholed as a Trump supporter.
” CNN and MSNBC , whose DNA — even in a pandemic — is politics , have covered her on their websites but haven ’ t put her on camera .
“ They ’ re not offering to put me on TV — they ’ re just doing stories , ” Ms. Reade told me .
“ No anchors , no nothing like that.
” She ’ d most like to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she admires — CBS ’ s Gayle King is one , she said — but they haven ’ t called .
They haven ’ t called .
Apparently she ’ s planning to sit down soon with Chris Wallace or some other news-oriented host at Fox , which is smart .
If she turns up on “ Hannity , ” she ’ s a propaganda prop whom the left will dismiss .
If she shows up on a news program and faces challenging questions , that makes her more credible .
She ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
Despite our best efforts , Ed and I weren ’ t able to find a single full-length video of the segment from Hayes ’ s show online this morning .
MSNBC is normally generous with uploading its clips ; three other segments from Hayes ’ s show are available on their website right now , as well as on YouTube .
But not this one .
Maybe there ’ s only so much the network is willing to do to promote the fact that one of its hosts is unwilling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the sake of victory this fall .
Fortunately for Democrats , plenty of other prominent people are : As well as some much less prominent people : Here ’ s the best I can do for you to provide a clip .
Some guy recorded the segment off of his TV screen using his phone and then uploaded it piece by piece .
It ’ s like a samizdat .
Exit quotation from Newsbusters : “ [ A ] s of Tuesday morning , the whole MSNBC network only had accumulated 4 @ @ @ @ @ @

Am I right that he’s the first MSNBC anchor to devote meaningful time to this story?
He’s an opinion host. Doesn’t that network have a news bureau?
Wanting a guy fired for displaying a modicum of intellectual integrity is extremely on-brand for 2020. Hayes stands accused of the crime of believing that #MeToo allegations against a powerful politician are newsworthy even when that politician’s not a Republican. He looks guilty to me.
MSNBC host Chris Hayes sparked backlash from the left when he became the first primetime host on the network to cover a former aide’s sexual assault allegations against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, with the hashtag #FireChrisHayes trending on Twitter. The “All-In” host welcomed New York magazine’s Rebecca Traister to his program Wednesday night after she penned an essay, titled “The Biden Trap,” that critical of the former vice president for not addressing Tara Reade’s allegations in any interviews, thereby leaving Democratic women supporting his candidacy to answer questions about the allegations for him… “What this is creating is a kind of a perfect storm where the women who are being asked to support his opponent are now being asked to answer for these charges,” Traister told Hayes. “In part because of the vacuum created by Joe Biden who is not yet really directly answering these questions, and certainly, not doing what I wish he would, which is to say: ‘Please direct your questions about these allegations to me, and not the women that are out there offering their support to my candidacy.’”
The thrust of the segment was simply to relate the allegations, make the pedestrian observation that Reade’s claims seem more credible now that they’ve received some contemporaneous corroboration, and marvel at the predicament in which Biden’s all-women VP shortlisters now find themselves. Because Biden won’t forthrightly address Reade’s charges reporters have taken to asking his veep contenders for comment, knowing how awkward it is for a progressive feminist woman to play attack dog against another woman accusing a man of sexual assault. But that’s the role that Biden’s running mate (and to a lesser extent all Democratic pols, especially women) will be tasked with, especially if he won’t step up and take the heat himself. Some will do it eagerly, because they’re just that desperate for power. Others less so.
And yet, merely noticing this apparently amounts to an ideological sin worthy of its very own hashtag-shaming on Twitter.
Funny thing. The Times reports today that, with one predictable exception, Reade isn’t seeing a lot of interest from cable news networks for interviews. Despite the potentially game-changing effect of her claims on a presidential election, she’s a subject of low media interest.
Ms. Reade told me Wednesday that the only offers she’s had to appear on television have come from Fox News, including a call from the prime time host Sean Hannity. She has so far turned them down. “I’ve been trying to just kind of wait to get someone in the middle,” she said in a phone interview. “I don’t want to be pigeonholed as a progressive, I don’t want to be pigeonholed as a Trump supporter.” CNN and MSNBC, whose DNA — even in a pandemic — is politics, have covered her on their websites but haven’t put her on camera. “They’re not offering to put me on TV — they’re just doing stories,” Ms. Reade told me. “No anchors, no nothing like that.” She’d most like to tell her story to a network television anchor she admires — CBS’s Gayle King is one, she said — but they haven’t called.
They haven’t called. Apparently she’s planning to sit down soon with Chris Wallace or some other news-oriented host at Fox, which is smart. If she turns up on “Hannity,” she’s a propaganda prop whom the left will dismiss. If she shows up on a news program and faces challenging questions, that makes her more credible. She’s harder to ignore.
Another funny thing. Despite our best efforts, Ed and I weren’t able to find a single full-length video of the segment from Hayes’s show online this morning. MSNBC is normally generous with uploading its clips; three other segments from Hayes’s show are available on their website right now, as well as on YouTube. But not this one. Maybe there’s only so much the network is willing to do to promote the fact that one of its hosts is unwilling to overlook a possible case of sexual assault for the sake of victory this fall.
Fortunately for Democrats, plenty of other prominent people are:
Speaker Pelosi: "I have complete respect for the whole #MeToo movement…there's also due process…Joe Biden is Joe Biden…There was never any record…I am so proud, the happiest day for me this week was to support Joe Biden for president of the United States." pic.twitter.com/CFfUMZTeYs — CSPAN (@cspan) April 30, 2020
As well as some much less prominent people:
I believe Tara Reade. I also plan to vote for Biden, because the only other option is a serial criminal whose crimes include multiple sexual assaults and who’s proven he simply cannot run the country — that’s just the way it is. It feels gross. Yuck. #VoteBlueToSaveAmerica — Emily Lindin (@EmilyLindin) April 17, 2020
Here’s the best I can do for you to provide a clip. Some guy recorded the segment off of his TV screen using his phone and then uploaded it piece by piece. It’s like a samizdat. Exit quotation from Newsbusters: “[A]s of Tuesday morning, the whole MSNBC network only had accumulated 4 minutes and 39 seconds.”
Part 1 of several: Chris Hayes and @rtraister last night on Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden. Numerous videos posted on Twitter do not (likely not a coincidence) include Traister’s comments. Here is her article too, which I’ve previously posted: https://t.co/cvgm6QcbMj pic.twitter.com/Lwva1IyYcK — Omar Moore (@thepopcornreel) April 30, 2020
Part 2 of several: @chrislhayes and @rtraister last night on Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/T7AgkjIB1w — Omar Moore (@thepopcornreel) April 30, 2020
Part 3 of several: Chris Hayes and @rtraister last night on Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/OaCKWc7FOI — Omar Moore (@thepopcornreel) April 30, 2020
Part 4 of several: Chris Hayes and @rtraister last night on Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden. pic.twitter.com/m58zDMrkMI — Omar Moore (@thepopcornreel) April 30, 2020


hotair--2020-04-30--Alyssa Milano: 'The world is gray' so I still support Joe Biden (but Brett Kavanaugh was guilty)

Sometimes it ’ s hard not to resort to insults and this is one of those times .
Alyssa Milano has written a piece for Deadline explaining why she still supports Joe Biden even though the evidence as it stands now points in the general direction of him being guilty of sexual assault .
It has the not terribly original title “ Living in the Gray as a Woman.
” You can probably imagine without even reading it how this piece is going to attempt to let Milano recede into uncertainty .
The person who championed “ # BelieveWomen ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But actually , what she ’ s written is so much worse than what you could imagine .
It starts with her central idea , her thesis , that women only always have a choice between , “ between working with the very people who oppress us in order to have a chance at gaining power or not working with them , and staying under their thick , hairy thumbs.
” Is the person with hairy thumbs Joe Biden ?
She could just say that but she doesn ’ t , not quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enemy .
But almost immediately , she goes off the rails .
Because while her argument is that the world is gray not black and white , she still has to justify her response to Brett Kavanaugh , not as gray but as absolutely clear .
Before we move on , notice three things about that sentence about Kavanaugh .
First , she writes of Kavanaugh ’ s “ victim ” in the singular .
We ’ re talking about Christine Blasey Ford here .
The problematic accusations made by Deborah Ramirez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story entirely .
Second , the phrase “ told consistently over decades ” is both a lie and a jab at Tara Reade .
It ’ s a lie because Dr. Ford didn ’ t tell anyone her story for 30 years .
And it ’ s a jab at Reade because the main line of attack on her credibility is that she came forward a year ago with a far less shocking claim about Biden touching her awkwardly .
That ’ s true but shouldn ’ t the fact that 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the mid-90s count for something ?
Doesn ’ t that show her allegations aren ’ t a recent invention ?
Third , the evidence that makes Dr. Ford a case of black and white is…a polygraph test ?
Those tests you see in movies which generally aren ’ t admissible in court because they are unreliable ?
So if Tara Reade passes a polygraph and her friends pass a polygraph , would that make her story black and white too ?
Really ?
Then we get to the part where Milano justifies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it ’ s just too gray .
Actually , what ’ s bullsh*t is the muddled thinking that produced this hypocritical essay .
What ’ s bullsh*t is claiming Ford ’ s story was black and white .
What ’ s bullsh*t is claiming Reade ’ s story is too for women like Milano .
But she just keeps going .
In the next paragraph she abandons the entire premise of # MeToo ( women holding men publicly accountable ) to avoid the burden of holding Joe Biden to account : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to be consistent means Milano doesn ’ t have to be either .
It ’ s not an impossible choice , just a terribly inconvenient one for Democrats .
Forget all that noise about holding men accountable .
The new standard is “ pragmatic choices.
” Translation : I ’ m the # MeToo queen but I ’ m sitting this one out .
So deeply that I ’ m gong to campaign for him and vote for him .
Translation : It ’ s wrong , but let ’ s be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel really sorry for myself having to vote for this abuser .
It ’ s impossible and yet I have clearly chosen his side not hers .
Tara Reade ’ s name never appears in this essay .
She ’ s just “ his accuser.
” She ’ s a thing happening to Joe Biden .
Translation : Don ’ t expect any support from me as you are consumed by “ the machine.
” Me and the other pragmatic women who support Joe Biden wish you the best !
# NotReally But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should open his Senate archives .
I totally enjoy being the # MeToo slay-queen on Twitter and might come back to that if a Republican is accused , but for now I ’ m on his side .
# MeTooPragmatism

Sometimes it’s hard not to resort to insults and this is one of those times. Alyssa Milano has written a piece for Deadline explaining why she still supports Joe Biden even though the evidence as it stands now points in the general direction of him being guilty of sexual assault. It has the not terribly original title “Living in the Gray as a Woman.” You can probably imagine without even reading it how this piece is going to attempt to let Milano recede into uncertainty. The person who championed “#BelieveWomen” is now tap-dancing around epistemic uncertainty. But actually, what she’s written is so much worse than what you could imagine.
It starts with her central idea, her thesis, that women only always have a choice between, “between working with the very people who oppress us in order to have a chance at gaining power or not working with them, and staying under their thick, hairy thumbs.” Is the person with hairy thumbs Joe Biden? She could just say that but she doesn’t, not quite. She’s still collaborating with the enemy.
But almost immediately, she goes off the rails. Because while her argument is that the world is gray not black and white, she still has to justify her response to Brett Kavanaugh, not as gray but as absolutely clear.
Harvey Weinstein’s decades of rape were clearly wrong. Donald Trump’s alleged sexual assaults were clearly wrong. Brett Kavanaugh’s actions, told consistently over decades by his victim (and supported by her polygraph results), were clearly wrong.
Before we move on, notice three things about that sentence about Kavanaugh. First, she writes of Kavanaugh’s “victim” in the singular. We’re talking about Christine Blasey Ford here. The problematic accusations made by Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick have been dropped from the story entirely.
Second, the phrase “told consistently over decades” is both a lie and a jab at Tara Reade. It’s a lie because Dr. Ford didn’t tell anyone her story for 30 years. And it’s a jab at Reade because the main line of attack on her credibility is that she came forward a year ago with a far less shocking claim about Biden touching her awkwardly. That’s true but shouldn’t the fact that 3 people recall her telling the full story in the mid-90s count for something? Doesn’t that show her allegations aren’t a recent invention?
Third, the evidence that makes Dr. Ford a case of black and white is…a polygraph test? Those tests you see in movies which generally aren’t admissible in court because they are unreliable? So if Tara Reade passes a polygraph and her friends pass a polygraph, would that make her story black and white too? Really?
Then we get to the part where Milano justifies not making a choice in this case because it’s just too gray.
Women are not afforded the gray. We are not allowed anything but the binary extremes. And then, we are pressured to turn on one another for making impossible choices. It’s bullsh*t.
Actually, what’s bullsh*t is the muddled thinking that produced this hypocritical essay. What’s bullsh*t is claiming Ford’s story was black and white. What’s bullsh*t is claiming Reade’s story is too for women like Milano. But she just keeps going. In the next paragraph she abandons the entire premise of #MeToo (women holding men publicly accountable) to avoid the burden of holding Joe Biden to account:
It’s not up to women to admonish or absolve perpetrators, or be regarded as complicit when we don’t denounce them.
The fact that other women aren’t willing to be consistent means Milano doesn’t have to be either.
Nothing makes this clearer than the women who are still supporting Joe Biden even with these accusations. Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, Amy Klobuchar, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren have all endorsed Biden and like me, continue to support him. Because it’s an impossible choice.
It’s not an impossible choice, just a terribly inconvenient one for Democrats.
It falls upon women to navigate within the system of men’s design to make pragmatic choices that we hope will lead us to a more equal future.
Forget all that noise about holding men accountable. The new standard is “pragmatic choices.”
I still support Joe Biden because I believe that’s the best choice for that future, and again it is not up to women to absolve perpetrators.
Translation: I’m the #MeToo queen but I’m sitting this one out.
The allegations against Joe Biden concern me, deeply.
So deeply that I’m gong to campaign for him and vote for him.
He’s a man I know, respect, and admire, and who I can’t picture doing any of the things of which he’s accused. But I’ve thought that before, and been wrong.
Translation: There’s a very strong chance he’s guilty.
And sexual assault is always wrong.
Translation: It’s wrong, but let’s be pragmatic about this.
This is the shitty position we are in as women but make no mistake: it’s not because of women. We have to suss out the one truth between two opposites, and either one puts us in an impossible position.
Translation: I feel really sorry for myself having to vote for this abuser. It’s impossible and yet I have clearly chosen his side not hers.
As far as his accuser, I want every survivor to have space to tell their story.
Tara Reade’s name never appears in this essay. She’s just “his accuser.” She’s a thing happening to Joe Biden.
But I also don’t want her to be fodder for the machine. And I honestly don’t know what’s next.
Translation: Don’t expect any support from me as you are consumed by “the machine.” Me and the other pragmatic women who support Joe Biden wish you the best! #NotReally
I want powerful men and women to continue to be held accountable for their bad actions.
Just not Joe Biden.
I want victims to be free to be heard.
Just not necessarily believed.
I want there to be an honest process of proving out accusations one way or the other.
But I have no position on whether Joe should open his Senate archives.
And I want to keep having the conversation.
I totally enjoy being the #MeToo slay-queen on Twitter and might come back to that if a Republican is accused, but for now I’m on his side. #MeTooPragmatism


hotair--2020-04-30--FBI notes: Hey, how do we trap Flynn in a lie and get him fired -- or prosecuted?

Old and busted : The case against Michael Flynn .
New , improved hotness : The case against the FBI — for political corruption .
US Attorney Jeffrey Jensen turned over evidence to the court dealing with Flynn ’ s demands to withdraw his guilty plea , notes that call into question what motives the FBI had in approaching Flynn at all .
The evidence , collected by Jensen in an internal Department of Justice probe of the FBI , shows agents discussing their goals , which include setting up a perjury trap to “ prosecute him or get him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday unsealed a new set of documents provided to lawyers for Michael Flynn , the former Trump national security adviser who is seeking to withdraw his guilty plea , that could provide them with new ammunition to attack the FBI ’ s handling of the case .
One of the pages is a handwritten note , apparently from an FBI official , about the bureau ’ s interview with Flynn .
“ What ’ s our goal ?
Truth/Admission or get him to lie , so we can prosecute him or get him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ we have a case on Flynn + Russians.
” It is unclear who wrote the note or whether it was ever sent to anyone else .
The document was turned over to Flynn ’ s lawyers by Jeffrey Jensen , a U.S. attorney in Missouri appointed by Attorney General William Barr to examine the Flynn investigation .
CNN notes , with some significant level of understatement , that this might have a detrimental impact on Flynn ’ s prosecution .
Ya think ?
The documents turned over to Flynn ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reexamination requested by Attorney General William Barr , and they represent a more complicated position for the department than what it ’ s previously said in court .
They also provide an unusual assist to the Flynn defense team that could serve to undermine the department ’ s own case , one of the major accomplishments of former special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation .
The point is that this shouldn ’ t have been “ unusual ” at all .
Flynn was entitled to see those notes as discovery in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plea deal , and has argued since as well , that the FBI entrapped him and that the conversation never was material to a legitimate investigation , which is a condition necessary for an obstruction prosecution .
These notes certainly imply that the FBI didn ’ t actually think his contact with Sergei Kislyak was actionable on its own , nor that they planned to seriously pursue a Logan Act violation , which also gets a mention in the notes .
No one has ever been convicted under the Logan Act and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a prosecution in decades ; it ’ s a joke that Congress just hasn ’ t repealed .
The Logan Act was never meant to apply to a member of a legitimate presidential transition team either , which is what Flynn was at the time of his conversation with Kislyak .
The FBI needed a perjury trap to push Flynn out , as these notes show , and that is the only motive that makes sense for their actions .
The fact that the FBI and DoJ withheld these until the Jensen probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they should have been disclosed to the court , at the very least .
One might think that Judge Emmet Sullivan might feel a little anger over how he got manipulated by the prosecution in this case .
Jonathan Turley calls the notes “ a chilling blueprint ” for an “ unconstitutional , manufactured ” prosecution .
Dismissal is the only justice left to remedy this railroad job , Turley argues , but notes that the judge in this case has dirty hands as well : In the meantime , various FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or unethical ways — but all escaped without a charge .
McCabe played a supervisory role in the Flynn prosecution ; he later was found by the Justice Department inspector general to have lied to investigators , repeatedly .
While his case was referred for criminal charges , McCabe was fired but never charged .
Strzok also was fired for his misconduct .
Comey intentionally leaked FBI material to the press — including potentially classified information — but was never charged .
Another FBI agent responsible for the Russia investigation ’ s secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; he still is not indicted .
The disconnect of these cases with the treatment of Flynn is not just galling , it is grotesque .
Even the federal judge in the case has added to this highly disturbing record .
When Flynn appeared before District Judge Emmet Sullivan for sentencing , Sullivan launched into him and said he could be charged with treason and with working as an unregistered agent on behalf of Turkey .
Dramatically pointing to the flag behind him , Sullivan declared : “ You were an unregistered agent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national security adviser to the president of the United States .
That undermines everything this flag over here stands for .
Arguably , you sold your country out.
” Flynn was never charged with treason or with being a foreign agent .
However , when Sullivan menacingly asked if he wanted a sentence then and there , Flynn wisely passed .
It is a record that truly shocks the conscience .
While rare , it is still possible for the district court to right this wrong since Flynn has not been sentenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the public might show that the court is aware of how it got played by Robert Mueller ’ s prosecutors and the FBI .
If so , perhaps Sullivan has had a change of heart .
Right now , though , his own intemperate and flat-out gullible behavior in this episode is not much more glorious than the FBI ’ s and DoJ ’ s .
The safest/least courageous option is to allow Flynn to vacate the plea and throw it back to the DoJ as to whether they want to proceed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t happen , Donald Trump is likely ready to issue a pardon immediately .
We still haven ’ t quite gotten to the core question , though … which is why the FBI wanted to target Flynn in the first place .
We certainly know who to ask : Looks like Comey ’ s got some explaining to do still .

Old and busted: The case against Michael Flynn. New, improved hotness: The case against the FBI — for political corruption. US Attorney Jeffrey Jensen turned over evidence to the court dealing with Flynn’s demands to withdraw his guilty plea, notes that call into question what motives the FBI had in approaching Flynn at all. The evidence, collected by Jensen in an internal Department of Justice probe of the FBI, shows agents discussing their goals, which include setting up a perjury trap to “prosecute him or get him fired”:
A federal judge late Wednesday unsealed a new set of documents provided to lawyers for Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser who is seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, that could provide them with new ammunition to attack the FBI’s handling of the case. One of the pages is a handwritten note, apparently from an FBI official, about the bureau’s interview with Flynn. “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Elsewhere, it says, “we have a case on Flynn + Russians.” It is unclear who wrote the note or whether it was ever sent to anyone else. The document was turned over to Flynn’s lawyers by Jeffrey Jensen, a U.S. attorney in Missouri appointed by Attorney General William Barr to examine the Flynn investigation.
CNN notes, with some significant level of understatement, that this might have a detrimental impact on Flynn’s prosecution. Ya think?
The documents turned over to Flynn’s lawyers are the first public results of a reexamination requested by Attorney General William Barr, and they represent a more complicated position for the department than what it’s previously said in court. They also provide an unusual assist to the Flynn defense team that could serve to undermine the department’s own case, one of the major accomplishments of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
The point is that this shouldn’t have been “unusual” at all. Flynn was entitled to see those notes as discovery in his prosecution. Flynn argued before his plea deal, and has argued since as well, that the FBI entrapped him and that the conversation never was material to a legitimate investigation, which is a condition necessary for an obstruction prosecution. These notes certainly imply that the FBI didn’t actually think his contact with Sergei Kislyak was actionable on its own, nor that they planned to seriously pursue a Logan Act violation, which also gets a mention in the notes. No one has ever been convicted under the Logan Act and the US hasn’t even attempted such a prosecution in decades; it’s a joke that Congress just hasn’t repealed. The Logan Act was never meant to apply to a member of a legitimate presidential transition team either, which is what Flynn was at the time of his conversation with Kislyak.
The FBI needed a perjury trap to push Flynn out, as these notes show, and that is the only motive that makes sense for their actions. The fact that the FBI and DoJ withheld these until the Jensen probe pried them loose is serious prosecutorial misconduct; they should have been disclosed to the court, at the very least. One might think that Judge Emmet Sullivan might feel a little anger over how he got manipulated by the prosecution in this case.
Jonathan Turley calls the notes “a chilling blueprint” for an “unconstitutional, manufactured” prosecution. Dismissal is the only justice left to remedy this railroad job, Turley argues, but notes that the judge in this case has dirty hands as well:
In the meantime, various FBI figures lied and acted in arguably criminal or unethical ways — but all escaped without a charge. McCabe played a supervisory role in the Flynn prosecution; he later was found by the Justice Department inspector general to have lied to investigators, repeatedly. While his case was referred for criminal charges, McCabe was fired but never charged. Strzok also was fired for his misconduct. Comey intentionally leaked FBI material to the press — including potentially classified information — but was never charged. Another FBI agent responsible for the Russia investigation’s secret warrants falsified evidence to maintain the investigation; he still is not indicted. The disconnect of these cases with the treatment of Flynn is not just galling, it is grotesque. Even the federal judge in the case has added to this highly disturbing record. When Flynn appeared before District Judge Emmet Sullivan for sentencing, Sullivan launched into him and said he could be charged with treason and with working as an unregistered agent on behalf of Turkey. Dramatically pointing to the flag behind him, Sullivan declared: “You were an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. That undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.” Flynn was never charged with treason or with being a foreign agent. However, when Sullivan menacingly asked if he wanted a sentence then and there, Flynn wisely passed. It is a record that truly shocks the conscience. While rare, it is still possible for the district court to right this wrong since Flynn has not been sentenced.
The release of the FBI notes to the public might show that the court is aware of how it got played by Robert Mueller’s prosecutors and the FBI. If so, perhaps Sullivan has had a change of heart. Right now, though, his own intemperate and flat-out gullible behavior in this episode is not much more glorious than the FBI’s and DoJ’s. The safest/least courageous option is to allow Flynn to vacate the plea and throw it back to the DoJ as to whether they want to proceed with a trial. And if that doesn’t happen, Donald Trump is likely ready to issue a pardon immediately.
We still haven’t quite gotten to the core question, though … which is why the FBI wanted to target Flynn in the first place. We certainly know who to ask:
#DrainTheSwamp– @Comey: I sent them something I probably wouldn't have done and maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation… if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official you would work through the White House counsel. pic.twitter.com/mrZcNMpVy4 — Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) December 15, 2018
Strzok wasn’t the only top FBI official who apparently bent the rules in targeting Flynn. Comey admitted in 2018 that the fateful Flynn interview at the White House didn’t follow protocol, and came at his direction. He said it was not “something I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more… organized administration.”
Looks like Comey’s got some explaining to do still.


hotair--2020-04-30--The great Sweden debate: Trump versus ... Trump fans?

How often do you see the president siding with establishmentarians and experts over his own base ?
There was the time he bombed Assad early in his presidency and assassinated Qassem Soleimani a few months ago after promising to extricate the U.S. from Middle Eastern entanglements .
Those moves pissed off some of his isolationist-minded fans but were easily forgiven because ( thankfully ) they didn ’ t lead to wider wars and foreign policy is rarely a core concern for voters .
Besides , he had showed strength by punching a bad guy in the mouth , even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign policy establishment happy .
MAGA fans will always cut him a break when he ’ s muscle-flexing .
There was also that time he agreed to sign another grotesquely bloated federal spending bill that some righties strongly opposed , complaining that the bill spent too much money on establishment priorities and not enough on nationalist ones like immigration .
Trump was alarmed enough by the reaction that he vowed never to sign another bill like it , although of course the government kept running mammoth deficits afterwards even before coronavirus struck .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and moving towards Trump ’ s position or Trump reconsidering and moving towards theirs , these spats are usually quickly papered over .
But I don ’ t know about the great Sweden debate .
Populist righties are dug in on the belief that Sweden ’ s no-lockdown model has been a major success , sparing the country from the same degree of economic calamity that now faces the U.S. Trump , however , blessed the lockdown model when he issued his first set of federal guidelines last month .
Fauci , Birx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus task force convinced him we were facing as many as 240,000 deaths if we didn ’ t take drastic action to slow the spread .
He sided with them — and then within a few weeks began agitating for states to reopen for business .
Which has made this a confusing moment for loyal Republicans .
Is Trump pro-lockdown or anti ?
Does he believe we should “ LIBERATE ” states that are shuttered and move to a more Sweden-like model or is he still mad at Brian Kemp for moving too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a mess .
To make the politics more confusing , Sweden ’ s model received some warm words yesterday from … the WHO , China ’ s mouthpiece , which Trump and MAGA Nation have rightly criticized for hewing too closely to Beijing ’ s line since the Wuhan outbreak began .
In an era in which political positions are defined as much by whom you ’ re against as what you ’ re for , how does all of that shake out ?
Anti-lockdown … or pro-Trump ?
Anti-WHO … or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this morning produced an ultra-rare public disagreement between Trump and his most ardent superfan , Bill Mitchell : Mitchell later deleted his tweet , presumably not wanting to be at odds with his hero , but other righties took to griping on social media about Trump ’ s anti-Sweden stance .
Said one Twitter pal , “ Trump has praised protesters , who cite Sweden as a model , for opposing lockdowns , even though it goes against his own directives .
He also blames WHO for misguiding everyone .
So when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death toll , what is a Trump sycophant to think and do ?
” What indeed .
He ’ s right , Sweden ’ s death toll is conspicuously higher than its Scandinavian neighbors ’ .
But the full picture of how they ’ re doing is more complicated , as I noted yesterday .
What his base clearly wants him to do is disavow the experts ( “ # FireFauci ” ) and scapegoat them for having convinced him to support the lockdowns — and normally he would .
When it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an unpopular move , you don ’ t need to ask twice .
The problem in this case is that the lockdowns aren ’ t unpopular , and his own advisors may have finally gotten through to him on that point .
It ’ d also be a strange moment to go all-in on relaxing restrictions given that America ’ s outlook on the pandemic isn ’ t as rosy as we all hoped it would be circa May 1 .
If he starts beating the drum about Sweden and a bunch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave hits , he ’ ll end up on the hook for that in November .
So we have a rare stalemate .
On the one hand , Trump ’ s being cautious by sticking with the experts .
On the other hand , righty populists want to fight back against government restrictions on movement .
Sweden is the flashpoint .
But how translatable is the Swedish model to the U.S. ?
Even the Swedes are skeptical : Swedes are quick to point out that their model relies on elements that are antithetical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high degree of trust in government — in addition to natural factors such as a less-dense population .
“ It is interesting to see that the Swedish stress on what we call ‘ freedom under responsibility ‘ is getting picked up by the libertarian right in the U.S. , ” said Lars Trägårdh , a history professor at Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College in Sweden .
“ The big problem with all of that is that Sweden is all built , ultimately , on a very strong alliance between the state and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radical culture of transparency , such as a centuries-old law that allows citizens to read politicians ’ correspondence .
Swedes are also in better health than Americans are on average , which could have outsized effects on the toll the Swedish approach takes here .
But like I said yesterday , I think Americans are being underestimated in terms of how willing they are to distance themselves from each other even without state orders in place .
It ’ s not a matter of trust in the government , it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe post-lockdown America is .
We could reopen for business and see little difference short-term in how communities are functioning because most Americans just won ’ t come out of their homes until there ’ s some concrete reason to believe that it ’ s grown safer to do so .
Whether that means more testing or a new contact tracing program or drug treatments , it means the great Sweden debate is to some degree a red herring .
Ending the lockdowns won ’ t solve the problem .
Better management of @ @ @ @

How often do you see the president siding with establishmentarians and experts over his own base? There was the time he bombed Assad early in his presidency and assassinated Qassem Soleimani a few months ago after promising to extricate the U.S. from Middle Eastern entanglements. Those moves pissed off some of his isolationist-minded fans but were easily forgiven because (thankfully) they didn’t lead to wider wars and foreign policy is rarely a core concern for voters. Besides, he had showed strength by punching a bad guy in the mouth, even if doing so made America’s interventionist foreign policy establishment happy. MAGA fans will always cut him a break when he’s muscle-flexing.
There was also that time he agreed to sign another grotesquely bloated federal spending bill that some righties strongly opposed, complaining that the bill spent too much money on establishment priorities and not enough on nationalist ones like immigration. Trump was alarmed enough by the reaction that he vowed never to sign another bill like it, although of course the government kept running mammoth deficits afterwards even before coronavirus struck.
Whether it’s the base sighing and moving towards Trump’s position or Trump reconsidering and moving towards theirs, these spats are usually quickly papered over. But I don’t know about the great Sweden debate. Populist righties are dug in on the belief that Sweden’s no-lockdown model has been a major success, sparing the country from the same degree of economic calamity that now faces the U.S. Trump, however, blessed the lockdown model when he issued his first set of federal guidelines last month. Fauci, Birx, and the other experts on the virus task force convinced him we were facing as many as 240,000 deaths if we didn’t take drastic action to slow the spread. He sided with them — and then within a few weeks began agitating for states to reopen for business.
Which has made this a confusing moment for loyal Republicans. Is Trump pro-lockdown or anti? Does he believe we should “LIBERATE” states that are shuttered and move to a more Sweden-like model or is he still mad at Brian Kemp for moving too quickly to reopen Georgia? His messaging is a mess. To make the politics more confusing, Sweden’s model received some warm words yesterday from … the WHO, China’s mouthpiece, which Trump and MAGA Nation have rightly criticized for hewing too closely to Beijing’s line since the Wuhan outbreak began.
In an era in which political positions are defined as much by whom you’re against as what you’re for, how does all of that shake out? Anti-lockdown … or pro-Trump? Anti-WHO … or pro-Sweden? It’s so confusing that this morning produced an ultra-rare public disagreement between Trump and his most ardent superfan, Bill Mitchell:
If Trump dunking on Bill Mitchell doesn’t leave you with a warm and fuzzy feeling, you’re dead inside. pic.twitter.com/KV7QUq4mWj — Joe Cunningham (@JoePCunningham) April 30, 2020
Mitchell later deleted his tweet, presumably not wanting to be at odds with his hero, but other righties took to griping on social media about Trump’s anti-Sweden stance. Said one Twitter pal, “Trump has praised protesters, who cite Sweden as a model, for opposing lockdowns, even though it goes against his own directives. He also blames WHO for misguiding everyone. So when WHO praises Sweden, despite its rising death toll, what is a Trump sycophant to think and do?” What indeed.
Trump wasn’t letting go, though:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1255825648448348161
He’s right, Sweden’s death toll is conspicuously higher than its Scandinavian neighbors’. But the full picture of how they’re doing is more complicated, as I noted yesterday. What his base clearly wants him to do is disavow the experts (“#FireFauci”) and scapegoat them for having convinced him to support the lockdowns — and normally he would. When it comes to getting him to pass the buck for an unpopular move, you don’t need to ask twice. The problem in this case is that the lockdowns aren’t unpopular, and his own advisors may have finally gotten through to him on that point. It’d also be a strange moment to go all-in on relaxing restrictions given that America’s outlook on the pandemic isn’t as rosy as we all hoped it would be circa May 1. If he starts beating the drum about Sweden and a bunch of red states reopen and a second wave hits, he’ll end up on the hook for that in November.
So we have a rare stalemate. On the one hand, Trump’s being cautious by sticking with the experts. On the other hand, righty populists want to fight back against government restrictions on movement. Sweden is the flashpoint. But how translatable is the Swedish model to the U.S.? Even the Swedes are skeptical:
Swedes are quick to point out that their model relies on elements that are antithetical to American conservative philosophy — namely a high degree of trust in government — in addition to natural factors such as a less-dense population. “It is interesting to see that the Swedish stress on what we call ‘freedom under responsibility‘ is getting picked up by the libertarian right in the U.S.,” said Lars Trägårdh, a history professor at Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College in Sweden. “The big problem with all of that is that Sweden is all built, ultimately, on a very strong alliance between the state and the individual.”… He also described a radical culture of transparency, such as a centuries-old law that allows citizens to read politicians’ correspondence.
Swedes are also in better health than Americans are on average, which could have outsized effects on the toll the Swedish approach takes here. But like I said yesterday, I think Americans are being underestimated in terms of how willing they are to distance themselves from each other even without state orders in place. It’s not a matter of trust in the government, it’s a matter of reacting to information about how safe post-lockdown America is. We could reopen for business and see little difference short-term in how communities are functioning because most Americans just won’t come out of their homes until there’s some concrete reason to believe that it’s grown safer to do so. Whether that means more testing or a new contact tracing program or drug treatments, it means the great Sweden debate is to some degree a red herring. Ending the lockdowns won’t solve the problem. Better management of the outbreak will.


hotair--2020-04-30--Meat processing plant increased production despite COVID-19 outbreak

It ’ s not a pork processing plant this time .
It ’ s not even a beef or chicken processing plant .
This time it is a sausage processing plant in West Dallas that finds itself under investigation after a community activist brought attention to the fact that after an outbreak of the coronavirus sickened employees , production was increased instead of shutting down .
Two workers , both in their 30s have died .
A community activist has gotten involved on behalf of the workers .
Quality Sausage Company ’ s West Dallas plant closed last Friday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would remain closed pending a review of procedures to protect the health and safety of employees.
” Safety measures being adopted include “ employee testing and temperature monitoring , daily cleanings , the addition of hand sanitizing stations , and employee face coverings.
” Tuesday a community activist stepped in and did a press conference after he said workers reached out to him .
Carlos Quintanilla claims the company should have shut down to handle the virus outbreak .
Also , the plant should have been transparent and disclosed the problem to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the two workers who have died .
The partner of one worker who died on April 25 said the company knew he was sick but insisted he return to work .
Another worker died on April 24 .
Dozens of employees are now under quarantine while they await test results .
“ They went to work sick .
And this company allowed them to work instead of saying , ‘ We ’ re going to close down , ’ ” he said .
Now Dallas County is investigating the positive COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also in a federal whistleblower lawsuit .
A former plant manager lodged some disturbing complaints .
He accuses the company of unsanitary work conditions , using vinegar to mask moldy meat , violations of federal food safety practices , and of employing a workforce built on three-quarters of the workers being undocumented immigrants provided by a staffing agency .
The plant has 270 workers .
Other than that , everything is fine .
Lam Van “ Tommy ” Nguyen filed his whistleblower lawsuit in February 2019 .
Nguyen worked as a plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One reason for his complaint is the practice he saw of workers “ cross-contaminating meats in grinding vats.
” The lawsuit clarifies that claim by saying , “ In other words , chicken was ground in a vat , and then pork was ground in the same vat ( or vice versa ) but without proper sanitizing between grindings.
” Nguyen was fired on March 5 , 2018 .
He says it was in retaliation for speaking out against hiring practices and food safety problems .
County health officials are looking into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says working at the plant is hazardous to the workers .
Workers were being told to continuing working even after signs of the virus became apparent in some employees .
“ They put production and profits before the safety of their workers , ” Quintanilla said .
“ They had to deliver the product .
They had to finish.
” Quality Sausage Co. doesn ’ t expect a disruption in supplying its products to customers .
Among other products , the company provides meats for pizza toppings .
Another prepared foods plant closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexican prepared foods maker , Don Miguel Foods , has an unspecified number of employees who tested positive for COVID-19 .
The plant has 700 workers who will all be paid during the shutdown , including benefits .
The company makes tacos , burritos , chimichangas and other Mexican prepared foods for retail and food service outlets .
It expects to resume production May 4 .
It is a subsidiary of MegaMex Foods Corp. , which is a joint venture between Hormel Foods Corp. and Mexico City-based Herdez Del Fuerte .
On Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to classify meat processing plants as critical infrastructure in order to halt the potential of meat shortages .
Many meat processing workers say they will not return to work despite the order .
However , many employees claim the order puts their lives at stake due to unsafe conditions , a lack of protective equipment and outbreaks that led the nation ’ s three largest facilities shut down .
‘ All I know is , this is crazy to me , because I can ’ t see all these people going back into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tyson ’ s Waterloo , Iowa facility said to CNN .
‘ I don ’ t think people are going to go back in there.
’ The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union estimated on Tuesday that 20 meatpacking and food processing workers have died from the virus and some 6,500 are sick or have been exposed through the workplace .
The union , which represents 1.3million food and retail workers , says at least 13 processing plants have been closed over the past two months .
That ’ s a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come back to work then new workers will have to be hired and trained .
As one worker said , ‘ I ’ m still trying to figure out : What is he going to do , force them to stay open ?
Force people to go to work ?
’ Others who were more agreeable to the president ’ s signing of the order also expressed concerns .
The union bosses aren ’ t in favor of ordering workers back to work .
‘ All in all , it can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But my faith in this administration has never been strong and is nonexistent currently .
I wan na know what these added ‘ liability protections ’ are going to be , ’ the person said .
An employee at Tyson ’ s Independence , Iowa plant said , ‘ I just don ’ t know how they ’ re going to do it when there are people dying and getting really sick .
Who ’ s to say people are even gon na show up to work ?
’ In Illinois a Smithfield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ small portion ’ of its 1,700 employees caught the virus , but officials say they can ’ t follow the president ’ s order if workers are still ill. Monmouth Mayor Rod Davies said to the Chicago Tribune : ‘ I certainly appreciate what the president is trying to do , but it will be a difficult challenge to make that happen when we have a certain number of people who are sick and people around those individuals who are sick.
’ The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union has condemned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puts worker ’ s at risk .
Like everything else , a switch won ’ t be flipped and everything goes back to normal .
Employers and employees are going to have to work together to keep everyone healthy and provide safe working environments while this pandemic is with us .
Is this one of the industries that illegal immigrants are hired and the law-breaking by the employers is justified by saying the workers are doing jobs that legal American residents won ’ t do ?
If so , maybe it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .

It’s not a pork processing plant this time. It’s not even a beef or chicken processing plant. This time it is a sausage processing plant in West Dallas that finds itself under investigation after a community activist brought attention to the fact that after an outbreak of the coronavirus sickened employees, production was increased instead of shutting down. Two workers, both in their 30s have died. A community activist has gotten involved on behalf of the workers.
Quality Sausage Company’s West Dallas plant closed last Friday. On Monday the company said the plant would remain closed pending a review of procedures to protect the health and safety of employees.” Safety measures being adopted include “employee testing and temperature monitoring, daily cleanings, the addition of hand sanitizing stations, and employee face coverings.”
“During this pause in production, all employees will continue to be paid. We also expect no disruption in supplying products to our customers at this time, based on current inventory,” the company’s statement said. “As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s knowledge about the virus has increased, we have adapted our procedures to reflect updated health and safety guidance.”
Tuesday a community activist stepped in and did a press conference after he said workers reached out to him. Carlos Quintanilla claims the company should have shut down to handle the virus outbreak. Also, the plant should have been transparent and disclosed the problem to the public. Quintanilla was joined by family members of the two workers who have died. The partner of one worker who died on April 25 said the company knew he was sick but insisted he return to work. Another worker died on April 24. Dozens of employees are now under quarantine while they await test results. “They went to work sick. And this company allowed them to work instead of saying, ‘We’re going to close down,’” he said.
Now Dallas County is investigating the positive COVID-19 cases at the plant. The company is also in a federal whistleblower lawsuit. A former plant manager lodged some disturbing complaints. He accuses the company of unsanitary work conditions, using vinegar to mask moldy meat, violations of federal food safety practices, and of employing a workforce built on three-quarters of the workers being undocumented immigrants provided by a staffing agency. The plant has 270 workers. Other than that, everything is fine.
Lam Van “Tommy” Nguyen filed his whistleblower lawsuit in February 2019. Nguyen worked as a plant superintendent from November 2016 to March 2018. One reason for his complaint is the practice he saw of workers “cross-contaminating meats in grinding vats.” The lawsuit clarifies that claim by saying, “In other words, chicken was ground in a vat, and then pork was ground in the same vat (or vice versa) but without proper sanitizing between grindings.” Nguyen was fired on March 5, 2018. He says it was in retaliation for speaking out against hiring practices and food safety problems.
County health officials are looking into the claims against the plant. Quintanilla says working at the plant is hazardous to the workers. Workers were being told to continuing working even after signs of the virus became apparent in some employees. “They put production and profits before the safety of their workers,” Quintanilla said. “They had to deliver the product. They had to finish.”
Quality Sausage Co. doesn’t expect a disruption in supplying its products to customers. Among other products, the company provides meats for pizza toppings.
“We have taken this action as a way to help protect the health and safety of our team members and expect to conclude our review during the week of April 27,” the company said in a statement. “During this pause in production, all employees will continue to be paid. We also expect no disruption in supplying products to our customers at this time, based on current inventory.”
Another prepared foods plant closed last week for 14 days. A Mexican prepared foods maker, Don Miguel Foods, has an unspecified number of employees who tested positive for COVID-19. The plant has 700 workers who will all be paid during the shutdown, including benefits. The company makes tacos, burritos, chimichangas and other Mexican prepared foods for retail and food service outlets. It expects to resume production May 4. It is a subsidiary of MegaMex Foods Corp., which is a joint venture between Hormel Foods Corp. and Mexico City-based Herdez Del Fuerte.
On Tuesday, Trump used the Defense Production Act to classify meat processing plants as critical infrastructure in order to halt the potential of meat shortages. Many meat processing workers say they will not return to work despite the order.
However, many employees claim the order puts their lives at stake due to unsafe conditions, a lack of protective equipment and outbreaks that led the nation’s three largest facilities shut down. ‘All I know is, this is crazy to me, because I can’t see all these people going back into work,’ Donald who works at Tyson’s Waterloo, Iowa facility said to CNN. ‘I don’t think people are going to go back in there.’ The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union estimated on Tuesday that 20 meatpacking and food processing workers have died from the virus and some 6,500 are sick or have been exposed through the workplace. The union, which represents 1.3million food and retail workers, says at least 13 processing plants have been closed over the past two months.
That’s a problem for plant operators. If workers refuse to come back to work then new workers will have to be hired and trained. As one worker said, ‘I’m still trying to figure out: What is he going to do, force them to stay open? Force people to go to work?’ Others who were more agreeable to the president’s signing of the order also expressed concerns. The union bosses aren’t in favor of ordering workers back to work.
‘All in all, it can be a good thing if done right. But my faith in this administration has never been strong and is nonexistent currently. I wanna know what these added ‘liability protections’ are going to be,’ the person said. An employee at Tyson’s Independence, Iowa plant said, ‘I just don’t know how they’re going to do it when there are people dying and getting really sick. Who’s to say people are even gonna show up to work?’ In Illinois a Smithfield pork plant in Monmouth closed after a ‘small portion’ of its 1,700 employees caught the virus, but officials say they can’t follow the president’s order if workers are still ill. Monmouth Mayor Rod Davies said to the Chicago Tribune: ‘I certainly appreciate what the president is trying to do, but it will be a difficult challenge to make that happen when we have a certain number of people who are sick and people around those individuals who are sick.’ The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union has condemned the president’s order saying it puts worker’s at risk.
Like everything else, a switch won’t be flipped and everything goes back to normal. Employers and employees are going to have to work together to keep everyone healthy and provide safe working environments while this pandemic is with us. Is this one of the industries that illegal immigrants are hired and the law-breaking by the employers is justified by saying the workers are doing jobs that legal American residents won’t do? If so, maybe it’s time for that to be corrected, too.


hotair--2020-04-30--Are liquor stores "more essential" than religious services?

This week , in Worcester , Massachusetts , Baptist Pastor Kris Casey held services at Adams Square Baptist Church in violation of Governor Charlie Baker ’ s executive order banning gatherings of ten or more people during the novel coronavirus lockdown .
Local officials sent a warning to Casey , reminding him that he was in violation of a state order and that further such violations could result in a $ 300 fine , a $ 500 fine , or possibly even criminal charges .
For his part , the pastor insisted that the order was a violation of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the church was observing social distancing guidelines for the parishioners in the pews .
In a written response to the state , Casey went on to note another curious fact .
Why was his church being shut down as a nonessential operation when liquor stores were deemed essential and still allowed to do business ?
( CBS Boston ) In a letter to state officials before holding services , Casey argued that the order violates Constitutional rights and added , “ I notice that liquor stores and garden centers for example are designated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services of 10 or more people are not.
” The city of Worcester has warned the church that they are in violation of the state order… The governor was asked about the church at his daily news conference Wednesday .
“ We believe it ’ s most appropriately dealt with at the local level .
I know the city of Worcester has concerns about this , appropriate concerns , and I anticipate that they ’ ll be the ones who will deal with the church on that , ” Baker said .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all responsibility for a situation with huge potential political and legal consequences .
He issued an order that effectively shut the pastor ’ s church down , but when asked about it , he wrote it off as a “ local issue ” that the city of Worcester would have to deal with on their own .
Smooth move , Charlie .
But what about Pastor Casey ’ s central question ?
How can liquor stores be essential businesses but churches not be ?
On the surface , it looks like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have a constitutional right to get drunk ( 21st Amendment notwithstanding ) , but you do have a right to practice your religion of choice .
So the pastor should have a watertight case here , right ?
Not so fast .
In the end , we ’ re not really talking about the “ nonessential business ” issue here .
This situation deals strictly with the ban on gatherings of ten or more people .
The liquor stores aren ’ t allowed to operate if they allow more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ store at one time .
Some of them , like the one we normally patronize here in New York , don ’ t let anyone in the store .
You order by phone or over an app and they bring it out to the parking lot .
The Pastor ’ s last gathering had 56 people in attendance .
Now , if his church was able to accommodate them all while keeping them six feet apart , it seems pointless to try to shut them down .
But if the state is determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel that it needs to be enforced evenly across the board .
( Whether these authoritarian restrictions of freedom of movement and assembly are constitutional to begin with is a subject for another column . )
There are no easy answers here .
It would be better if orders like these could be run through the legislature rather than being handed down from on high via executive fiat .
But most of the legislators are locked down at home now also .
Many elected executives will have much to account for when this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time being we seem to be stuck with this situation and few courts are likely to challenge executive power under such conditions .

This week, in Worcester, Massachusetts, Baptist Pastor Kris Casey held services at Adams Square Baptist Church in violation of Governor Charlie Baker’s executive order banning gatherings of ten or more people during the novel coronavirus lockdown. Local officials sent a warning to Casey, reminding him that he was in violation of a state order and that further such violations could result in a $300 fine, a $500 fine, or possibly even criminal charges.
For his part, the pastor insisted that the order was a violation of his congregants’ constitutional rights while noting that the church was observing social distancing guidelines for the parishioners in the pews. In a written response to the state, Casey went on to note another curious fact. Why was his church being shut down as a nonessential operation when liquor stores were deemed essential and still allowed to do business? (CBS Boston)
In a letter to state officials before holding services, Casey argued that the order violates Constitutional rights and added, “I notice that liquor stores and garden centers for example are designated as essential services, but that religious services of 10 or more people are not.” The city of Worcester has warned the church that they are in violation of the state order… The governor was asked about the church at his daily news conference Wednesday. “We believe it’s most appropriately dealt with at the local level. I know the city of Worcester has concerns about this, appropriate concerns, and I anticipate that they’ll be the ones who will deal with the church on that,” Baker said.
The Governor is totally bailing out on any and all responsibility for a situation with huge potential political and legal consequences. He issued an order that effectively shut the pastor’s church down, but when asked about it, he wrote it off as a “local issue” that the city of Worcester would have to deal with on their own. Smooth move, Charlie.
But what about Pastor Casey’s central question? How can liquor stores be essential businesses but churches not be? On the surface, it looks like a fairly easy issue to address. You don’t have a constitutional right to get drunk (21st Amendment notwithstanding), but you do have a right to practice your religion of choice. So the pastor should have a watertight case here, right?
Not so fast. In the end, we’re not really talking about the “nonessential business” issue here. This situation deals strictly with the ban on gatherings of ten or more people. The liquor stores aren’t allowed to operate if they allow more than the maximum number of customers in the store at one time. Some of them, like the one we normally patronize here in New York, don’t let anyone in the store. You order by phone or over an app and they bring it out to the parking lot.
The Pastor’s last gathering had 56 people in attendance. Now, if his church was able to accommodate them all while keeping them six feet apart, it seems pointless to try to shut them down. But if the state is determined to enforce this order, they probably feel that it needs to be enforced evenly across the board. (Whether these authoritarian restrictions of freedom of movement and assembly are constitutional to begin with is a subject for another column.)
There are no easy answers here. It would be better if orders like these could be run through the legislature rather than being handed down from on high via executive fiat. But most of the legislators are locked down at home now also. Many elected executives will have much to account for when this is finally over, but for the time being we seem to be stuck with this situation and few courts are likely to challenge executive power under such conditions.