hotair--2020-11-11--More MSNBC paid contributors axed, join Team Biden

The revolving door in Washington is usually thought of as the easy transition from political office to lobbyist jobs .
More and more , however , the revolving door is the one that connects the political world and paid contributor gigs with television networks .
The need for transparency has never been greater than it is now .
MSNBC is doing some housecleaning .
Some of the network ’ s paid contributors are members of Joe Biden ’ s transition team .
It seems like just yesterday that I wrote about a presidential historian who failed to disclose his relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewers .
Oh , it was just yesterday .
Today it looks like a purge is underway .
Presidential historian Jon Meacham beclowned himself , probably out of arrogance more than anything else , when he participated in a panel discussion on the night of Biden ’ s victory speech .
Meacham wrote the speech but failed to acknowledge that little tidbit when he opined about how wonderful the speech was .
And , just like that , he was shown the door .
He ’ ll be allowed to come back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the issues of the day but he won ’ t be paid for them – at least until after Biden ’ s inauguration .
There is no need for MSNBC to kid anyone .
It ’ s a no-brainer that Meacham will get his old job with the network back once Status Quo Joe is sitting comfortably in the Oval Office .
Why would the network give up a commenter with inside connections ?
The network ’ s split with three more paid contributors has been announced .
It turns out one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a post I wrote yesterday and in one that Jazz wrote today .
Zeke Emanuel is a member of the Biden coronavirus task force .
His involvement in fleshing out the Biden campaign ’ s coronavirus response didn ’ t just begin yesterday when Emanuel ’ s departure from MSNBC was announced , though .
He was allowed to remain a paid contributor though we know he released a paper on the virus and vaccine distribution back in September , as Jazz wrote about .
Emanuel will also be an unpaid guest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come back as a paid commenter after Biden ’ s inauguration .
Today a legal analyst , Barbara McQuade , and a political analyst , Richard Stengel have been shone the door .
McQuade is a member of Biden ’ s legal agency review team .
Stengel will be on the agency for global media .
They , too , will be welcomed as unpaid guests but they must disclose their relationships with Team Biden .
It ’ s just all so cozy , isn ’ t it ?
MSNBC and NBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed by contributors .
Other networks do it , too .
And , both sides of the political aisle do it .
NBC News and MSNBC do not allow their on-air contributors to endorse or run for office while appearing as a paid analyst on the network .
According to the Washington Post , NBC News does not allow staff to work for a political campaign or political action committee while being paid by the network .
While many networks have similar rules , others often allow their personalities to engage in informal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to push the boundaries of traditional mainstream journalistic ethics .
And , in some cases , the lines have been blurred even further .
For example , Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro have appeared on-stage at rallies with President Donald Trump , while other Fox stars have routinely made paid speaking appearances at Republican Party events and fundraisers .
And on CNN , paid contributor Ana Navarro hosted a fundraiser for Biden this year , while Van Jones has acted as an informal advisor to the Trump White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Swamp is alive and well and on your television screen .

The revolving door in Washington is usually thought of as the easy transition from political office to lobbyist jobs. More and more, however, the revolving door is the one that connects the political world and paid contributor gigs with television networks. The need for transparency has never been greater than it is now.
MSNBC is doing some housecleaning. Some of the network’s paid contributors are members of Joe Biden’s transition team. It seems like just yesterday that I wrote about a presidential historian who failed to disclose his relationship with Team Biden to MSNBC’s viewers. Oh, it was just yesterday. Today it looks like a purge is underway. Presidential historian Jon Meacham beclowned himself, probably out of arrogance more than anything else, when he participated in a panel discussion on the night of Biden’s victory speech. Meacham wrote the speech but failed to acknowledge that little tidbit when he opined about how wonderful the speech was. And, just like that, he was shown the door. He’ll be allowed to come back on the network and deliver his hot takes on the issues of the day but he won’t be paid for them – at least until after Biden’s inauguration.
There is no need for MSNBC to kid anyone. It’s a no-brainer that Meacham will get his old job with the network back once Status Quo Joe is sitting comfortably in the Oval Office. Why would the network give up a commenter with inside connections?
The network’s split with three more paid contributors has been announced. It turns out one of these contributors happened to be mentioned in a post I wrote yesterday and in one that Jazz wrote today. Zeke Emanuel is a member of the Biden coronavirus task force. His involvement in fleshing out the Biden campaign’s coronavirus response didn’t just begin yesterday when Emanuel’s departure from MSNBC was announced, though. He was allowed to remain a paid contributor though we know he released a paper on the virus and vaccine distribution back in September, as Jazz wrote about. Emanuel will also be an unpaid guest commenter on the network and be allowed to come back as a paid commenter after Biden’s inauguration.
Today a legal analyst, Barbara McQuade, and a political analyst, Richard Stengel have been shone the door. McQuade is a member of Biden’s legal agency review team. Stengel will be on the agency for global media. They, too, will be welcomed as unpaid guests but they must disclose their relationships with Team Biden. It’s just all so cozy, isn’t it? MSNBC and NBC claim to have rules that must be followed by contributors. Other networks do it, too. And, both sides of the political aisle do it.
NBC News and MSNBC do not allow their on-air contributors to endorse or run for office while appearing as a paid analyst on the network. According to the Washington Post, NBC News does not allow staff to work for a political campaign or political action committee while being paid by the network. While many networks have similar rules, others often allow their personalities to engage in informal political activities on behalf of campaigns that seem to push the boundaries of traditional mainstream journalistic ethics. And, in some cases, the lines have been blurred even further. For example, Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro have appeared on-stage at rallies with President Donald Trump, while other Fox stars have routinely made paid speaking appearances at Republican Party events and fundraisers. And on CNN, paid contributor Ana Navarro hosted a fundraiser for Biden this year, while Van Jones has acted as an informal advisor to the Trump White House on criminal-justice reform matters.
The Swamp is alive and well and on your television screen.


hotair--2020-11-11--RNC chair deletes tweet suggesting that Harris will be vice president

The dumbest thing about this is that her message here is *effective* for the Georgia runoff .
Republicans are going to go to the polls in January with three different motivations .
One is to “ prove ” that Biden ’ s victory in the state was a fluke , that the GOP still owns Georgia .
Two is to send Trump out of office as a winner .
But three , the most important by far , is making sure Republicans have the numbers for a Senate majority , to check Biden and Harris .
Many Republican voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the RNC can ’ t stand foursquare behind it because humoring the president about his prospects for a second term remains the party ’ s highest priority .
But Loeffler , Perdue , and the RNC would love , love , love to be explicit about it and hammer home to low-propensity voters that total Democratic control of government is on the line here .
They ’ re hamstringing themselves because Trump ’ s ego won ’ t allow them to embrace their most compelling campaign pitch .
“ Deciding Vote Kamala Harris.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 .
And the party has to pretend that they aren ’ t .
Luckily for them , Democrats are going to spend enough time hammering the need to make Harris the 51st vote in the Senate that low-propensity Republicans should absorb that message as well .
We ’ re going to end up with a “ Schrodinger ’ s election ” for the GOP in Georgia , in which the idea of a Democratic VP breaking Senate ties both is and isn ’ t something Republicans are officially very worried about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ delete her tweet .
I think Trump ’ s attempt to hold onto power is more serious than most other commentators seem to , but there ’ s no question that to some extent the effort is a grift : They ’ re shaking down Trump ’ s donors for money that they want to use for the Georgia races with the pretense that it ’ ll be used for Trump ’ s “ stop the steal ” operation or whatever .
No wonder McDaniel decided that acknowledging the likelihood of a President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a straightforward “ we lost the presidency and we ’ re about to lose total control of government if we don ’ t win in Georgia ” fundraising pitch logically would seem more lucrative .
Maybe not in the world that the GOP has now created for itself , where any frank admission of defeat would qualify as treason and warrant cutting off the traitor financially .
But in a sane world , “ Block Biden and Harris !
” is the obvious sales message .
There are news reports circulating this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becoming more realistic about its legal prospects .
Allies caution that no final decision has been made on where Trump intends to take this fight or when it might end .
And a small group of senior advisers — most of them in the Trump campaign — still believe there is a path to victory for the president .
But those allies are a shrinking minority , and some advisers say the president is coming around to the fact that the election result won ’ t be reversed .
“ Even Trump realizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is almost zero , ” one of them said .
There ’ s an effort among those allies who know that Trump has lost to get the president to focus on next steps .
“ Overwhelmingly , the understanding is getting into the president ’ s ear that he needs to have a strategy to move on , ” one aide said… “ There ’ s a sense that if he goes out and does anything forcefully , that ’ s the one way he risks losing Republican support , ” one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And that ’ s when the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
” I ’ ll believe it when I see it .
But this AP story also claims that Trump ’ s inner circle is gradually coming around to the idea of a transition , alleging “ a growing recognition among most [ staffers ] that the election is lost and the building will be vacated by Jan. 20.
” Trump himself is supposedly “ calmer than his tweets suggest ” and views the legal battle as a form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live up to his image as a fighter .
Ivanka has supposedly spoken to him about an “ endgame ” and Trump himself has chattered about running again in 2024 .
The fact that he launched a PAC this week is probably the strongest sign yet that he ’ s coming around to the idea of leaving .
A president doesn ’ t need a PAC to exert control over his party .
An ex-president does .
I find it also of note that James Lankford , who ’ s from deep red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just two years , told a local radio station this afternoon that it ’ s “ likely ” Biden has won and that if the administration isn ’ t giving him intelligence briefings by Friday then Lankford himself will get involved to facilitate it .
I ’ ll believe that when I see it too , as having Republican senators put pressure on Trump to begin the formal transition process would be an important signal to the president that they ’ re not willing to back him on everything .
Just in case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislatures to invalidate their own election results .
In the end , Trump ’ s Achilles heel in the “ I was cheated !
” gambit will end up being local Republican officials like Arizona AG Mark Brnovich , who affirmed today that he ’ s seen no evidence of widespread fraud .
Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger is another example , as he acknowledged on Monday that it ’ s “ unlikely ” that there ’ ll be any evidence of fraud in Georgia sufficient to justify overturning an election in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
Why these local officials are willing to defy Trump when more powerful Republicans like Mitch McConnell aren ’ t is an interesting question .
Maybe they ’ re far enough removed from Washington that they feel their loyalty is owed more to the polling officials who work under them and to the voters of their state than it is to Trump .
Whatever the explanation , it ’ s harder to claim you were cheated when people from your own party who are policing the integrity of the election are insisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may yet avoid the country-destroying scenario where state legislatures start invalidating their own residents ’ votes and awarding Trump their electors on an inch-thin pretense of fraud .
But if we do , it ’ ll only be because Biden ended up winning just enough states by just enough votes to force Trump to claim that fraud was happening all over the map , which is too far-fetched for everyone but true believers .
If he had eked out wins in Arizona and Georgia , we really would be facing a nightmare in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania , with the Republican legislature under immense pressure from its own base to perpetrate a coup on Trump ’ s behalf .
It ’ s hard to believe in a year as miserable as 2020 that we ’ re going to be spared that misery , but it appears we are .
Or are we ?
I ’ ll leave you with this .

The dumbest thing about this is that her message here is *effective* for the Georgia runoff. Republicans are going to go to the polls in January with three different motivations. One is to “prove” that Biden’s victory in the state was a fluke, that the GOP still owns Georgia. Two is to send Trump out of office as a winner. But three, the most important by far, is making sure Republicans have the numbers for a Senate majority, to check Biden and Harris.
Many Republican voters in GA will grasp that message even if the RNC can’t stand foursquare behind it because humoring the president about his prospects for a second term remains the party’s highest priority. But Loeffler, Perdue, and the RNC would love, love, love to be explicit about it and hammer home to low-propensity voters that total Democratic control of government is on the line here.
They’re hamstringing themselves because Trump’s ego won’t allow them to embrace their most compelling campaign pitch.
Now deleted pic.twitter.com/vfgwaGUdzQ — ryan teague beckwith (@ryanbeckwith) November 11, 2020
“Deciding Vote Kamala Harris.” Those are the stakes on January 5. And the party has to pretend that they aren’t.
Luckily for them, Democrats are going to spend enough time hammering the need to make Harris the 51st vote in the Senate that low-propensity Republicans should absorb that message as well. We’re going to end up with a “Schrodinger’s election” for the GOP in Georgia, in which the idea of a Democratic VP breaking Senate ties both is and isn’t something Republicans are officially very worried about.
McDaniel had a bottom-line reason too to delete her tweet. I think Trump’s attempt to hold onto power is more serious than most other commentators seem to, but there’s no question that to some extent the effort is a grift:
[A]ny small-dollar donations from Trump’s grassroots donors won’t be going to legal expenses at all, according to a Reuters review of the legal language in the solicitations. A donor would have to give more than $8,000 before any money goes to the “recount account” established to finance election challenges, including recounts and lawsuits over alleged improprieties, the fundraising disclosures show… A large portion of the money goes to “Save America,” a Trump leadership PAC, or political action committee, set up on Monday, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Under Federal Election Commission rules, both groups have broad leeway in how they can use the funds.
They’re shaking down Trump’s donors for money that they want to use for the Georgia races with the pretense that it’ll be used for Trump’s “stop the steal” operation or whatever. No wonder McDaniel decided that acknowledging the likelihood of a President Harris was unhelpful.
Although, again, a straightforward “we lost the presidency and we’re about to lose total control of government if we don’t win in Georgia” fundraising pitch logically would seem more lucrative. Maybe not in the world that the GOP has now created for itself, where any frank admission of defeat would qualify as treason and warrant cutting off the traitor financially. But in a sane world, “Block Biden and Harris!” is the obvious sales message.
There are news reports circulating this evening that suggest the White House is becoming more realistic about its legal prospects.
Allies caution that no final decision has been made on where Trump intends to take this fight or when it might end. And a small group of senior advisers — most of them in the Trump campaign — still believe there is a path to victory for the president. But those allies are a shrinking minority, and some advisers say the president is coming around to the fact that the election result won’t be reversed. “Even Trump realizes that the likelihood of the result changing is almost zero,” one of them said. There’s an effort among those allies who know that Trump has lost to get the president to focus on next steps. “Overwhelmingly, the understanding is getting into the president’s ear that he needs to have a strategy to move on,” one aide said… “There’s a sense that if he goes out and does anything forcefully, that’s the one way he risks losing Republican support,” one of the president’s allies said. “And that’s when the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.”
I’ll believe it when I see it. But this AP story also claims that Trump’s inner circle is gradually coming around to the idea of a transition, alleging “a growing recognition among most [staffers] that the election is lost and the building will be vacated by Jan. 20.” Trump himself is supposedly “calmer than his tweets suggest” and views the legal battle as a form of fan service to some degree, to live up to his image as a fighter. Ivanka has supposedly spoken to him about an “endgame” and Trump himself has chattered about running again in 2024. The fact that he launched a PAC this week is probably the strongest sign yet that he’s coming around to the idea of leaving. A president doesn’t need a PAC to exert control over his party. An ex-president does.
I find it also of note that James Lankford, who’s from deep red Oklahoma and is up for reelection in just two years, told a local radio station this afternoon that it’s “likely” Biden has won and that if the administration isn’t giving him intelligence briefings by Friday then Lankford himself will get involved to facilitate it. I’ll believe that when I see it too, as having Republican senators put pressure on Trump to begin the formal transition process would be an important signal to the president that they’re not willing to back him on everything. Just in case he’s thinking about asking state legislatures to invalidate their own election results.
In the end, Trump’s Achilles heel in the “I was cheated!” gambit will end up being local Republican officials like Arizona AG Mark Brnovich, who affirmed today that he’s seen no evidence of widespread fraud. Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger is another example, as he acknowledged on Monday that it’s “unlikely” that there’ll be any evidence of fraud in Georgia sufficient to justify overturning an election in which Biden leads by more than 10,000 votes. Why these local officials are willing to defy Trump when more powerful Republicans like Mitch McConnell aren’t is an interesting question. Maybe they’re far enough removed from Washington that they feel their loyalty is owed more to the polling officials who work under them and to the voters of their state than it is to Trump. Whatever the explanation, it’s harder to claim you were cheated when people from your own party who are policing the integrity of the election are insisting that you weren’t.
We may yet avoid the country-destroying scenario where state legislatures start invalidating their own residents’ votes and awarding Trump their electors on an inch-thin pretense of fraud. But if we do, it’ll only be because Biden ended up winning just enough states by just enough votes to force Trump to claim that fraud was happening all over the map, which is too far-fetched for everyone but true believers. If he had eked out wins in Arizona and Georgia, we really would be facing a nightmare in which the entire election came down to Pennsylvania, with the Republican legislature under immense pressure from its own base to perpetrate a coup on Trump’s behalf. It’s hard to believe in a year as miserable as 2020 that we’re going to be spared that misery, but it appears we are.
Or are we? I’ll leave you with this.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326679385966047236


hotair--2020-11-11--Biden COVID adviser: What we need is a 4-6 week national lockdown

Dr. Michael Osterholm is one of the people Joe Biden has announced as part of his coronavirus task force .
Today in an interview with Yahoo News Dr. Osterholm suggested what might be needed is a 4-6 week national lockdown with wages for workers covered by the government .
Cases are rising as more people grow tired of wearing masks and social distancing , suffering from so-called “ pandemic fatigue , ” he said Wednesday .
Colder weather is also driving people indoors where the virus can spread more easily .
A nationwide lockdown would drive the number of new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the world awaits a vaccine , he told Yahoo Finance on Wednesday .
“ We could pay for a package right now to cover all of the wages , lost wages for individual workers for losses to small companies to medium-sized companies or city , state , county governments .
We could do all of that , ” he said .
“ If we did that , then we could lockdown for four-to-six weeks.
” In the Yahoo News interview , Osterholm referenced a piece he co-authored in the NY Times in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the choice is clear .
We can continue to allow the coronavirus to spread rapidly throughout the country or we can commit to a more restrictive lockdown , state by state , for up to six weeks to crush the spread of the virus to less than one new case per 100,000 people per day… To successfully drive down our case rate to less than one per 100,000 people per day , we should mandate sheltering in place for everyone but the truly essential workers .
By that , we mean people must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential reasons : food shopping and visits to doctors and pharmacies while wearing masks and washing hands frequently .
According to the Economic Policy Institute , 39 percent of workers in the United States are in essential categories .
The problem with the March-to-May lockdown was that it was not uniformly stringent across the country .
For example , Minnesota deemed 78 percent of its workers essential .
To be effective , the lockdown has to be as comprehensive and strict as possible .
At this point I ’ d love to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unnecessary .
Unfortunately , I can ’ t say that because the number of cases in the U.S. is going up sharply right now and that ’ s worrisome .
The virus is gaining steam in Texas and the midwest is being hit especially hard : In North Dakota , health-care workers with asymptomatic cases of the coronavirus will be allowed to keep working as the number of infected patients outstrips the staff members needed to care for them , the governor said this week… In multiple states , hospital leaders warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sidelining the very staffers needed to face growing numbers of sick people .
From Maryland to Iowa , local officials have pleaded for tighter restrictions that might help slow the virus ’ s accelerating spread… On Tuesday , the country hit another one-day record , logging more than 135,000 new coronavirus cases , along with 1,403 additional deaths .
At least five states , including Missouri and Wisconsin , set single-day highs for fatalities .
At least five more , including Illinois and Pennsylvania , set single-day highs for new cases .
Almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsiding… Nearly 62,000 infected Americans currently lie in hospital beds — a number the nation has not experienced since April .
Osterholm ’ s argument is that if we don ’ t do something drastic we could see 200,000 new cases a day soon .
At some point , health services around the country would be overwhelmed .
Things in El Paso right now are reminding me of New York back in the spring .
Not all of the news is bad .
While cases are up , treatments have improved compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how to treat severe cases , meaning higher percentages of the COVID-19 patients who go into intensive care units are coming out alive .
Patients have the benefit of new treatments , namely remdesivir , the steroid dexamethasone and an antibody drug that won emergency-use approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Monday .
Also , testing is more widely available .
In addition , a vaccine appears to be on the horizon , perhaps around the end of the year , with Pfizer this week reporting early results showing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % effective at preventing the disease .
So the question is what do we have to do to get to the vaccine without overwhelming the health system or adding 100,000 more deaths to the current total .
That seems like a reasonable thing to argue about .
What bothers me about this statement today is that just a couple of weeks ago Joe Biden was breezily claiming he would “ shut down the virus ” without shutting down the economy .
As I said at the time , that ’ s not possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying people for 6 weeks off , those businesses aren ’ t actually operating and may not be able to just pick up where they left off when the government money spigot shuts off .
Interrupting the flow of business again is going to have an impact on the recovery .
Again , maybe that ’ s unavoidable if the alternative is hospitals so overrun with COVID patients that they can ’ t function .
But it ’ s always been a choice between two really bad options and Biden ’ s pretending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpful or honest .
Here ’ s Dr. Osterholm making the case that “ COVID hell ” is on the horizon :

Dr. Michael Osterholm is one of the people Joe Biden has announced as part of his coronavirus task force. Today in an interview with Yahoo News Dr. Osterholm suggested what might be needed is a 4-6 week national lockdown with wages for workers covered by the government.
Cases are rising as more people grow tired of wearing masks and social distancing, suffering from so-called “pandemic fatigue,” he said Wednesday. Colder weather is also driving people indoors where the virus can spread more easily. A nationwide lockdown would drive the number of new cases and hospitalizations down to manageable levels while the world awaits a vaccine, he told Yahoo Finance on Wednesday. “We could pay for a package right now to cover all of the wages, lost wages for individual workers for losses to small companies to medium-sized companies or city, state, county governments. We could do all of that,” he said. “If we did that, then we could lockdown for four-to-six weeks.”
In the Yahoo News interview, Osterholm referenced a piece he co-authored in the NY Times in August recommending stricter lockdowns:
We believe the choice is clear. We can continue to allow the coronavirus to spread rapidly throughout the country or we can commit to a more restrictive lockdown, state by state, for up to six weeks to crush the spread of the virus to less than one new case per 100,000 people per day… To successfully drive down our case rate to less than one per 100,000 people per day, we should mandate sheltering in place for everyone but the truly essential workers. By that, we mean people must stay at home and leave only for essential reasons: food shopping and visits to doctors and pharmacies while wearing masks and washing hands frequently. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 39 percent of workers in the United States are in essential categories. The problem with the March-to-May lockdown was that it was not uniformly stringent across the country. For example, Minnesota deemed 78 percent of its workers essential. To be effective, the lockdown has to be as comprehensive and strict as possible.
At this point I’d love to be able to say that all of this is unnecessary. Unfortunately, I can’t say that because the number of cases in the U.S. is going up sharply right now and that’s worrisome. The virus is gaining steam in Texas and the midwest is being hit especially hard:
In North Dakota, health-care workers with asymptomatic cases of the coronavirus will be allowed to keep working as the number of infected patients outstrips the staff members needed to care for them, the governor said this week… In multiple states, hospital leaders warned that the spike is straining resources and sidelining the very staffers needed to face growing numbers of sick people. From Maryland to Iowa, local officials have pleaded for tighter restrictions that might help slow the virus’s accelerating spread… On Tuesday, the country hit another one-day record, logging more than 135,000 new coronavirus cases, along with 1,403 additional deaths. At least five states, including Missouri and Wisconsin, set single-day highs for fatalities. At least five more, including Illinois and Pennsylvania, set single-day highs for new cases. Almost nowhere in the country are caseloads actually subsiding… Nearly 62,000 infected Americans currently lie in hospital beds — a number the nation has not experienced since April.
Osterholm’s argument is that if we don’t do something drastic we could see 200,000 new cases a day soon. At some point, health services around the country would be overwhelmed. Things in El Paso right now are reminding me of New York back in the spring.
Not all of the news is bad. While cases are up, treatments have improved compared to the first wave :
Doctors now better know how to treat severe cases, meaning higher percentages of the COVID-19 patients who go into intensive care units are coming out alive. Patients have the benefit of new treatments, namely remdesivir, the steroid dexamethasone and an antibody drug that won emergency-use approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Monday. Also, testing is more widely available. In addition, a vaccine appears to be on the horizon, perhaps around the end of the year, with Pfizer this week reporting early results showing that its experimental shots are a surprising 90% effective at preventing the disease.
So the question is what do we have to do to get to the vaccine without overwhelming the health system or adding 100,000 more deaths to the current total. That seems like a reasonable thing to argue about.
What bothers me about this statement today is that just a couple of weeks ago Joe Biden was breezily claiming he would “shut down the virus” without shutting down the economy. As I said at the time, that’s not possible. Even if you pass a bill paying people for 6 weeks off, those businesses aren’t actually operating and may not be able to just pick up where they left off when the government money spigot shuts off. Interrupting the flow of business again is going to have an impact on the recovery.
Again, maybe that’s unavoidable if the alternative is hospitals so overrun with COVID patients that they can’t function. But it’s always been a choice between two really bad options and Biden’s pretending otherwise to win votes wasn’t helpful or honest. Here’s Dr. Osterholm making the case that “COVID hell” is on the horizon:


hotair--2020-11-11--Portland city commissioner who supports defunding the police called 911 on her Lyft driver

Jo Ann Hardesty is a city commissioner in Portland and one of the people who has been pushing the hardest for defunding the police .
Most recently , Hardesty has been pushing for an $ 18 million cut to the police budget on top of a previous cut that happened this summer .
Hardesty ’ s defunding effort failed in a 3-2 vote and she scolded her fellow city commissioners and the mayor for their lack of courage : Before her vote , Hardesty expressed disappointment in the three members who voted no for sticking to the status quo and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had been in the streets nightly for months demanding the city rethink its approach to public safety .
“ The people have spoken , ” she said .
“ And I ’ m pretty sure they ’ re just as disappointed as I am with the lack of courage in this historic moment where , just for a second , Black lives mattered in Portland.
” It turns out that just days before that confrontation , Hardesty got into another dispute , this time with a Lyft driver who had picked her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upset that the driver had left the windows cracked ( wide enough for a pencil the driver said ) , in keeping with company recommendations regarding COVID-19 .
The dispute escalated until Hardesty called 911 on the driver : The November 1 ride began when Lyft driver Richmond Frost picked up a passenger named “ Jo Ann ” at the casino .
Frost kept the windows cracked — COVID protocols put in place by the ride share company — and Hardesty complained .
The ride went downhill from there and Frost decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a Chevron station at an I-5 exit ramp in Ridgefield .
But Hardesty refused to get out of the car and called 911 at 9:48 p.m. Hardesty told the 911 dispatcher he dropped her off “ in the dark at a filling station .
And I ’ m not getting out .
Not happening .
All because I asked him to put the window up.
” The dispatcher told her “ technically it ’ s his property and there ’ s no crimes involved.
” Hardesty said Frost canceled her ride “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit here until he gets me another ride.
” The 911 dispatcher pointed out that only customers can order a car so Hardesty would have to do that herself .
“ If it ’ s not a police issue then I will hang up but I ’ m not getting out of this car in the dark at this time of night , ” Hardesty said .
“ Do you understand that only you can order another ride ?
” the dispatcher replied .
“ Well I didn ’ t cancel the ride @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
“ Which is his obligation as a human being on the face of the earth to cancel a contract like that .
It ’ s not a crime , ” the dispatcher said .
Finally , he agreed to send officers out for this “ emergency ” but warned that they wouldn ’ t be able to hold the driver there because he ’ d done nothing illegal .
Maybe the argument between Hardesty and the driver continued .
All we know for sure is that three minutes later Mr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call 911 to say that she was refusing to leave his car .
He sounded completely calm which , as you ’ ll see in a moment , was significant .
Hardesty later claimed she was put in danger by Frost calling the police and that ’ s why she called first : “ I knew that having him call the police would put me in danger .
And so that ’ s why I proactively called 911.
” The idea here is that if he complained first , police were going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That should tell you all you really need to know about Hardesty ’ s view of the police .
She also said , “ I don ’ t call 911 lightly , but I certainly am not going to do anything that would put my personal safety at risk.
” The woman who wants to cut police officers from the street in the midst of a spike in violent crime and nightly protests/riots that drain existing resources is very worried about her personal safety .
So worried that she ’ ll call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she was afraid because the gas station was closing and she didn ’ t want to be stranded there alone .
In reality , she called 911 12 minutes before the station closed and had another ride by 10:14 .
If she ’ d just gotten out and not wasted the time of the police and the driver , she probably would have had the ride in plenty of time .
But the main point here is that someone who wants fewer officers on the streets and fewer officers responding to non-emergencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to call 911 here .
Finally , as soon as Hardesty got her ride , she filed a complaint with Lyft saying she ’ d been left “ on the side of the road by an angry driver.
” Listen to the driver ’ s 911 call below .
Does he sound angry ?
So Hardesty not only made an unnecessary non-emergency 911 call , she also tried to get the driver in trouble with his boss , all because he wouldn ’ t roll up the window that was down by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good news is that Lyft didn ’ t buy her story any more than the 911 dispatcher did .
They sent a response noting that she had refused to leave the driver ’ s car after the ride was canceled .
Lyft ’ s statement concluded , “ Please know that future reports of this nature may lead to additional action being taken on your account .
”

Jo Ann Hardesty is a city commissioner in Portland and one of the people who has been pushing the hardest for defunding the police. Most recently, Hardesty has been pushing for an $18 million cut to the police budget on top of a previous cut that happened this summer. Hardesty’s defunding effort failed in a 3-2 vote and she scolded her fellow city commissioners and the mayor for their lack of courage:
Before her vote, Hardesty expressed disappointment in the three members who voted no for sticking to the status quo and for declining to back her and Portlanders who had been in the streets nightly for months demanding the city rethink its approach to public safety. “The people have spoken,” she said. “And I’m pretty sure they’re just as disappointed as I am with the lack of courage in this historic moment where, just for a second, Black lives mattered in Portland.”
It turns out that just days before that confrontation, Hardesty got into another dispute, this time with a Lyft driver who had picked her up at a casino. Hardesty became upset that the driver had left the windows cracked (wide enough for a pencil the driver said), in keeping with company recommendations regarding COVID-19. The dispute escalated until Hardesty called 911 on the driver:
The November 1 ride began when Lyft driver Richmond Frost picked up a passenger named “Jo Ann” at the casino. Frost kept the windows cracked — COVID protocols put in place by the ride share company — and Hardesty complained. The ride went downhill from there and Frost decided to cancel the ride. He pulled off into a Chevron station at an I-5 exit ramp in Ridgefield. But Hardesty refused to get out of the car and called 911 at 9:48 p.m. Hardesty told the 911 dispatcher he dropped her off “in the dark at a filling station. And I’m not getting out. Not happening. All because I asked him to put the window up.” The dispatcher told her “technically it’s his property and there’s no crimes involved.” Hardesty said Frost canceled her ride “and I’m just going to sit here until he gets me another ride.”
The 911 dispatcher pointed out that only customers can order a car so Hardesty would have to do that herself.
“If it’s not a police issue then I will hang up but I’m not getting out of this car in the dark at this time of night,” Hardesty said.
“Do you understand that only you can order another ride?” the dispatcher replied.
“Well I didn’t cancel the ride, he canceled the ride,” she said.
“Which is his obligation as a human being on the face of the earth to cancel a contract like that. It’s not a crime,” the dispatcher said. Finally, he agreed to send officers out for this “emergency” but warned that they wouldn’t be able to hold the driver there because he’d done nothing illegal.
Maybe the argument between Hardesty and the driver continued. All we know for sure is that three minutes later Mr. Frost, the driver, did call 911 to say that she was refusing to leave his car. He sounded completely calm which, as you’ll see in a moment, was significant.
Hardesty later claimed she was put in danger by Frost calling the police and that’s why she called first: “I knew that having him call the police would put me in danger. And so that’s why I proactively called 911.” The idea here is that if he complained first, police were going to show up and injure her or something. That should tell you all you really need to know about Hardesty’s view of the police.
She also said, “I don’t call 911 lightly, but I certainly am not going to do anything that would put my personal safety at risk.” The woman who wants to cut police officers from the street in the midst of a spike in violent crime and nightly protests/riots that drain existing resources is very worried about her personal safety. So worried that she’ll call 911 for this non-emergency non-crime.
Hardesty said she was afraid because the gas station was closing and she didn’t want to be stranded there alone. In reality, she called 911 12 minutes before the station closed and had another ride by 10:14. If she’d just gotten out and not wasted the time of the police and the driver, she probably would have had the ride in plenty of time.
But the main point here is that someone who wants fewer officers on the streets and fewer officers responding to non-emergencies should probably have realized there was no need to call 911 here.
Finally, as soon as Hardesty got her ride, she filed a complaint with Lyft saying she’d been left “on the side of the road by an angry driver.” Listen to the driver’s 911 call below. Does he sound angry? So Hardesty not only made an unnecessary non-emergency 911 call, she also tried to get the driver in trouble with his boss, all because he wouldn’t roll up the window that was down by the width of a pencil.
The good news is that Lyft didn’t buy her story any more than the 911 dispatcher did. They sent a response noting that she had refused to leave the driver’s car after the ride was canceled. Lyft’s statement concluded, “Please know that future reports of this nature may lead to additional action being taken on your account.”


hotair--2020-11-11--Rubio: The GOP is a working-class party now and needs to rebrand that way for 2024

Probably the happiest man in the GOP this week .
“ The future of the party is based on a multiethnic , multiracial working class coalition , ” said Rubio… Rubio said Republicans have long believed in and supported the free market , “ but the free market exists to serve our people .
Our people don ’ t exist to serve the free market.
” He added that working class Americans are now largely against big businesses “ that only care about how their shares are performing , even if it ’ s based on moving production overseas for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ We still have a very strong base in the party of donors and think tanks and intelligentsia from the right who are market fundamentalists , who accuse anyone who ’ s not a market fundamentalist of being a socialist to some degree , ” Rubio said .
“ If the takeaway from all of them is now is the time to go back to sort of the traditional party of of unfettered free trade , I think we ’ re gon na lose the [ Trump ] base as quickly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just go back to being that , ” he added .
Note the line about market fundamentalists and bleating about socialism .
This guy burst onto the national scene 10 years ago at the height of small-government fever , replete with a profile in the Times titled , “ The First Senator From the Tea Party ?
” What ’ s got Marco so chipper ?
Simple : It ’ s Trump ’ s gains among Latino voters on election night .
One of the reasons why Rubio ’ s role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liability for him in the 2016 primaries is that border hawks convinced themselves that the GOP wouldn ’ t be viable as a major party if the Latino population grew .
Minorities vote for Democrats , period .
Thus , the last thing any Republican should want to do is boost the number of Latinos in the U.S. by amnestizing America ’ s millions of illegal immigrants .
So long as the view held among populists that the Latino vote was lost to the GOP and would doom the party to perpetual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Eight baggage would make him a nonstarter in a primary .
So imagine his delight when Trump , ironically the most anti-immigration Republican president in ages , proved that the Latino vote might be gettable after all .
He really likes that line about a “ multiethnic , multiracial working-class coalition.
” It still better describes Democrats than Republicans ( Biden got 55 percent of the vote among people whose families earn $ 50,000 or less ) but it ’ s a brand Rubio ’ s been working on for years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 campaign was the rally in South Carolina when Nikki Haley , Tim Scott , and Trey Gowdy showed up to endorse him — a white male congressman , a black male senator , and an Indian-American woman governor endorsing a Cuban-American senator from Florida .
Multiethnic , multiracial .
The “ working class ” image is something Rubio ’ s been tinkering with for awhile too .
Remember that he threatened to tank the GOP ’ s tax cuts in 2017 because he wanted a bigger child tax credit for families .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he complained that that tax-cut bill provided mere “ crumbs ” for working families : “ If we basically say everyone is on their own and the market ’ s going to take care of it , we will rip the country apart , because millions of good hardworking people lack the means to adapt.
” Economic liberty , in this retelling , becomes something the government is required to guarantee .
It is the freedom to enjoy “ the dignity of work ” , says Mr Rubio .
“ There needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these realities.
” .
.
.
Mr Rubio ’ s proposal , to double the tax credit to $ 2,000 per child and pay for it by making a small increase to the corporate rate his party wanted , was decried by some Republicans as socialism .
The watered-down version they accepted , as the price of Mr Rubio ’ s support for the bill , excluded the poorest families .
“ There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy , they ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saving and reinvest it in American workers , ” he says .
“ In fact they bought back shares , a few gave out bonuses ; there ’ s no evidence whatsoever that the money ’ s been massively poured back into the American worker.
” He ’ s been in class-warrior mode for awhile .
Three things have been holding him back , though , one of which was the perception that his core appeal — a young , Latino politician who might theoretically be able to woo Latino voters — was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will nevvvvvver vote Republican en masse .
They ’ ll become more of a racial bloc like African-Americans over time , or so the argument went .
Then everyone woke up this week to find that Latino voters might be in play for the GOP after all .
And now that they are , a young , Latino politician sounding Trumpist notes about the forgotten man might appeal to a post-Trump party that ’ s eager to win again .
“ Rubio told me he is leaving the door open for a 2024 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treene noted in the story quoted at the start of this post .
You don ’ t say .
The second thing holding him back is the prospect of Trump running again in 2024 .
Rubio ’ s under no illusions that he ’ ll win a head-to-head primary with the president , whatever his hypothetical appeal in a general election : Marco ’ s not too broken up about that , though .
He ’ s not even 50 yet and will be a heavy favorite to win another Senate term in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to wait an extra four years to take another crack at the presidency , no problem .
He ’ ll continue polishing his “ working-class ” image with policy proposals like the expanded child tax credit in the meantime .
His third and biggest problem is that he ’ s a poor match temperamentally for a national Republican primary electorate .
Rubio is an optimist by nature ; he swoons to “ shining city on the hill ” rhetoric .
He ’ s a “ unity ” guy .
What the base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ ll reassure them that the people whom they hate really are human garbage who are trying to ruin the country .
Rubio is more comfortable waging populist class war than waging populist culture war — but if he thinks that ’ s the path to winning a national race in the GOP post-Trump , well , that makes one of us .
Economic populists want fiscal policy to be the main dish and culture war to be the garnish ; my strong suspicion is that most Republican voters want it the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a fatal flaw for Rubio depending upon how hungry Republicans voters are to win and what sort of gains they continue to make with Latino voters in 2022 and beyond .
But it ’ s an obstacle .
He ’ s not a convincing culture warrior .
I wish other Republican pols prioritized the way he does , but they don ’ t .
He has an uphill fight .
Here he is today in Georgia , earning favors from the party by stumping for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for — ta da — socialism .
I wonder how well Marco would fare in a general election pitted against a left-wing economic populist like Bernie .
The problem for right-wing economic populists is that the left can and will always outbid them ; if we ever ended up in an election that operated as a referendum on who can deliver more for the working class I wouldn ’ t be confident in how that might go .
The GOP ’ s advantage is culture war , reminding voters that left-wing fiscal goodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police ” nuttery .
Is a guy like Rubio who ’ s not a natural-born culture warrior the person to prosecute that culture war ?

Probably the happiest man in the GOP this week.
“The future of the party is based on a multiethnic, multiracial working class coalition,” said Rubio… Rubio said Republicans have long believed in and supported the free market, “but the free market exists to serve our people. Our people don’t exist to serve the free market.” He added that working class Americans are now largely against big businesses “that only care about how their shares are performing, even if it’s based on moving production overseas for cheaper labor.”… The bottom line: “We still have a very strong base in the party of donors and think tanks and intelligentsia from the right who are market fundamentalists, who accuse anyone who’s not a market fundamentalist of being a socialist to some degree,” Rubio said. “If the takeaway from all of them is now is the time to go back to sort of the traditional party of of unfettered free trade, I think we’re gonna lose the [Trump] base as quickly as we got it. … We can’t just go back to being that,” he added.
Note the line about market fundamentalists and bleating about socialism. This guy burst onto the national scene 10 years ago at the height of small-government fever, replete with a profile in the Times titled, “The First Senator From the Tea Party?”
What’s got Marco so chipper? Simple: It’s Trump’s gains among Latino voters on election night. One of the reasons why Rubio’s role in the Gang of Eight was such a liability for him in the 2016 primaries is that border hawks convinced themselves that the GOP wouldn’t be viable as a major party if the Latino population grew. Minorities vote for Democrats, period. Thus, the last thing any Republican should want to do is boost the number of Latinos in the U.S. by amnestizing America’s millions of illegal immigrants. So long as the view held among populists that the Latino vote was lost to the GOP and would doom the party to perpetual rump status, Rubio’s Gang of Eight baggage would make him a nonstarter in a primary.
So imagine his delight when Trump, ironically the most anti-immigration Republican president in ages, proved that the Latino vote might be gettable after all.
#Florida & the Rio Grande Valley showed the future of the GOP A party built on a multi-ethnic multi-racial coalition of working AMERICANS https://t.co/1t2IJldqjH — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) November 4, 2020
He really likes that line about a “multiethnic, multiracial working-class coalition.” It still better describes Democrats than Republicans (Biden got 55 percent of the vote among people whose families earn $50,000 or less) but it’s a brand Rubio’s been working on for years. Probably the most notable event from his 2016 campaign was the rally in South Carolina when Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Trey Gowdy showed up to endorse him — a white male congressman, a black male senator, and an Indian-American woman governor endorsing a Cuban-American senator from Florida. Multiethnic, multiracial. The “working class” image is something Rubio’s been tinkering with for awhile too. Remember that he threatened to tank the GOP’s tax cuts in 2017 because he wanted a bigger child tax credit for families. Four months later, in April 2018, he complained that that tax-cut bill provided mere “crumbs” for working families:
“If we basically say everyone is on their own and the market’s going to take care of it, we will rip the country apart, because millions of good hardworking people lack the means to adapt.” Economic liberty, in this retelling, becomes something the government is required to guarantee. It is the freedom to enjoy “the dignity of work”, says Mr Rubio. “There needs to be a conservative movement that addresses these realities.” . . . Mr Rubio’s proposal, to double the tax credit to $2,000 per child and pay for it by making a small increase to the corporate rate his party wanted, was decried by some Republicans as socialism. The watered-down version they accepted, as the price of Mr Rubio’s support for the bill, excluded the poorest families. “There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers,” he says. “In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”
He’s been in class-warrior mode for awhile. Three things have been holding him back, though, one of which was the perception that his core appeal — a young, Latino politician who might theoretically be able to woo Latino voters — was supposedly fool’s gold because Latinos will nevvvvvver vote Republican en masse. They’ll become more of a racial bloc like African-Americans over time, or so the argument went.
Then everyone woke up this week to find that Latino voters might be in play for the GOP after all. And now that they are, a young, Latino politician sounding Trumpist notes about the forgotten man might appeal to a post-Trump party that’s eager to win again. “Rubio told me he is leaving the door open for a 2024 presidential run,” Axios reporter Alayna Treene noted in the story quoted at the start of this post. You don’t say.
The second thing holding him back is the prospect of Trump running again in 2024. Rubio’s under no illusions that he’ll win a head-to-head primary with the president, whatever his hypothetical appeal in a general election:
Sen. Rubio's full quote to me yesterday when I asked him about possibility of Trump running in 2024: "He'll certainly be the front runner, and then he'll probably be the nominee" pic.twitter.com/F0mAB7zDui — Sam Brodey (@sambrodey) November 10, 2020
Marco’s not too broken up about that, though. He’s not even 50 yet and will be a heavy favorite to win another Senate term in reddening Florida in 2022. If he needs to wait an extra four years to take another crack at the presidency, no problem. He’ll continue polishing his “working-class” image with policy proposals like the expanded child tax credit in the meantime.
His third and biggest problem is that he’s a poor match temperamentally for a national Republican primary electorate. Rubio is an optimist by nature; he swoons to “shining city on the hill” rhetoric. He’s a “unity” guy. What the base seems to want is someone boorishly charismatic who’ll reassure them that the people whom they hate really are human garbage who are trying to ruin the country. Rubio is more comfortable waging populist class war than waging populist culture war — but if he thinks that’s the path to winning a national race in the GOP post-Trump, well, that makes one of us. Economic populists want fiscal policy to be the main dish and culture war to be the garnish; my strong suspicion is that most Republican voters want it the other way around. That may not be a fatal flaw for Rubio depending upon how hungry Republicans voters are to win and what sort of gains they continue to make with Latino voters in 2022 and beyond. But it’s an obstacle. He’s not a convincing culture warrior. I wish other Republican pols prioritized the way he does, but they don’t. He has an uphill fight.
Here he is today in Georgia, earning favors from the party by stumping for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in their runoff campaigns and laying into Bernie Sanders for — ta da — socialism. I wonder how well Marco would fare in a general election pitted against a left-wing economic populist like Bernie. The problem for right-wing economic populists is that the left can and will always outbid them; if we ever ended up in an election that operated as a referendum on who can deliver more for the working class I wouldn’t be confident in how that might go. The GOP’s advantage is culture war, reminding voters that left-wing fiscal goodies tend to come packaged with “defund the police” nuttery. Is a guy like Rubio who’s not a natural-born culture warrior the person to prosecute that culture war?


hotair--2020-11-11--WaPo: Trump's fraud claims are getting tossed out of court

If Donald Trump thought courts would rescue him in these contested states , his legal team ’ s first efforts should give him some second thoughts .
The Washington Post ’ s Aaron Blake aggregated the initial rebukes from the judiciary , some of which has managed to bubble up to the mid-range of political consciousness over the last few days .
The scope of the setbacks make it pretty clear , though , that their initial arguments for fraud were mainly hearsay and misunderstanding .
They started last week , and the setbacks continued right through today : Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported late Tuesday , acknowledge the apparent futility of the effort .
Others have reasoned that there ’ s no harm in going through the motions , with one anonymous GOP official asking , “ What ’ s the downside for humoring him ” for a little while ?
But as scenes in courtrooms nationwide in recent days have shown , there is indeed a downside for those tasked with pursuing these claims .
Repeatedly now , they have been rebuked by judges for how thin their arguments have been .
The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Trump lawyer strained to avoid acknowledging that their people were , in fact , allowed to observe the vote-counting process in Philadelphia [ . ]
His legal team didn ’ t prepare any better this week , Blake notes .
When pressed whether they were alleging fraud in a case involving 592 ballots in Montgomery County , PA today , Trump ’ s legal team had to back down : THE COURT : In your petition , which is right before me — and I read it several times — you don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Board of the County were guilty of fraud , correct ?
That ’ s correct ?
MR. GOLDSTEIN : Your Honor , accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step .
And it is rare that I call somebody a liar , and I am not calling the Board of the DNC or anybody else involved in this a liar .
Everybody is coming to this with good faith .
The DNC is coming with good faith .
We ’ re all just trying to get an election done .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we think they are a fatal mistake , and these ballots ought not be counted .
THE COURT : I understand .
I am asking you a specific question , and I am looking for a specific answer .
Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots ?
MR. GOLDSTEIN : To my knowledge at present , no .
THE COURT : Are you claiming that there or improper influence upon the elector to these 592 ballots ?
MR. GOLDSTEIN : To my knowledge at present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it make a difference whether a claim of irregularity or technical noncompliance with the election code is made with or without an accompanying claim of fraud or improper influence ?
MR. GOLDSTEIN : It does not .
I mean , to claim the technical defects are immaterial , which is in some sense some of the thrust of what the DNC argued , is really to misperceive what is going on in the election code .
The election code is technical .
These requirements are all technical .
And some of them sit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mystery for all of us .
I mean , I sort of recounted for you my view of why the elector signing in his own hand is material .
The DNC have their reasons for why they think it is material or immaterial .
The fact of the matter is , it is in the code .
The code is itself technical .
Those technicalities are part and parcel of the law and a violation of the results in a ballot that can ’ t be counted .
That ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a significant legal issue in Pennsylvania involving a statutory ballot deadline , where ballots have been segregated for later resolution .
But if they ’ re down to 592 ballots in dispute in a county where they trail by 130,000 , one has to wonder why they ’ re bothering — especially when Trump ’ s legal team isn ’ t even alleging fraud .
Meanwhile in Michigan , the city of Detroit has responded to allegations of mishandling by explaining that the complainants don ’ t understand election law or procedures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the judge yet , but the responses to allegations of fraud make the complaints look pretty threadbare : Read the whole thread on this one .
It bears watching , but it appears that this is more a collection of less-than-significant complaints over minutiae that is bundled together to look like something more substantial .
The predating issue was adjudicated in another Michigan lawsuit last Thursday … and it didn ’ t work out well for Team Trump : But at a hearing Thursday , Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioned how it was relevant to the relief the Trump campaign was seeking , which related to access to ballot counting for poll watchers and a request to view videotape surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed around the state after Oct. 1 .
Stephens denied those requests , saying Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson already issued a directive about access for poll watchers in a separate recent court case , the ballot counting is already finished , and that there is no legal basis for Benson to provide , or be expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot drop boxes installed by local election officials .
The judge ruled from the bench but said a written order dismissing the case would follow , likely on Friday .
Blake has the transcript of this discussion in court , in which Trump ’ s team tried to argue that it wasn ’ t hearsay .
Their witness had never personally seen any illegal activity but had been told about it : STEPHENS : I absolutely understand what the affiant says she heard someone say to her .
But the truth of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for was that there was an illegal act occurring .
Because other than that I don ’ t know what its relevancy is .
HEARNE : Right .
I would say , Your Honor , in terms of the hearsay point , this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn , and she has made that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge — STEPHENS : “ I heard somebody else say something.
” Tell me why that ’ s not hearsay .
Come on , now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ firsthand statement of her physical – STEPHENS : It ’ s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is [ at-issue ] , right ?
After Stephens dismissed the case , Trump ’ s legal team moved for reconsideration .
Unfortunately , their submission was “ defective , ” as it didn ’ t include the necessary supporting evidence : Oof .
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s legal team had a complaint dismissed in Georgia when their own cited witnesses didn ’ t substantiate their claims : The day after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost an election lawsuit in Georgia on Thursday after two witnesses called by Republicans admitted under oath that they did not know whether the challenged ballots were received on time .
Two witnesses for Chatham County ’ s board of elections affirmed that the ballots were on time .
… The complaint also contained a sworn declaration by a poll watcher named Sean Pumphrey with a vague account about a stack of 53 ballots .
He did not allege , and provided no evidence of , any impropriety .
Sabrina German , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registration office , testified that this batch of ballots was received on time .
None of them were double votes , she added .
Judge James Bass quickly dispatched the GOP petition in a one-sentence ruling without reciting his reasoning .
A written order issued later was clear on the point that there was “ no evidence ” to support the plaintiffs ’ claim .
So far , the best one can make out of this is that Team Trump ’ s legal squad have led off their efforts to fight fraud with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two instances , they ’ re not even alleging fraud in court while publicly framing the issue as such .
Either Trump isn ’ t finding the best and brightest to add to his legal team , or they ’ re just not finding much evidence of widespread mishandling of the voting process , let alone fraud on the scale that would explain the election results .
There is still time to find and fight fraud on that level before states have to certify their election results .
Perhaps filings in the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges .
However , it ’ s very curious that Team Trump is leading off with such weak cases while claiming to have uncovered evidence of massive and systemic fraud .
People should adjust their expectations accordingly , and maybe keep grains of salt handy .

If Donald Trump thought courts would rescue him in these contested states, his legal team’s first efforts should give him some second thoughts. The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake aggregated the initial rebukes from the judiciary, some of which has managed to bubble up to the mid-range of political consciousness over the last few days. The scope of the setbacks make it pretty clear, though, that their initial arguments for fraud were mainly hearsay and misunderstanding.
They started last week, and the setbacks continued right through today:
Even Trump allies, as The Washington Post reported late Tuesday, acknowledge the apparent futility of the effort. Others have reasoned that there’s no harm in going through the motions, with one anonymous GOP official asking, “What’s the downside for humoring him” for a little while? But as scenes in courtrooms nationwide in recent days have shown, there is indeed a downside for those tasked with pursuing these claims. Repeatedly now, they have been rebuked by judges for how thin their arguments have been. The most famous scene came in Pennsylvania, where a Trump lawyer strained to avoid acknowledging that their people were, in fact, allowed to observe the vote-counting process in Philadelphia[.]
The transcript from one of Trump’s legal challenges is fascinating. The judge trying to get to the bottom of whether they WERE allowed to have observers: Judge : “Are your observers in the counting room?” Trump lawyer: "There's a non-zero number of people in the room.” pic.twitter.com/CU4VbqIfj4 — Man vs Baby (@mattcoyney) November 6, 2020
His legal team didn’t prepare any better this week, Blake notes. When pressed whether they were alleging fraud in a case involving 592 ballots in Montgomery County, PA today, Trump’s legal team had to back down:
THE COURT: In your petition, which is right before me — and I read it several times — you don’t claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct? That’s correct? MR. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the DNC or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good faith. We’re all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted. THE COURT: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots? MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no. THE COURT: Are you claiming that there or improper influence upon the elector to these 592 ballots? MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present. no. THE COURT: Does it make a difference whether a claim of irregularity or technical noncompliance with the election code is made with or without an accompanying claim of fraud or improper influence? MR. GOLDSTEIN: It does not. I mean, to claim the technical defects are immaterial, which is in some sense some of the thrust of what the DNC argued, is really to misperceive what is going on in the election code. The election code is technical. These requirements are all technical. And some of them sit in that code for reasons that are a mystery for all of us. I mean, I sort of recounted for you my view of why the elector signing in his own hand is material. The DNC have their reasons for why they think it is material or immaterial. The fact of the matter is, it is in the code. The code is itself technical. Those technicalities are part and parcel of the law and a violation of the results in a ballot that can’t be counted.
Law and Crime’s Matt Naham summed up:
In summary, the Trump campaign appeared in court and they neither identified nor alleged any systemic fraud. The case focuses on 592 ballots that have not been counted in a county where the president is behind by 130,000 votes, and in a state where the president is behind by 46,000 votes.
That’s not an auspicious start. Remember that there is a significant legal issue in Pennsylvania involving a statutory ballot deadline, where ballots have been segregated for later resolution. But if they’re down to 592 ballots in dispute in a county where they trail by 130,000, one has to wonder why they’re bothering — especially when Trump’s legal team isn’t even alleging fraud.
Meanwhile in Michigan, the city of Detroit has responded to allegations of mishandling by explaining that the complainants don’t understand election law or procedures. This hasn’t been settled by the judge yet, but the responses to allegations of fraud make the complaints look pretty threadbare:
For example, the city says there was nothing fishy about using 1/1/1900 birthdates in pollbook entries because the system required the use of a birthdate and that's their standard placeholder. pic.twitter.com/NOPdHgOEZy — Brad Heath (@bradheath) November 11, 2020
Actually, that's exactly what Detroit is saying: "Most of the objections raised in the submitted affidavits are grounded in an extraordinary failure to understand how elections function." pic.twitter.com/NccZ7ZOll9 — Brad Heath (@bradheath) November 11, 2020
Read the whole thread on this one. It bears watching, but it appears that this is more a collection of less-than-significant complaints over minutiae that is bundled together to look like something more substantial.
The predating issue was adjudicated in another Michigan lawsuit last Thursday … and it didn’t work out well for Team Trump:
But at a hearing Thursday, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens said the affidavit amounted to hearsay and questioned how it was relevant to the relief the Trump campaign was seeking, which related to access to ballot counting for poll watchers and a request to view videotape surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed around the state after Oct. 1. Stephens denied those requests, saying Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson already issued a directive about access for poll watchers in a separate recent court case, the ballot counting is already finished, and that there is no legal basis for Benson to provide, or be expected to provide, access to video surveillance of ballot drop boxes installed by local election officials. The judge ruled from the bench but said a written order dismissing the case would follow, likely on Friday.
Blake has the transcript of this discussion in court, in which Trump’s team tried to argue that it wasn’t hearsay. Their witness had never personally seen any illegal activity but had been told about it:
STEPHENS: I absolutely understand what the affiant says she heard someone say to her. But the truth of the matter … that you’re going for was that there was an illegal act occurring. Because other than that I don’t know what its relevancy is.
HEARNE: Right. I would say, Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made that statement based on her own firsthand physical evidence and knowledge —
STEPHENS: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now.
HEARNE: Well it’s a firsthand statement of her physical –
STEPHENS: It’s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is [at-issue], right?
After Stephens dismissed the case, Trump’s legal team moved for reconsideration. Unfortunately, their submission was “defective,” as it didn’t include the necessary supporting evidence:
And so, the Trump week in court begins….🙃 pic.twitter.com/Aa0ubPUaFW — Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) November 9, 2020
Oof. Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team had a complaint dismissed in Georgia when their own cited witnesses didn’t substantiate their claims:
The day after filing a petition, the Trump campaign lost an election lawsuit in Georgia on Thursday after two witnesses called by Republicans admitted under oath that they did not know whether the challenged ballots were received on time. Two witnesses for Chatham County’s board of elections affirmed that the ballots were on time. … The complaint also contained a sworn declaration by a poll watcher named Sean Pumphrey with a vague account about a stack of 53 ballots. He did not allege, and provided no evidence of, any impropriety. Sabrina German, the director of Chatham County’s voter registration office, testified that this batch of ballots was received on time. None of them were double votes, she added. Judge James Bass quickly dispatched the GOP petition in a one-sentence ruling without reciting his reasoning. A written order issued later was clear on the point that there was “no evidence” to support the plaintiffs’ claim.
So far, the best one can make out of this is that Team Trump’s legal squad have led off their efforts to fight fraud with obviously weak cases. In at least two instances, they’re not even alleging fraud in court while publicly framing the issue as such. Either Trump isn’t finding the best and brightest to add to his legal team, or they’re just not finding much evidence of widespread mishandling of the voting process, let alone fraud on the scale that would explain the election results.
There is still time to find and fight fraud on that level before states have to certify their election results. Perhaps filings in the next couple of days will offer more promising challenges. However, it’s very curious that Team Trump is leading off with such weak cases while claiming to have uncovered evidence of massive and systemic fraud. People should adjust their expectations accordingly, and maybe keep grains of salt handy.