hotair--2020-05-28--Twitter is digging its own grave

Twitter is digging its own grave

As John discussed yesterday , President Trump is allegedly preparing some sort of executive order that would clamp down on Twitter and potentially other social media outlets .
This is apparently a move in response to the company ’ s decision to start “ fact-checking ” some of the President ’ s tweets and flagging them as being content of dubious accuracy .
Whether or not this is something that the White House is even able to do will likely be a subject of debate until the courts settle the matter , but that ’ s hardly the key issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Harsanyi wrote at length about the folly of Twitter deciding to jump into the business of fact-checking and flagging certain bits of content and not others .
He notes that politics is rarely a dispute over facts , but rather values , dooming such fact-checking efforts to wind up being viewed as partisan harassment .
Once Twitter begins tagging some tweets and not others with “ what you need to know , ” it will be staking out partisan positions .
The Trump tweets that precipitated its first fact-check are a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been far more reasonable for the social-media giant to label Trump ’ s ugly and slanderous tweets about Joe Scarborough as misleading .
Instead , Twitter decided to inaugurate its policy by alleging that Trump had dishonestly claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to “ a Rigged Election.
” As I said , what Harsanyi is talking about is the danger of blurring facts with values as they engage in this fact-checking process .
That ’ s a valid point to be sure , and this activity will only serve to paint Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eyes of the public .
But as I see it , even that isn ’ t the main issue to be concerned with here .
The real bottom line is that Twitter could have avoided all of this by remaining a platform , as I ’ ve been saying for years .
As long as Twitter simply provided users with accounts and let them tweet what they wish without comment , they would be acting essentially as the 21st century equivalent of a corkboard in a college dormitory .
If someone posts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person pinning up the offending material , not the manufacturer of the corkboard .
Yes , there would be exceptions .
Users violating the law by either posting child pornography , clearly slanderous or libelous defamations or similar offenses would probably place the legal burden on the company to quickly delete the offending content and cancel accounts to the best of their ability .
But beyond that , they should be in the clear .
Now , however , they have claimed the title of “ content provider ” by providing editing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judgment .
And that means they ’ re responsible for every single tweet that sees the light of day .
They are no longer the innocent providers of access to a popular social media outlet .
They are publishers , determining what viewers will or won ’ t see and how the message will be shaped .
There are literally hundreds of millions of tweets far “ worse ” than Donald Trump ’ s that go up every day and they won ’ t be able to police them all .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of possible legal problems .
Twitter could have stayed on the sideline and avoided this trap .
If they really think that the President ’ s tweets are so misleading or terrible , they could have let the community make that decision and essentially leave Trump free to hoist himself on his own petard .
But now that they ’ ve put on their editor ’ s hat , a new game is afoot .
And I doubt they ’ re going to enjoy it .

As John discussed yesterday, President Trump is allegedly preparing some sort of executive order that would clamp down on Twitter and potentially other social media outlets. This is apparently a move in response to the company’s decision to start “fact-checking” some of the President’s tweets and flagging them as being content of dubious accuracy.
Whether or not this is something that the White House is even able to do will likely be a subject of debate until the courts settle the matter, but that’s hardly the key issue at hand. At National Review, David Harsanyi wrote at length about the folly of Twitter deciding to jump into the business of fact-checking and flagging certain bits of content and not others. He notes that politics is rarely a dispute over facts, but rather values, dooming such fact-checking efforts to wind up being viewed as partisan harassment.
Once Twitter begins tagging some tweets and not others with “what you need to know,” it will be staking out partisan positions. The Trump tweets that precipitated its first fact-check are a good example of this. It would have been far more reasonable for the social-media giant to label Trump’s ugly and slanderous tweets about Joe Scarborough as misleading. Instead, Twitter decided to inaugurate its policy by alleging that Trump had dishonestly claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to “a Rigged Election.”
As I said, what Harsanyi is talking about is the danger of blurring facts with values as they engage in this fact-checking process. That’s a valid point to be sure, and this activity will only serve to paint Twitter even further into a liberal corner in the eyes of the public. But as I see it, even that isn’t the main issue to be concerned with here.
The real bottom line is that Twitter could have avoided all of this by remaining a platform, as I’ve been saying for years. As long as Twitter simply provided users with accounts and let them tweet what they wish without comment, they would be acting essentially as the 21st century equivalent of a corkboard in a college dormitory. If someone posts something offensive, the fault lies with the person pinning up the offending material, not the manufacturer of the corkboard.
Yes, there would be exceptions. Users violating the law by either posting child pornography, clearly slanderous or libelous defamations or similar offenses would probably place the legal burden on the company to quickly delete the offending content and cancel accounts to the best of their ability. But beyond that, they should be in the clear.
Now, however, they have claimed the title of “content provider” by providing editing services to tweets based on their own judgment. And that means they’re responsible for every single tweet that sees the light of day. They are no longer the innocent providers of access to a popular social media outlet. They are publishers, determining what viewers will or won’t see and how the message will be shaped. There are literally hundreds of millions of tweets far “worse” than Donald Trump’s that go up every day and they won’t be able to police them all. And that opens them up to a full range of possible legal problems.
Twitter could have stayed on the sideline and avoided this trap. If they really think that the President’s tweets are so misleading or terrible, they could have let the community make that decision and essentially leave Trump free to hoist himself on his own petard. But now that they’ve put on their editor’s hat, a new game is afoot. And I doubt they’re going to enjoy it.


hotair--2020-05-28--Barr: Time for a "review" into Obama admin unmasking requests

Don ’ t get too excited — it ’ s a review , not an investigation , and one into a practice that has long been legal , as DoJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec reminds Sean Hannity .
However , it will take place under the auspices of US Attorney John Durham ’ s overall probe into Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the Russia-collusion hypothesis that turned into a special-counsel nothingburger .
The US attorney from Western Texas will initiate a review to fold into Durham ’ s work , specifically to see whether Obama administration officials abused their authority and violated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presumably Michael Flynn , but perhaps others as well : Attorney General Bill Barr has asked U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas John Bash to review the practice of “ unmasking ” before and after the 2016 presidential election , a controversy that has picked up steam after the Justice Department moved to drop charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn , the DOJ told Fox News on Wednesday night .
… DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told Fox News ’ “ Hannity ” that U.S. Attorney John Durham , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia investigation , was looking into “ unmasking ” but Barr determined certain aspects of the practice needed further review , and Bash has been assigned to do so .
“ Unmasking inherently isn ’ t wrong , but certainly , the frequency , the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic , and when you ’ re looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation — like John Durham ’ s investigation — looking specifically at who was unmasking whom , can add a lot to our understanding about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kupec said .
USA Today picked up on the interview as well , using a somewhat skeptical tone on the development .
In fact , they go right for the “ Republicans pounce !
® ” meme : Attorney General William Barr has tapped an outside federal prosecutor to look into episodes of unmasking involving Obama administration officials – the latest in a series of probes by the Justice Department on issues that matter to President Donald Trump and his allies .
… Unmasking is a common government practice to reveal the identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an intelligence report .
But it became a hot-button topic among conservatives in recent weeks after the declassification of a document listing the names of government officials who requested to unmask former national security adviser Michael Flynn before and after Trump ’ s election .
The list includes former Vice President Joe Biden , former Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and several high-ranking intelligence and law enforcement officials .
Republicans have seized on the issue to raise questions about possible wrongdoing during the Obama administration .
The declassified documents state that the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence documents were authorized to do so .
Were they , though ?
That ’ s true in most of the cases with law-enforcement and intelligence personnel .
Why , however , did the US Ambassador to the UN ask to unmask Flynn on seven occasions after the 2016 election ?
Why did our ambassador to Italy and San Marino make an unmasking request ?
Denis McDonough likely didn ’ t have standing to make that request , neither being in law enforcement or in a nat-sec position .
Even the case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice presidents don ’ t have formal roles in either law enforcement or intelligence operations .
However , authority is only part of the issue .
The question Bash will need to explore is this : was that authority abused for political purposes ?
The use of intelligence against political opponents violates both laws and ethics .
If such an abuse gets tied to Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the probe that morphed into a special-counsel nightmare , that could clarify a lot of issues in Durham ’ s investigation .
Oddly enough , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of “ authority , ” but don ’ t bet on Bash or Durham to overlook it .
Still , where established authority does exist , Bash will have his work cut out to prove abuse .
That is why it ’ s dangerous to imbue such intrusive authority without strict accountability independent of the political whims of the moment — it ’ s too easy to abuse , and too difficult prove it after the fact .
In other words , keep expectations low on this aspect of the overall Durham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indictments start dropping and someone decides to play Let ’ s Make a Deal .

Don’t get too excited — it’s a review, not an investigation, and one into a practice that has long been legal, as DoJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec reminds Sean Hannity. However, it will take place under the auspices of US Attorney John Durham’s overall probe into Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the Russia-collusion hypothesis that turned into a special-counsel nothingburger. The US attorney from Western Texas will initiate a review to fold into Durham’s work, specifically to see whether Obama administration officials abused their authority and violated the civil rights of US persons — presumably Michael Flynn, but perhaps others as well:
Attorney General Bill Barr has asked U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas John Bash to review the practice of “unmasking” before and after the 2016 presidential election, a controversy that has picked up steam after the Justice Department moved to drop charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, the DOJ told Fox News on Wednesday night. … DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told Fox News’ “Hannity” that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who has been reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation, was looking into “unmasking” but Barr determined certain aspects of the practice needed further review, and Bash has been assigned to do so. “Unmasking inherently isn’t wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you’re looking at unmasking as part of a broader investigation — like John Durham’s investigation — looking specifically at who was unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events,” Kupec said.
USA Today picked up on the interview as well, using a somewhat skeptical tone on the development. In fact, they go right for the “Republicans pounce!®” meme:
Attorney General William Barr has tapped an outside federal prosecutor to look into episodes of unmasking involving Obama administration officials – the latest in a series of probes by the Justice Department on issues that matter to President Donald Trump and his allies. … Unmasking is a common government practice to reveal the identity of someone who’s mentioned in an intelligence report. But it became a hot-button topic among conservatives in recent weeks after the declassification of a document listing the names of government officials who requested to unmask former national security adviser Michael Flynn before and after Trump’s election. The list includes former Vice President Joe Biden, former Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and several high-ranking intelligence and law enforcement officials. Republicans have seized on the issue to raise questions about possible wrongdoing during the Obama administration. The declassified documents state that the government officials who requested to unmask Flynn in intelligence documents were authorized to do so.
Were they, though? That’s true in most of the cases with law-enforcement and intelligence personnel. Why, however, did the US Ambassador to the UN ask to unmask Flynn on seven occasions after the 2016 election? Why did our ambassador to Italy and San Marino make an unmasking request? Denis McDonough likely didn’t have standing to make that request, neither being in law enforcement or in a nat-sec position. Even the case for Joe Biden is arguable, given that vice presidents don’t have formal roles in either law enforcement or intelligence operations.
However, authority is only part of the issue. The question Bash will need to explore is this: was that authority abused for political purposes? The use of intelligence against political opponents violates both laws and ethics. If such an abuse gets tied to Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the probe that morphed into a special-counsel nightmare, that could clarify a lot of issues in Durham’s investigation. Oddly enough, the USA Today report completely misses that aspect of “authority,” but don’t bet on Bash or Durham to overlook it.
Still, where established authority does exist, Bash will have his work cut out to prove abuse. That is why it’s dangerous to imbue such intrusive authority without strict accountability independent of the political whims of the moment — it’s too easy to abuse, and too difficult prove it after the fact. In other words, keep expectations low on this aspect of the overall Durham operation, at least unless and until indictments start dropping and someone decides to play Let’s Make a Deal.


hotair--2020-05-28--Florida congressman transfers proxy vote to go watch rocket launch

Now that the House has pushed through their highly dubious proxy voting scheme , it appears that some of the Democrats have been champing at the bit to give it a try .
One such member is Congressman Charlie Crist ( D ( formerly R ) ) of Florida .
There was supposed to be a vote scheduled on the FISA renewal yesterday , but even though it didn ’ t wind up happening , debates were taking place and work was going on .
The former Florida Governor was , however , unavailable for the business at hand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter , Crist had sent a note to the Clerk of the House informing her that he was “ unavailable ” to do his job because of “ the ongoing health emergency.
” As such , he authorized one of his Democratic colleagues to cast his vote by proxy .
So what aspect of the pandemic was keeping Crist at home ?
He was attending the SpaceX rocket launch .
Strangely enough , Crist wasn ’ t even attempting to hide this episode of playing hooky .
He proudly announced his excitement about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As most of you probably already know , the launch didn ’ t even wind up happening ( scrubbed for bad weather ) so Crist wound up skipping work for nothing .
But that ’ s not even the main lesson we should take away from this episode .
First of all , we still don ’ t even know if this proxy voting scheme will pass constitutional muster .
The GOP is going to court to challenge the rule already .
I ’ m not sure what that means in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way if the rule is overthrown , but that ’ s a matter to be hashed out in the future .
Let ’ s just say that proxy voting is allowable .
Even if that ’ s the case , the reason for this temporary measure was clearly stated to be the need to keep people safe and healthy while avoiding travel during the pandemic .
And that ’ s the precise reason Crist cited in his letter to the Clerk .
But then he turns around and shows up in the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were gathered to watch the Crew Dragon lift off ?
In case you were wondering , social media users were commenting on the size of the crowds .
The proxy voting was supposed to be an option for any members who were unable to physically attend the proceedings because of the pandemic .
If Crist had come down with COVID-19 or been exposed to a friend or family member with the disease and decided to self-quarantine , then we could forgive him , at least until the courts sort out this proxy question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go to the Cape for the launch , then he was well enough to go to work .
And if that ’ s the case , then he could have just skipped the vote and answered to his constituents for his absence .
As I wrote when the measure was first being considered , this entire proxy question stinks on ice .
And Crist is quickly proving how easily the system can be abused .

Now that the House has pushed through their highly dubious proxy voting scheme, it appears that some of the Democrats have been champing at the bit to give it a try. One such member is Congressman Charlie Crist (D (formerly R)) of Florida. There was supposed to be a vote scheduled on the FISA renewal yesterday, but even though it didn’t wind up happening, debates were taking place and work was going on. The former Florida Governor was, however, unavailable for the business at hand.
As Minority Leader McCarthy pointed out on Twitter, Crist had sent a note to the Clerk of the House informing her that he was “unavailable” to do his job because of “the ongoing health emergency.” As such, he authorized one of his Democratic colleagues to cast his vote by proxy. So what aspect of the pandemic was keeping Crist at home? He was attending the SpaceX rocket launch.
Democrat Charlie Crist said he couldn't show up for work in Washington today "due to the ongoing public health emergency." Then he gave his vote away to someone else so he could attend a rocket launch instead. https://t.co/krXgg3QWm2 pic.twitter.com/0BJXIquK5Z — Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) May 28, 2020
Strangely enough, Crist wasn’t even attempting to hide this episode of playing hooky. He proudly announced his excitement about seeing the launch on social media.
Looking forward to attending today’s historic manned @SpaceX launch to @Space_Station – the first from American soil since 2011 and first ever on a commercial spacecraft. Huge step for space exploration and Florida! pic.twitter.com/EHhF5U8F5M — Congressman Charlie Crist (@RepCharlieCrist) May 27, 2020
As most of you probably already know, the launch didn’t even wind up happening (scrubbed for bad weather) so Crist wound up skipping work for nothing. But that’s not even the main lesson we should take away from this episode.
First of all, we still don’t even know if this proxy voting scheme will pass constitutional muster. The GOP is going to court to challenge the rule already. I’m not sure what that means in terms of the validity of any votes taken this way if the rule is overthrown, but that’s a matter to be hashed out in the future.
Let’s just say that proxy voting is allowable. Even if that’s the case, the reason for this temporary measure was clearly stated to be the need to keep people safe and healthy while avoiding travel during the pandemic. And that’s the precise reason Crist cited in his letter to the Clerk. But then he turns around and shows up in the middle of the sizable, festive crowds who were gathered to watch the Crew Dragon lift off? In case you were wondering, social media users were commenting on the size of the crowds.
Why my sister was going to sit on her roof for the launch. pic.twitter.com/OSns44DT8l — The Georg (@thegeorg) May 27, 2020
The proxy voting was supposed to be an option for any members who were unable to physically attend the proceedings because of the pandemic. If Crist had come down with COVID-19 or been exposed to a friend or family member with the disease and decided to self-quarantine, then we could forgive him, at least until the courts sort out this proxy question. But if he was well enough to go to the Cape for the launch, then he was well enough to go to work. And if that’s the case, then he could have just skipped the vote and answered to his constituents for his absence.
As I wrote when the measure was first being considered, this entire proxy question stinks on ice. And Crist is quickly proving how easily the system can be abused.


hotair--2020-05-28--Another woman on Biden's VP shortlist treads troubled waters

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is among the women on the shortlist of Joe Biden ’ s choices for a running mate .
She finds herself in some hot water over what looks to be asserting some personal privilege during a time when the state is under stay at home orders due to the coronavirus pandemic .
Grisham issued a stay at home order for the state during a press conference on April 3 .
The governor told the people of New Mexico to only go out for essentials , like food , and that all non-essential businesses must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really tough financial times as a state .
It mirrors the incredible , personal sacrifices that happen every single day because people have limited their ability to work , telecommuting and many people , in fact , have lost their jobs , ” she said .
Little did anyone know that what the governor meant was everyone should limit purchases to essential items … except her .
An Albuquerque news station is reporting that just a matter of days after that early April press conference , and one week before Easter , Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders .
Apparently , for the governor , expensive jewelry is an essential purchase that requires a shop clerk to open up the store .
The jewelry store ’ s manager said Governor Grisham called up a jewelry store employee with whom she has “ a longstanding personal relationship ” , ordered what she wanted to buy , and then asked the salesperson to open up the store to get the item ( s ) .
Then that person took the purchase to her own home , set the package outside her door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it up for the governor .
My first thought was that the salesperson/friend must really trust her neighbors to leave expensive jewelry out for someone to pick up .
The governor ’ s purchase brought questions from the news station but she refused to go on-camera for an interview .
Grisham ’ s story is different than the store owner ’ s story .
The governor ’ s office first tried to throw a staffer under the bus but later admitted it was picked up by a friend .
The purchase was justified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just following the governor ’ s orders or something .
The governor ’ s office first said it was a campaign staffer , then later told KRQE it was the governor ’ s friend , but wouldn ’ t release a name .
They also said the transaction was entirely contact-less , remote and permissible .
The spokesman also pointed to the governor ’ s order at the time stating “ none of the state ’ s public health orders have restricted the conduct of business operations in which an employee only interacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that same order also states it requires the closure of physical retails spaces and doesn ’ t mention anything about home delivery .
This was also at a time when curbside pick-up was not allowed .
Curbside pick-ups were allowed starting May 1 .
When asked if home delivery was allowed under the governor ’ s stay at home order , the spokesperson said it wasn ’ t a delivery .
Um , what now ?
That ’ s a stretch , to put it kindly .
The governor ’ s person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the governor – that person just didn ’ t go to the jewelry store directly , he or she went to the salesperson ’ s home according to the manager ’ s story .
When asked about having two people leave their homes to fetch some bling for the governor , her office admits it was an “ unusual transaction ” .
As you can imagine , other jewelry store owners aren ’ t pleased with the governor ’ s self-indulgence .
The governor ’ s office points to the personal relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters that “ if a New Mexican has that kind of personal relationship with a local business and local businesses are trying to operate creatively to keep themselves and their employees afloat while staying safe , certainly this kind of transaction could have occurred.
” So , apparently who you know trumps a stay at home order .
Is that what we are to take from the governor ’ s office ’ s statement ?
Other businesses haven ’ t interpreted the stay at home order that way and say that they thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve their customers .
So , if she is chosen to be Working-Class Joe ’ s running mate , she may want to check her privilege .
Or not .
The media is invested in the election of Biden so the governor could likely not even be asked about violating her own order while regular working folks were cooling their heels at home without a paycheck .
I like nice jewelry as much as the next woman , but c ’ mon , what was so important that this purchase couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered up any explanation about that part of the story .
A recent list of ten potential vice-president candidates on Biden ’ s shortlist includes Governor Grisham at number 8 .
She ’ s someone who fills the Latino vote outreach slot .
Coming in at number 4 is Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto , the choice being pushed by Harry Reid .
Governor Grisham acknowledged she is being vetted for the job .
Just like the kerfuffle Governor Whitmer tried to explain away by claiming her husband was only joking , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he tried to jump the line to get his boat in the water at a Michigan marina over Memorial Day weekend , Governor Grisham will have to do better than trying to blame a staffer for her self-indulgences .

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is among the women on the shortlist of Joe Biden’s choices for a running mate. She finds herself in some hot water over what looks to be asserting some personal privilege during a time when the state is under stay at home orders due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Grisham issued a stay at home order for the state during a press conference on April 3. The governor told the people of New Mexico to only go out for essentials, like food, and that all non-essential businesses must remain closed. “We are in really tough financial times as a state. It mirrors the incredible, personal sacrifices that happen every single day because people have limited their ability to work, telecommuting and many people, in fact, have lost their jobs,” she said. Little did anyone know that what the governor meant was everyone should limit purchases to essential items … except her.
An Albuquerque news station is reporting that just a matter of days after that early April press conference, and one week before Easter, Governor Grisham seems to have breached her own orders. Apparently, for the governor, expensive jewelry is an essential purchase that requires a shop clerk to open up the store. The jewelry store’s manager said Governor Grisham called up a jewelry store employee with whom she has “a longstanding personal relationship”, ordered what she wanted to buy, and then asked the salesperson to open up the store to get the item (s). Then that person took the purchase to her own home, set the package outside her door, and someone else came to pick it up for the governor.
My first thought was that the salesperson/friend must really trust her neighbors to leave expensive jewelry out for someone to pick up. The governor’s purchase brought questions from the news station but she refused to go on-camera for an interview. Grisham’s story is different than the store owner’s story. The governor’s office first tried to throw a staffer under the bus but later admitted it was picked up by a friend. The purchase was justified by a spokesperson for the governor as just following the governor’s orders or something.
The governor’s office first said it was a campaign staffer, then later told KRQE it was the governor’s friend, but wouldn’t release a name. They also said the transaction was entirely contact-less, remote and permissible. The spokesman also pointed to the governor’s order at the time stating “none of the state’s public health orders have restricted the conduct of business operations in which an employee only interacts with clients or customers remotely.” However, that same order also states it requires the closure of physical retails spaces and doesn’t mention anything about home delivery.
This was also at a time when curbside pick-up was not allowed. Curbside pick-ups were allowed starting May 1. When asked if home delivery was allowed under the governor’s stay at home order, the spokesperson said it wasn’t a delivery. Um, what now?
In a time of non-essential closures where curbside was not allowed, KRQE asked if home delivery was okay. The governor’s spokesman said it was not a home delivery and businesses were encouraged to find creative ways to conduct business safely. He also added the store was not opened for the governor and stated that “turning the key inside a door to ‘open’ a store wouldn’t violate the order…” He also said non-essential businesses all across the state let employees in to do inventory or clean.
That’s a stretch, to put it kindly. The governor’s person picked up the jewelry and delivered it to the governor – that person just didn’t go to the jewelry store directly, he or she went to the salesperson’s home according to the manager’s story. When asked about having two people leave their homes to fetch some bling for the governor, her office admits it was an “unusual transaction”.
KRQE News 13 asked about the two people who left their homes to get jewelry to the governor. Her office says this was an unusual transaction and while “of course the governor has been telling people to stay home to the greatest extent possible, it also true she’s been urging New Mexicans to find ways to support local businesses.”
As you can imagine, other jewelry store owners aren’t pleased with the governor’s self-indulgence. The governor’s office points to the personal relationship she has with the salesperson and told reporters that “if a New Mexican has that kind of personal relationship with a local business and local businesses are trying to operate creatively to keep themselves and their employees afloat while staying safe, certainly this kind of transaction could have occurred.” So, apparently who you know trumps a stay at home order. Is that what we are to take from the governor’s office’s statement? Other businesses haven’t interpreted the stay at home order that way and say that they thought online orders were their only option to serve their customers.
So, if she is chosen to be Working-Class Joe’s running mate, she may want to check her privilege. Or not. The media is invested in the election of Biden so the governor could likely not even be asked about violating her own order while regular working folks were cooling their heels at home without a paycheck. I like nice jewelry as much as the next woman, but c’mon, what was so important that this purchase couldn’t wait? The governor hasn’t offered up any explanation about that part of the story.
A recent list of ten potential vice-president candidates on Biden’s shortlist includes Governor Grisham at number 8. She’s someone who fills the Latino vote outreach slot. Coming in at number 4 is Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, the choice being pushed by Harry Reid. Governor Grisham acknowledged she is being vetted for the job.
Just like the kerfuffle Governor Whitmer tried to explain away by claiming her husband was only joking, not exerting his privilege by invoking her name when he tried to jump the line to get his boat in the water at a Michigan marina over Memorial Day weekend, Governor Grisham will have to do better than trying to blame a staffer for her self-indulgences.


hotair--2020-05-28--Trump: I'd shut down Twitter if I could

Trump: I'd shut down Twitter if I could

On the one hand , this is a glimpse at an ugly authoritarian soul fantasizing openly about using government power to censor a critic .
Not even a critic , as Twitter ’ s let him run wild on their platform for a decade .
All they did to piss him off was append a note to two of his tweets that slightly complicated his scheme to scapegoat voting-by-mail for his possible defeat in November .
Two days later we have the president ranting in the Oval Office next to the Attorney General about closing down a prominent media company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communicate .
On the other hand , what Twitter user hasn ’ t fantasized about shutting down the platform ?
I ’ m guilty as charged .
It ’ s the worst .
Anyway , this ’ ll be a fun memory for the national free-speech scrapbook .
Here ’ s Bill Barr , lying to our faces about what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says : You don ’ t become a “ publisher ” by curating or moderating content on your own platform .
Section 230 practically encourages you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad , particularly the inclusion of “ or otherwise objectionable.
” ( The bit about “ harassing ” content would certainly entitle Twitter to nuke Trump ’ s tweets about the great Joe Scarborough murder cold case without fear of losing its legal immunity . )
Think of how Congress could have written this statute if it wanted to hold media platforms to the sort of standard Trump and Barr prefer .
It could have shielded them from defamation suits for user-generated content but only on the condition that they didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have made platforms liable for defamation posted by their users unless they moderated content aggressively to at least try to keep defamatory stuff out of comment threads .
Instead Congress gave them carte blanche .
You ’ re immune if you don ’ t want to moderate and you ’ re immune if you do .
That was a legal incentive for companies to make the investment in building social media platforms , giving us the Internet as we know it .
Now read Trump ’ s new executive order — but first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a simple question that NRO ’ s Charles Cooke asked earlier today on ( ironically ) Twitter .
Why do we need an executive order on this ?
Why is the executive branch playing any role in the rules that govern social media companies , which are properly set by Congress and interpreted by the courts ?
There ’ s no answer beyond “ Twitter hurt Trump ’ s fee-fees by fact-checking his tweets and now he wants revenge.
” At least , I hope that ’ s the answer .
The alternative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to act because Congress can ’ t or won ’ t , is straight-up Obamaism circa 2014 .
Obama apologists claimed that he had the power to act on things like legal status for DREAMers for no better reason than that he was frustrated that Congress wouldn ’ t do what he wants .
But that ’ s not a good constitutional reason , for him or for Trump .
Elizabeth Nolan Brown called Trump ’ s order “ Orwellian ” in a post at Reason earlier today .
That ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t the state actor here .
Trump is .
It ’ s not Trump ’ s free speech that ’ s being threatened .
Twitter ’ s is , by Trump .
Social media companies can ’ t “ censor ” because they ’ re not public forums , a point that was reiterated literally just yesterday by the D.C .
Circuit .
That passage is Trump ’ s twisted victimhood complex distilled to its essence , a case of the president bringing the power of the federal government onto a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been made to feel .
Here ’ s the heart of it , attempting to rewrite the part of Section 230 quoted above by presidential say-so : In particular , subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) expressly addresses protections from “ civil liability ” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “ on account of ” its decision in “ good faith ” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “ obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the policy of the United States to ensure that , to the maximum extent permissible under the law , this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “ good faith ” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions ( often contrary to their stated terms of service ) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree .
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forums for debate , and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike .
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) , it is engaged in editorial conduct .
It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider .
What he ’ s imagining is interpreting the phrase “ in good faith ” in the statute so that the moderation of any objectionable content posted on a platform by a Republican — mainly the Republican-in-chief — can be challenged on grounds that it ’ s a product of political bias and thus not in good faith .
If he wants to be a stickler about the statute , that ’ s fine ; in that case , go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refers only to “ restrict [ ing ] access to or availability of ” content , which Twitter didn ’ t do by adding a fact-check note to his tweets about mail-in voting .
The tweets are still there , available to the world in their original form .
The company simply concluded that if the most powerful man in the world wants to screech disingenuously that voting-by-mail is some sort of mega-conspiracy aimed at stealing the election , that that sort of brazen lie is objectionable and requires a very mild form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asks the FCC to promulgate some rules about what constitutes “ good faith ” going forward — and , maybe more importantly , orders that each “ executive department and agency ( agency ) shall review its agency ’ s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms ” with an eye to “ viewpoint discrimination ” by those platforms .
Which , I suppose , answers Cooke ’ s question .
Trump ’ s basically threatening here to choke off whatever federal money platforms like Twitter and Facebook get if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Underlying the order is the idea that social media platforms have too much power over the way Americans communicate today and therefore need to be held to more exacting standards .
That ’ s a fair position , but the pre-Trump conservative response to it would have called for building competitors to them , not threatening to shut them down .
Go the Fox News route and beat them at their own game ; if that ’ s impossible because they enjoy monopoly power , use antitrust actions to counter it .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put together a Twitter alternative where he ’ s free to smear anyone he wants night or day .
( Actually , he ’ s free to do that on Twitter too . )
Or he could have the feds build their own state social media outlet and encourage Americans to use that instead , with a guarantee of no moderation whatsoever .
I hope he does that as I ’ d like to see the result .
Within a week it ’ d be sub-4chan levels of discourse , pure Thunderdome .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to worry about having his posts about a vast plot to commit election fraud involving a method of voting Americans have used commonly for decades being deleted or fact-checked .
Not everyone in the White House is happy about this garbage , according to Yahoo News .
There are some people still left in the building with a small , vestigial allergy to obnoxious government power grabs : Cipollone ’ s the big booster , huh ?
Congrats to the president on having found not one but two Roy Cohns .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the worriers , they should relax .
What ’ s the worst that could happen ?
In lieu of an exit question , read this Patterico post about how Trump may have violated the First Amendment according to one appellate court ’ s case law merely by threatening a company like Twitter with government retaliation , without any official action .
In the end I think that ’ s all Trump wanted out of this — to threaten them .
Whether anything meaningful comes from his executive order is beside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , and other social media companies , not to get in his way by exercising their speech rights and moderating the content he posts even if it ’ s clearly in violation of their terms of service and “ objectionable.
” That ’ s known in First-Amendment-speak as a “ chilling effect.
” The Attorney General of the United States is his willing enabler in the effort .

On the one hand, this is a glimpse at an ugly authoritarian soul fantasizing openly about using government power to censor a critic. Not even a critic, as Twitter’s let him run wild on their platform for a decade. All they did to piss him off was append a note to two of his tweets that slightly complicated his scheme to scapegoat voting-by-mail for his possible defeat in November. Two days later we have the president ranting in the Oval Office next to the Attorney General about closing down a prominent media company that’s used by millions to communicate.
On the other hand, what Twitter user hasn’t fantasized about shutting down the platform? I’m guilty as charged. It’s the worst.
Anyway, this’ll be a fun memory for the national free-speech scrapbook.
The President talks about the possibility of shutting down Twitter which he does not have the authority to do pic.twitter.com/MoJ45IT105 — Acyn (@Acyn) May 28, 2020
Here’s Bill Barr, lying to our faces about what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says:
The AG who authored a memo intended to skew the results of the Mueller Report before its release has strong opinions on social media companies adding “their own content on to other’s content” pic.twitter.com/9p0d2AkdBF — Acyn (@Acyn) May 28, 2020
You don’t become a “publisher” by curating or moderating content on your own platform. Section 230 practically encourages you to do it:
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
It’s broad, particularly the inclusion of “or otherwise objectionable.” (The bit about “harassing” content would certainly entitle Twitter to nuke Trump’s tweets about the great Joe Scarborough murder cold case without fear of losing its legal immunity.) Think of how Congress could have written this statute if it wanted to hold media platforms to the sort of standard Trump and Barr prefer. It could have shielded them from defamation suits for user-generated content but only on the condition that they didn’t moderate any content. Or it could have made platforms liable for defamation posted by their users unless they moderated content aggressively to at least try to keep defamatory stuff out of comment threads.
Instead Congress gave them carte blanche. You’re immune if you don’t want to moderate and you’re immune if you do. That was a legal incentive for companies to make the investment in building social media platforms, giving us the Internet as we know it.
Now read Trump’s new executive order — but first, pause a second and ask yourself a simple question that NRO’s Charles Cooke asked earlier today on (ironically) Twitter. Why do we need an executive order on this? Why is the executive branch playing any role in the rules that govern social media companies, which are properly set by Congress and interpreted by the courts? There’s no answer beyond “Twitter hurt Trump’s fee-fees by fact-checking his tweets and now he wants revenge.” At least, I hope that’s the answer. The alternative answer, that the president feels obliged to act because Congress can’t or won’t, is straight-up Obamaism circa 2014. Obama apologists claimed that he had the power to act on things like legal status for DREAMers for no better reason than that he was frustrated that Congress wouldn’t do what he wants. But that’s not a good constitutional reason, for him or for Trump.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown called Trump’s order “Orwellian” in a post at Reason earlier today. That’s the right word for this section:
Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people. In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
Twitter isn’t the state actor here. Trump is. It’s not Trump’s free speech that’s being threatened. Twitter’s is, by Trump. Social media companies can’t “censor” because they’re not public forums, a point that was reiterated literally just yesterday by the D.C. Circuit. That passage is Trump’s twisted victimhood complex distilled to its essence, a case of the president bringing the power of the federal government onto a private actor because of how powerless he’s been made to feel.
Here’s the heart of it, attempting to rewrite the part of Section 230 quoted above by presidential say-so:
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
What he’s imagining is interpreting the phrase “in good faith” in the statute so that the moderation of any objectionable content posted on a platform by a Republican — mainly the Republican-in-chief — can be challenged on grounds that it’s a product of political bias and thus not in good faith. If he wants to be a stickler about the statute, that’s fine; in that case, go read it again and note that it refers only to “restrict[ing] access to or availability of” content, which Twitter didn’t do by adding a fact-check note to his tweets about mail-in voting. The tweets are still there, available to the world in their original form. The company simply concluded that if the most powerful man in the world wants to screech disingenuously that voting-by-mail is some sort of mega-conspiracy aimed at stealing the election, that that sort of brazen lie is objectionable and requires a very mild form of moderation. Trump’s order asks the FCC to promulgate some rules about what constitutes “good faith” going forward — and, maybe more importantly, orders that each “executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms” with an eye to “viewpoint discrimination” by those platforms.
Which, I suppose, answers Cooke’s question. Trump’s basically threatening here to choke off whatever federal money platforms like Twitter and Facebook get if they start messing with his content.
Underlying the order is the idea that social media platforms have too much power over the way Americans communicate today and therefore need to be held to more exacting standards. That’s a fair position, but the pre-Trump conservative response to it would have called for building competitors to them, not threatening to shut them down. Go the Fox News route and beat them at their own game; if that’s impossible because they enjoy monopoly power, use antitrust actions to counter it. Trump could nudge his friend Rupert Murdoch to put together a Twitter alternative where he’s free to smear anyone he wants night or day. (Actually, he’s free to do that on Twitter too.) Or he could have the feds build their own state social media outlet and encourage Americans to use that instead, with a guarantee of no moderation whatsoever. I hope he does that as I’d like to see the result. Within a week it’d be sub-4chan levels of discourse, pure Thunderdome. But at least he wouldn’t need to worry about having his posts about a vast plot to commit election fraud involving a method of voting Americans have used commonly for decades being deleted or fact-checked.
Not everyone in the White House is happy about this garbage, according to Yahoo News. There are some people still left in the building with a small, vestigial allergy to obnoxious government power grabs:
White House sources tell Yahoo News that the office of Vice President Mike Pence, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow and others are making the argument that it will set a bad precedent to signal that the federal government can go after private companies and seek to penalize them for purely political reasons… “There is pushback from a lot of people” inside the White House, an administration official told Yahoo News, saying there is “a lot of frustration” among advisers who are often some of the president’s most loyal backers. The push for the order has come primarily from White House counsel Pat Cipollone, two White House sources said.
Cipollone’s the big booster, huh? Congrats to the president on having found not one but two Roy Cohns. As for Kudlow, Pence, and the rest of the worriers, they should relax. What’s the worst that could happen?
A new Fairness Doctrine. Emboldening trial lawyers. Massive new regulations. Government restricted speech. Governing by Executive Order. This is like 5 for 5 on things conservatives would've freaked out about under Obama. — Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) May 28, 2020
In lieu of an exit question, read this Patterico post about how Trump may have violated the First Amendment according to one appellate court’s case law merely by threatening a company like Twitter with government retaliation, without any official action. In the end I think that’s all Trump wanted out of this — to threaten them. Whether anything meaningful comes from his executive order is beside the point. The point is to warn them, and other social media companies, not to get in his way by exercising their speech rights and moderating the content he posts even if it’s clearly in violation of their terms of service and “objectionable.” That’s known in First-Amendment-speak as a “chilling effect.” The Attorney General of the United States is his willing enabler in the effort.


hotair--2020-05-29--Rep. Val Demings to MN cops: "What the hell are you doing?"

Rep. Val Demings is a former law enforcement officer .
She , like everyone else and their brother , is weighing in on the death of George Floyd .
From that experience comes a little different perspective than most .
The congresswoman from Florida hired on with the Orlando Police Department at the age of 26 , after briefly working as a social worker .
She rose through the ranks to become the first female police chief of the Orlando Police Department .
Penning an op-ed published in the Washington Post , she focused on not her own skin color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the color blue , as a former cop .
She asks the police in Minneapolis a basic question , “ As a former woman in blue , let me begin with my brothers and sisters in blue : What in the hell are you doing ?
” That is exactly what most people watching the video asked .
It doesn ’ t matter if the viewer is white , black , conservative , liberal , whatever .
People have come together to condemn the behavior of police at the scene .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Floyd begging for his life to be spared and watching the police officer ’ s knee on the back of his throat as he lies face down and in handcuffs .
Floyd , a Houston native , moved to Minneapolis about six years ago to start fresh after a life that included brushes with the law .
About 8:00 p.m. he went to buy food and the store clerk reported a “ forgery in progress ” to the police .
It involved Floyd passing off an alleged counterfeit $ 20 bill .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clerk came out and plead with the cops to stop .
Rep. Demings calls on law enforcement officers to use their brains – their “ most powerful weapon ” – and notes that Floyd posed no threat to the police .
When an officer engages in stupid , heartless and reckless behavior , their actions can either take a life or change a life forever .
Bad decisions can bring irrevocable harm to the profession and tear down the relationships and trust between the police and the communities they serve .
Remember , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public does .
Think before you act !
Remember , your most powerful weapon is the brain the good Lord gave you .
Use it !
We all know that the level of force must meet the level of resistance .
We all can see that there was absolutely zero resistance from George Floyd .
He posed no threat to anyone , especially law enforcement .
She addresses the fact that the officers must be held accountable .
Demings offers suggestions about training and recruiting programs and she slips in a mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ” with police pay .
She also goes on to say those police officers witnessing others abusing their power must speak up against it .
Frankly , I am surprised it took Rep. Demings this long to get her opinion published .
Those of us who watched the impeachment trial in the Senate remember that she reminded us on a daily basis of her former career in law enforcement .
She is now said to be on the shortlist of Joe Biden ’ s vice-presidential choices .
She ’ d fulfill the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman vice-president and she might help Biden get out the vote in Florida .
She ’ s 63 years old so she would add some youth to the Biden ticket , compared to his advanced age .
Whether Demings makes the final cut with Biden or not , she ’ s getting some more time in the national spotlight now by using her former career as a guide to her words now .
I feel for cops in general and support them as they do very difficult work .
With continued instances like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done .

Rep. Val Demings is a former law enforcement officer. She, like everyone else and their brother, is weighing in on the death of George Floyd. From that experience comes a little different perspective than most.
The congresswoman from Florida hired on with the Orlando Police Department at the age of 26, after briefly working as a social worker. She rose through the ranks to become the first female police chief of the Orlando Police Department. Penning an op-ed published in the Washington Post, she focused on not her own skin color, as an African-American woman, but of the color blue, as a former cop. She asks the police in Minneapolis a basic question, “As a former woman in blue, let me begin with my brothers and sisters in blue: What in the hell are you doing?”
That is exactly what most people watching the video asked. It doesn’t matter if the viewer is white, black, conservative, liberal, whatever. People have come together to condemn the behavior of police at the scene. It’s hard to listen to George Floyd begging for his life to be spared and watching the police officer’s knee on the back of his throat as he lies face down and in handcuffs.
Floyd, a Houston native, moved to Minneapolis about six years ago to start fresh after a life that included brushes with the law. About 8:00 p.m. he went to buy food and the store clerk reported a “forgery in progress” to the police. It involved Floyd passing off an alleged counterfeit $20 bill. During the attempted arrest, even the store clerk came out and plead with the cops to stop.
Rep. Demings calls on law enforcement officers to use their brains – their “most powerful weapon” – and notes that Floyd posed no threat to the police.
When an officer engages in stupid, heartless and reckless behavior, their actions can either take a life or change a life forever. Bad decisions can bring irrevocable harm to the profession and tear down the relationships and trust between the police and the communities they serve. Remember, law enforcement needs that trust just as the public does. Think before you act! Remember, your most powerful weapon is the brain the good Lord gave you. Use it! We all know that the level of force must meet the level of resistance. We all can see that there was absolutely zero resistance from George Floyd. He posed no threat to anyone, especially law enforcement.
She addresses the fact that the officers must be held accountable. Demings offers suggestions about training and recruiting programs and she slips in a mention that “you get what you pay for” with police pay. She also goes on to say those police officers witnessing others abusing their power must speak up against it.
As a nation, we must conduct a serious review of hiring standards and practices, diversity, training, use-of-force policies, pay and benefits (remember, you get what you pay for), early warning programs, and recruit training programs. Remember, officers who train police recruits are setting the standard for what is acceptable and unacceptable on the street.
Frankly, I am surprised it took Rep. Demings this long to get her opinion published. Those of us who watched the impeachment trial in the Senate remember that she reminded us on a daily basis of her former career in law enforcement. She is now said to be on the shortlist of Joe Biden’s vice-presidential choices. She’d fulfill the pressure from African-American leadership for a black woman vice-president and she might help Biden get out the vote in Florida. She’s 63 years old so she would add some youth to the Biden ticket, compared to his advanced age.
Whether Demings makes the final cut with Biden or not, she’s getting some more time in the national spotlight now by using her former career as a guide to her words now. I feel for cops in general and support them as they do very difficult work. With continued instances like this, though, something has to be done.


hotair--2020-05-29--Criminal complaint: Preliminary findings are that George Floyd didn't die of strangulation and had u

Criminal complaint: Preliminary findings are that George Floyd didn't die of strangulation and had underlying health conditions

I ’ m guessing this is what the DA was thinking of last night when he referred to certain evidence that doesn ’ t support a criminal charge against Derek Chauvin .
But they charged him today anyway , as they should have .
The fact that Floyd may — may — have had underlying health conditions doesn ’ t mean that Chauvin didn ’ t cause his death .
Weirdly enough , in fact , the coming debate over what caused Floyd ’ s death resembles the ongoing argument about how to characterize coronavirus deaths .
Skeptics emphasize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the disease and dying with the disease .
I encourage Chauvin ’ s lawyers to repurpose that logic for their defense .
I want to see them argue to a jury that Floyd didn ’ t die of Chauvin ’ s knee being on his neck for nine minutes while he gasped that he couldn ’ t breathe , he died with Chauvin ’ s knee being on his neck while he gasped that he couldn ’ t breathe .
In any case , the complaint specifies that the restraint by police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baden ’ s going to conduct an independent autopsy for the Floyd family once they have his body back .
“ The family does not trust anything coming from the Minneapolis Police Department .
How can they ?
” said the family ’ s lawyer of the state ’ s autopsy results .
Good question .
Anyway , a thought experiment .
Imagine some miscreant gets into an argument with his very frail grandmother and ends up holding a pillow over her face until she stops moving .
Is he off the hook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she actually died of a heart attack amid the stress of the altercation rather than from suffocation — and that a healthy younger person wouldn ’ t have had a heart attack under those circumstances ?
We ’ d laugh at the idea .
The law laughs at it too in what ’ s known as the “ eggshell skull rule.
” If you injure someone who turns out to have been specially prone to injury due to some inherent defect in their physiology ( e.g.
, a light blow to the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unusually thin skull ) , that ’ s tough luck for you .
You ’ re still guilty .
You take your victim as you find him , as the saying goes .
What ’ s different in Chauvin ’ s case is that he ’ ll argue that he was following lawful police procedure in keeping his knee on Floyd ’ s neck .
There ’ s no lawful circumstance in which you get to put a pillow over grandma ’ s face .
There *are* certain circumstances in which Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s neck to restrain him .
But as several experts argued to CNN , Chauvin ’ s knee pressure doesn ’ t qualify .
Floyd was already cuffed and on the ground , fully restrained .
It was gratuitous , especially for nine minutes while Floyd begged for air .
Bystanders could see that he was in distress and said so on the video .
How ’ s Chauvin going to argue that what he did was reasonable under those circumstances ?
Here ’ s a new story at NBC headlined “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to restrain George Floyd.
” “ There hasn ’ t been one person , one police chief , anyone I ’ ve talked to , who doesn ’ t see this exactly the same way .
The police officer and those who were there that day failed George Floyd , ” said Chuck Wexler , executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum , a law enforcement-oriented think tank based in Washington .
“ Every police officer that looked at that video who knows anything about tactics shook their head.
” … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned that the technique can cause sudden death .
“ A person lying on his stomach has trouble breathing when pressure is applied to his back , ” it said .
The advice : “ As soon as the person is handcuffed , get him off his stomach.
” … “ There is no need to see more video , ” David Roddy , the police chief in Chattanooga , Tennessee , tweeted Wednesday .
“ There is no need to wait to see how ‘ it plays out.
’ There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s neck for NINE minutes .
There IS a need to DO something .
If you wear a badge and you don ’ t have an issue with this … turn it in.
” “ What we saw in Minnesota was deeply disturbing .
It was wrong , ” NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said in a tweet .
“ We must take a stand and address it .
We must come together , condemn these actions and reinforce who we are as members of the NYPD .
This is not acceptable ANYWHERE.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ subdue suspects by putting a pillow over their face until they stop moving , after they ’ ve already been cuffed ?
If one of them ends up dying that way , is it okay so long as it was due to a heart attack rather than suffocation ?
Exit quotation from the former owner of the Minneapolis club at which both Chauvin and Floyd , coincidentally , worked security : “ Santamaria also noted that Chauvin ‘ had a real short fuse , ’ adding that he often resorted to pulling out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was unwarranted .
”

I’m guessing this is what the DA was thinking of last night when he referred to certain evidence that doesn’t support a criminal charge against Derek Chauvin.
But they charged him today anyway, as they should have. The fact that Floyd may — may — have had underlying health conditions doesn’t mean that Chauvin didn’t cause his death.
Weirdly enough, in fact, the coming debate over what caused Floyd’s death resembles the ongoing argument about how to characterize coronavirus deaths. Skeptics emphasize that there’s a difference between dying of the disease and dying with the disease. I encourage Chauvin’s lawyers to repurpose that logic for their defense. I want to see them argue to a jury that Floyd didn’t die of Chauvin’s knee being on his neck for nine minutes while he gasped that he couldn’t breathe, he died with Chauvin’s knee being on his neck while he gasped that he couldn’t breathe.
In any case, the complaint specifies that the restraint by police, ahem, “contributed.”
Michael Baden’s going to conduct an independent autopsy for the Floyd family once they have his body back. “The family does not trust anything coming from the Minneapolis Police Department. How can they?” said the family’s lawyer of the state’s autopsy results. Good question.
Anyway, a thought experiment. Imagine some miscreant gets into an argument with his very frail grandmother and ends up holding a pillow over her face until she stops moving. Is he off the hook on murder if he can show that she actually died of a heart attack amid the stress of the altercation rather than from suffocation — and that a healthy younger person wouldn’t have had a heart attack under those circumstances?
We’d laugh at the idea. The law laughs at it too in what’s known as the “eggshell skull rule.” If you injure someone who turns out to have been specially prone to injury due to some inherent defect in their physiology (e.g., a light blow to the head causes catastrophic injury because the victim had an unusually thin skull), that’s tough luck for you. You’re still guilty. You take your victim as you find him, as the saying goes.
What’s different in Chauvin’s case is that he’ll argue that he was following lawful police procedure in keeping his knee on Floyd’s neck. There’s no lawful circumstance in which you get to put a pillow over grandma’s face. There *are* certain circumstances in which Minneapolis PD allows police to grab a suspect’s neck to restrain him. But as several experts argued to CNN, Chauvin’s knee pressure doesn’t qualify. Floyd was already cuffed and on the ground, fully restrained. It was gratuitous, especially for nine minutes while Floyd begged for air. Bystanders could see that he was in distress and said so on the video. How’s Chauvin going to argue that what he did was reasonable under those circumstances?
Here’s a new story at NBC headlined “Nation’s police widely condemn move used to restrain George Floyd.”
“There hasn’t been one person, one police chief, anyone I’ve talked to, who doesn’t see this exactly the same way. The police officer and those who were there that day failed George Floyd,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement-oriented think tank based in Washington. “Every police officer that looked at that video who knows anything about tactics shook their head.”… A Justice Department bulletin issued in 1995 warned that the technique can cause sudden death. “A person lying on his stomach has trouble breathing when pressure is applied to his back,” it said. The advice: “As soon as the person is handcuffed, get him off his stomach.”… “There is no need to see more video,” David Roddy, the police chief in Chattanooga, Tennessee, tweeted Wednesday. “There is no need to wait to see how ‘it plays out.’ There is no need to put a knee on someone’s neck for NINE minutes. There IS a need to DO something. If you wear a badge and you don’t have an issue with this … turn it in.” “What we saw in Minnesota was deeply disturbing. It was wrong,” NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said in a tweet. “We must take a stand and address it. We must come together, condemn these actions and reinforce who we are as members of the NYPD. This is not acceptable ANYWHERE.”
Should Officer Chauvin be allowed to subdue suspects by putting a pillow over their face until they stop moving, after they’ve already been cuffed? If one of them ends up dying that way, is it okay so long as it was due to a heart attack rather than suffocation?
Exit quotation from the former owner of the Minneapolis club at which both Chauvin and Floyd, coincidentally, worked security: “Santamaria also noted that Chauvin ‘had a real short fuse,’ adding that he often resorted to pulling out mace and pepper spray when she thought it was unwarranted.”


hotair--2020-05-29--Russia explains how it calculates coronavirus death toll

Last week I wrote about some indications that Russia ’ s coronavirus numbers may not be accurate .
Specifically , the number of health care workers who ’ ve died from the virus is far higher as a percentage of total deaths than anywhere else in the world .
Today , Russia tried to allay suspicious that it ’ s numbers aren ’ t accurate by releasing some additional details about how it calculated deaths last month : The Russian government on Friday presented more detailed mortality figures for last month that include more deaths linked with the coronavirus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Russian and Western experts that authorities were trying to lower the toll for political reasons… Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova said that 1,675 people died of COVID-19 in April .
Of that number , 1,136 deaths were directly caused by confirmed COVID-19 , while the remaining 539 tested negative but most likely died of the virus .
In addition to that , she said , 1,038 others tested positive for the virus but died of other causes .
If all three categories are counted as COVID-19 deaths , the nation ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,713 or nearly 60 % more than the previously announced number .
The story goes on to say that Russia ’ s death toll , which currently stands at 4,374 is still much lower than other countries with similar outbreaks .
But there could be some legitimate reasons for that .
For one , much of Russia is sparsely populated .
For another , life expectancy in Russia is so much lower than in much of the rest of the world that there are probably fewer elderly people who are most likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t explain why figures in the the republic of Dagestan seem to have been manipulated to keep the coronavirus death toll artificially low .
Nearly two weeks ago , a blogger interviewed Dagestan ’ s health minister about the death toll and here is the explanation he offered : Gadzhiibragimov ’ s answer : Twenty-nine deaths from COVID-19 among 13,000 infections .
But 657 people , he added , had died from “ community-acquired pneumonia.
” He also said more than 40 health workers had died while on duty… “ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Ziautdin Uvaisov of Patient Monitor , a Dagestan-based aid organization .
“ People could see the dead piling up , and it long ago became clear the official statistics have no basis in reality.
” If you assume Russia is playing similar games in other regions , then its death toll is certainly far higher than is being reported .
Meanwhile , the Moscow Times reported earlier this week that Russia ’ s head of coronavirus information doesn ’ t seem too worried about it .
Doctor and television presenter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his new role of informing Russians about coronavirus treatment and prevention methods and to battle “ fake news ” about Covid-19 .
After calling the country ’ s reported low death rate a “ Russian miracle , ” Myasnikov said last week that “ those meant to die will die ” from it .
In an interview that aired Wednesday , Myasnikov gestured for the cameras to stop running and said candidly : “ It ’ s all bullsh*t. ” “ It ’ s all exaggerated .
It ’ s an acute respiratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told television personality Ksenia Sobchak in the interview for her YouTube project .
Today the NY Times reports fresh evidence that ordinary Russians are angry about the government ’ s handling of the crisis .
Anastasia Nikolskaya , a psychologist at Kosygin State University in Moscow , worked with a team to conduct 235 telephone interviews with a cross-section of Russians in May .
She said she encountered far more , and far more intense , invective toward the Kremlin than in focus groups she had conducted in years past .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public discontent , ” said Mikhail Dmitriev , an economist and public-opinion expert who reviewed Ms. Nikolskaya ’ s findings .
“ If the level of aggressiveness in society remains this high , it will influence people ’ s political behavior after the quarantine measures are removed.
” … “ You get the feeling that Putin always got lucky , and now he ’ s unlucky , and things aren ’ t going according to the Kremlin ’ s plan , ” said Ivan Zhdanov , who heads Mr. Navalny ’ s Anti-Corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of opportunity opening up.
” We know people are angry in China too which is why censors have worked so hard to clamp down on messages that aren ’ t helpful to the CCP .
But popular anger doesn ’ t necessarily matter in an authoritarian state where the current leader intends to make himself president for life .

Last week I wrote about some indications that Russia’s coronavirus numbers may not be accurate. Specifically, the number of health care workers who’ve died from the virus is far higher as a percentage of total deaths than anywhere else in the world. Today, Russia tried to allay suspicious that it’s numbers aren’t accurate by releasing some additional details about how it calculated deaths last month:
The Russian government on Friday presented more detailed mortality figures for last month that include more deaths linked with the coronavirus, in a bid to dispel suspicions from some Russian and Western experts that authorities were trying to lower the toll for political reasons… Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova said that 1,675 people died of COVID-19 in April. Of that number, 1,136 deaths were directly caused by confirmed COVID-19, while the remaining 539 tested negative but most likely died of the virus. In addition to that, she said, 1,038 others tested positive for the virus but died of other causes. If all three categories are counted as COVID-19 deaths, the nation’s total toll for April would stand at 2,713 or nearly 60% more than the previously announced number.
The story goes on to say that Russia’s death toll, which currently stands at 4,374 is still much lower than other countries with similar outbreaks. But there could be some legitimate reasons for that. For one, much of Russia is sparsely populated. For another, life expectancy in Russia is so much lower than in much of the rest of the world that there are probably fewer elderly people who are most likely to die from the infection.
But that wouldn’t explain why figures in the the republic of Dagestan seem to have been manipulated to keep the coronavirus death toll artificially low. Nearly two weeks ago, a blogger interviewed Dagestan’s health minister about the death toll and here is the explanation he offered:
Gadzhiibragimov’s answer: Twenty-nine deaths from COVID-19 among 13,000 infections. But 657 people, he added, had died from “community-acquired pneumonia.” He also said more than 40 health workers had died while on duty… “It wasn’t a sensation at all,” said Ziautdin Uvaisov of Patient Monitor, a Dagestan-based aid organization. “People could see the dead piling up, and it long ago became clear the official statistics have no basis in reality.”
If you assume Russia is playing similar games in other regions, then its death toll is certainly far higher than is being reported. Meanwhile, the Moscow Times reported earlier this week that Russia’s head of coronavirus information doesn’t seem too worried about it.
Doctor and television presenter Alexander Myasnikov was appointed in April to his new role of informing Russians about coronavirus treatment and prevention methods and to battle “fake news” about Covid-19. After calling the country’s reported low death rate a “Russian miracle,” Myasnikov said last week that “those meant to die will die” from it. In an interview that aired Wednesday, Myasnikov gestured for the cameras to stop running and said candidly: “It’s all bullsh*t.” “It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality,” he told television personality Ksenia Sobchak in the interview for her YouTube project.
Today the NY Times reports fresh evidence that ordinary Russians are angry about the government’s handling of the crisis.
Anastasia Nikolskaya, a psychologist at Kosygin State University in Moscow, worked with a team to conduct 235 telephone interviews with a cross-section of Russians in May. She said she encountered far more, and far more intense, invective toward the Kremlin than in focus groups she had conducted in years past. “We are entering a rather acute phase of public discontent,” said Mikhail Dmitriev, an economist and public-opinion expert who reviewed Ms. Nikolskaya’s findings. “If the level of aggressiveness in society remains this high, it will influence people’s political behavior after the quarantine measures are removed.”… “You get the feeling that Putin always got lucky, and now he’s unlucky, and things aren’t going according to the Kremlin’s plan,” said Ivan Zhdanov, who heads Mr. Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation. “There is a window of opportunity opening up.”
We know people are angry in China too which is why censors have worked so hard to clamp down on messages that aren’t helpful to the CCP. But popular anger doesn’t necessarily matter in an authoritarian state where the current leader intends to make himself president for life.


hotair--2020-05-29--George Floyd's family: We want, and expect, a first-degree murder charge

I sympathize with them wanting the steepest penalty for an act that was so depraved .
But after reading the statutes , I just don ’ t see it .
Murder in the first degree in Minnesota has six different categories but most of them ( death during a sex crime , death of a minor while committing child abuse , death of a peace officer , etc ) don ’ t work here .
There ’ s only one category that does potentially , causing “ the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another.
” How do you show premeditation with what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd ?
Crump ’ s statement actually undercuts the case for murder one , I think , by focusing on poor training of the force by the city .
If you think what Chauvin did is premeditated murder then no amount of training is going to correct the problem .
Training prevents recklessness and negligence .
An officer who intends to kill is going to kill regardless .
Murder in the second degree is more promising .
You ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another , but without premeditation.
” Can the D.A .
prove Chauvin had the intent , or developed the intent , to kill Floyd during the arrest ?
His best evidence is the sheer length of time that he had his knee on Floyd ’ s neck .
According to the criminal complaint it was no fewer than eight minutes and 46 seconds , the last two minutes and 53 seconds of which Floyd was unresponsive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in front of Chauvin filming him .
It ’ s easy to watch that video and conclude that he didn ’ t care if Floyd lived or died .
But that ’ s different from “ intent.
” If he ’ s charged with a crime of intent , the jury will be left asking itself , “ Did Chauvin want Floyd to die ?
If he did , why ?
” There ’ s nothing on the tape that suggests a motive , like some sort of fight between Floyd and Chauvin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Demand that the jury find intent to kill on Chauvin ’ s part and they very well might let him walk .
Overcharging is a perennial risk in cases where cops are on trial because juries want to give the police the benefit of the doubt .
If you leave them room to do that , they just might .
Murder in the third degree , which is what Chauvin was charged with , seems right : Kneeling on a man ’ s neck for six minutes while he ’ s gasping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then continuing to kneel on it for another three minutes after he ’ s lost consciousness does sound like “ an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind , without regard for human life.
” The problem is the penalty : 25 years isn ’ t nearly enough .
But that ’ s what they ’ re going to end up with .
Speaking of depraved minds , BuzzFeed interviewed another Minnesota resident who claims he had a frightening run-in with Chauvin and another cop years ago when he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were shooting Nerf dart guns , the guy claims ; one dart may have hit someone passing by .
Before they knew it , Minneapolis PD was rolling up — with weapons drawn .
Minutes after the car pulled up to Bergh ’ s house and he got out of the car , Chauvin and his partner pulled up in a police car behind them without any sirens or lights and with “ their guns drawn on me , ” Bergh said .
“ I didn ’ t know that they were behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them already aiming guns at me , ” Bergh said .
“ It was terrifying.
” The officers shouted at Bergh to “ get back in the fucking car ” and “ put your hands in the fucking air , ” he recalled… Noah Hanson , who was one of the teens inside the car at the time , told BuzzFeed News that the other officer had aimed his gun at them , but did not recall if Chauvin also had his gun out .
Hanson , 23 , said the other officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my face from two feet away.
” The cops allegedly confiscated the Nerf guns , then took the boy who fired the dart that hit the bystander to the back of the squad car where they called him “ a worthless piece of sh*t ” and shouted various forms of F-bombs at him for awhile before letting him go .
One detail that caught my attention is the claim that Chauvin and his partner arrived without sirens or lights on their car ; the man who was shot by Chauvin during an arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning also says that the cops showed up at his apartment without announcing themselves .
Was that standard practice for Chauvin ?
If so , why ?
Anyway .
If they end up boosting the charges here to first-degree murder , he ’ s going to walk and the city will burn to the ground .
The D.A .
made the right call , however unsatisfying the penalty may be .
Exit quotation from YouGov ’ s latest poll : “ Democrats ( 90 % ) are more likely than Independents ( 76 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to say they thought the Minneapolis officer should be arrested .
”

I sympathize with them wanting the steepest penalty for an act that was so depraved. But after reading the statutes, I just don’t see it.
Murder in the first degree in Minnesota has six different categories but most of them (death during a sex crime, death of a minor while committing child abuse, death of a peace officer, etc) don’t work here. There’s only one category that does potentially, causing “the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another.”
How do you show premeditation with what Derek Chauvin did to George Floyd?
Crump’s statement actually undercuts the case for murder one, I think, by focusing on poor training of the force by the city. If you think what Chauvin did is premeditated murder then no amount of training is going to correct the problem. Training prevents recklessness and negligence. An officer who intends to kill is going to kill regardless.
Murder in the second degree is more promising. You’re guilty of that if you cause “the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation.” Can the D.A. prove Chauvin had the intent, or developed the intent, to kill Floyd during the arrest? His best evidence is the sheer length of time that he had his knee on Floyd’s neck. According to the criminal complaint it was no fewer than eight minutes and 46 seconds, the last two minutes and 53 seconds of which Floyd was unresponsive.
Nine minutes. With people right in front of Chauvin filming him.
It’s easy to watch that video and conclude that he didn’t care if Floyd lived or died. But that’s different from “intent.” If he’s charged with a crime of intent, the jury will be left asking itself, “Did Chauvin want Floyd to die? If he did, why?” There’s nothing on the tape that suggests a motive, like some sort of fight between Floyd and Chauvin before Floyd was down on the ground. Demand that the jury find intent to kill on Chauvin’s part and they very well might let him walk.
Overcharging is a perennial risk in cases where cops are on trial because juries want to give the police the benefit of the doubt. If you leave them room to do that, they just might.
Murder in the third degree, which is what Chauvin was charged with, seems right:
Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
Kneeling on a man’s neck for six minutes while he’s gasping that he can’t breathe and then continuing to kneel on it for another three minutes after he’s lost consciousness does sound like “an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.” The problem is the penalty: 25 years isn’t nearly enough. But that’s what they’re going to end up with.
Speaking of depraved minds, BuzzFeed interviewed another Minnesota resident who claims he had a frightening run-in with Chauvin and another cop years ago when he was a teenager. He and his friends were shooting Nerf dart guns, the guy claims; one dart may have hit someone passing by. Before they knew it, Minneapolis PD was rolling up — with weapons drawn.
Minutes after the car pulled up to Bergh’s house and he got out of the car, Chauvin and his partner pulled up in a police car behind them without any sirens or lights and with “their guns drawn on me,” Bergh said. “I didn’t know that they were behind us until I turned around and saw them already aiming guns at me,” Bergh said. “It was terrifying.” The officers shouted at Bergh to “get back in the fucking car” and “put your hands in the fucking air,” he recalled… Noah Hanson, who was one of the teens inside the car at the time, told BuzzFeed News that the other officer had aimed his gun at them, but did not recall if Chauvin also had his gun out. Hanson, 23, said the other officer had his gun “pointed directly at my face from two feet away.”
The cops allegedly confiscated the Nerf guns, then took the boy who fired the dart that hit the bystander to the back of the squad car where they called him “a worthless piece of sh*t” and shouted various forms of F-bombs at him for awhile before letting him go. One detail that caught my attention is the claim that Chauvin and his partner arrived without sirens or lights on their car; the man who was shot by Chauvin during an arrest in 2008 that I wrote about this morning also says that the cops showed up at his apartment without announcing themselves. Was that standard practice for Chauvin? If so, why?
Anyway. If they end up boosting the charges here to first-degree murder, he’s going to walk and the city will burn to the ground. The D.A. made the right call, however unsatisfying the penalty may be. Exit quotation from YouGov’s latest poll: “Democrats (90%) are more likely than Independents (76%) and Republicans (68%) to say they thought the Minneapolis officer should be arrested.”


hotair--2020-05-29--Trump: We're ending special trade treatment of Hong Kong and cutting funding of WHO

It was pretty clear this was coming since Secretary Pompeo announced Wednesday that Hong Kong was no longer autonomous from China .
Today President Trump gave a short speech at the White House saying he was moving to eliminate policy exemptions that give Hong Kong special treatment .
President Trump also announced that he was cutting funding for the WHO and would redirect that money elsewhere .
“ China claims it is protecting national security , ” Trump said .
He continued , “ But the truth is that Hong Kong was secure and prosperous as a free society .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
It extends the reach of China ’ s invasive state security apparatus into what was formerly a bastion of liberty.
” He added that it was clear , “ Hong Kong is no longer sufficiently autonomous to warrant the special treatment that we have afforded the territories since the handover.
” “ China has replaced this promised formula of ‘ one country , two systems ’ with ‘ one country , one system.
’ Therefore I am directing my administration to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions that give Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added that the State Department ’ s travel advisory for Hong Kong would also be updated to reflect the added possibility of surveillance and interference by Chinese state security forces .
Trump also said there would be additional sanctions placed on Chinese individuals responsible for “ smothering Hong Kong ’ s freedom.
” The NY Times reports that it ’ s still not clear if this is going to be a wholesale repeal of Hong Kong ’ s special status or more of a piecemeal approach : This is probably the most drastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a significant financial blow to China and , unfortunately , also to U.S. companies doing business there .
If anything will get China to think twice about what it ’ s doing this is probably it .
But it ’ s not clear the EU is going to follow our lead .
In fact , it sounds like they are going to make some noise and do nothing .
The European Union criticized China on Friday for asserting more control over Hong Kong and suggested the move would have an impact on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled out taking any action against its major trading partner… “ We express our grave concern at the steps taken by China , ” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said after chairing a video meeting of the foreign ministers .
“ This risks to seriously undermine the ‘ one country , two systems ’ principle and the high degree of autonomy of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong.
” … Asked what action the EU might be prepared to take and whether sanctions were discussed , Borrell said “ there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the issue of sanctions .
I don ’ t think that sanctions are the way to resolve our problems with China.
” He said the bloc “ will continue trying to put pressure on the Chinese authorities ” to make them aware that the clampdown on Hong Kong “ will affect the way we deal with some of the issues of mutual interest , but there is nothing more on the agenda.
” In short , we may be going it alone which makes it far less likely that China will back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect Hong Kong ’ s autonomy until 2047 .
But this action still seems better than the alternative , which is to let China make a mockery of Hong Kong ’ s independence and do nothing .
Earlier in the speech , President Trump also announced he was cutting funds from the World Health Organization .
“ Because they have failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms , we will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

It was pretty clear this was coming since Secretary Pompeo announced Wednesday that Hong Kong was no longer autonomous from China. Today President Trump gave a short speech at the White House saying he was moving to eliminate policy exemptions that give Hong Kong special treatment. President Trump also announced that he was cutting funding for the WHO and would redirect that money elsewhere.
“China claims it is protecting national security,” Trump said. He continued, “But the truth is that Hong Kong was secure and prosperous as a free society. Beijing’s decision reverses all of that. It extends the reach of China’s invasive state security apparatus into what was formerly a bastion of liberty.” He added that it was clear, “Hong Kong is no longer sufficiently autonomous to warrant the special treatment that we have afforded the territories since the handover.”
“China has replaced this promised formula of ‘one country, two systems’ with ‘one country, one system.’ Therefore I am directing my administration to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment.”
He added that the State Department’s travel advisory for Hong Kong would also be updated to reflect the added possibility of surveillance and interference by Chinese state security forces. Trump also said there would be additional sanctions placed on Chinese individuals responsible for “smothering Hong Kong’s freedom.”
The NY Times reports that it’s still not clear if this is going to be a wholesale repeal of Hong Kong’s special status or more of a piecemeal approach:
It was unclear from Mr. Trump’s announcement whether he was issuing a formal executive order to end the special relationship with Hong Kong entirely. The administration can take piecemeal actions — for example, imposing the same tariffs on goods from Hong Kong that the United States does on products from mainland China — before taking that final, drastic step.
This is probably the most drastic action Trump can take. It will be a significant financial blow to China and, unfortunately, also to U.S. companies doing business there. If anything will get China to think twice about what it’s doing this is probably it. But it’s not clear the EU is going to follow our lead. In fact, it sounds like they are going to make some noise and do nothing.
The European Union criticized China on Friday for asserting more control over Hong Kong and suggested the move would have an impact on China-EU relations, but the 27-nation bloc ruled out taking any action against its major trading partner… “We express our grave concern at the steps taken by China,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said after chairing a video meeting of the foreign ministers. “This risks to seriously undermine the ‘one country, two systems’ principle and the high degree of autonomy of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong.”… Asked what action the EU might be prepared to take and whether sanctions were discussed, Borrell said “there was only one country that made a reference to the issue of sanctions. I don’t think that sanctions are the way to resolve our problems with China.” He said the bloc “will continue trying to put pressure on the Chinese authorities” to make them aware that the clampdown on Hong Kong “will affect the way we deal with some of the issues of mutual interest, but there is nothing more on the agenda.”
In short, we may be going it alone which makes it far less likely that China will back off violating it’s agreement to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy until 2047. But this action still seems better than the alternative, which is to let China make a mockery of Hong Kong’s independence and do nothing.
Earlier in the speech, President Trump also announced he was cutting funds from the World Health Organization. “Because they have failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms, we will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs,” he said.