hotair--2020-12-03--Gov. Newsom announces regional stay-at-home orders expected to cover the entire state over Christmas

Gov .
Newsom was expected to speak publicly about his plans for a new shutdown order at noon west coast time .
It ’ s currently 12:30 as I write this and that press conference still hasn ’ t started .
But Politico reports that California ’ s HHS Secretary briefed state lawmakers on the new plan this morning : California regions will face stay-at-home orders when their hospital capacity shrinks to an alarmingly low level under a new plan Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s health chief described to state lawmakers Thursday morning .
In a region where rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unit capacity , residents will be directed to remain in their homes unless they are conducting essential activities… Newsom will divide the state into five geographic regions and lockdowns would last for three weeks minimum , based on the briefing .
Residents would be unable to gather , while playgrounds , salons and restaurant dining would have to close .
Food takeout would still be allowed , while hotels could only open for critical infrastructure support .
Okay , Gov .
Newsom ’ s briefing has now started and here ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted above , regions of the state where ICU capacity is down to 15 % will have a 3-week stay-at-home order put in place automatically .
The state will be broken into 5 regions : North , South ( including LA and San Diego ) , the Central Valley , the Sacramento Area and the Bay Area .
Newsom predicts that within a week , possibly in the next two days , four of those regions will hit the 15 % threshold .
The exception is the Bay Area which he predicts will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it hits the same threshold .
As for what the stay-at-home order means , bars , hair salons , personal services will all be closed while schools will remain open .
Retail can remain open but at 20 % capacity and restaurants can do carry-out and delivery but no dine-in .
Newsom expressed his sympathy for restaurant owners saying as someone who owned a restaurant he knows how difficult this is going to be for them .
Newsom also announced a statewide restriction on non-essential travel .
He didn ’ t discuss that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not clear if it ’ s a recommendation or if it ’ s going to result in any concrete restrictions .
Newsom said during this briefing that the high numbers of new cases the state is seeing do not yet include cases prompted by Thanksgiving gatherings .
In other words , he expects things to continue to get worse over the next week .
So very soon most of the state is going to be back to a stay-at-home order and all of the state will be in it by the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for three weeks minimum , that means the entire state will be locked down over the Christmas break and into New Year ’ s Day .
At the end of the briefing , Newsom said 327,000 doses of vaccine should be in California by the middle of the month .
That ’ s a drop in the bucket obviously since each person gets 2 doses .
Healthcare workers and the elderly will be prioritized but the exact details are still being worked out .
Here ’ s the briefing .
You ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to it :

Gov. Newsom was expected to speak publicly about his plans for a new shutdown order at noon west coast time. It’s currently 12:30 as I write this and that press conference still hasn’t started. But Politico reports that California’s HHS Secretary briefed state lawmakers on the new plan this morning:
California regions will face stay-at-home orders when their hospital capacity shrinks to an alarmingly low level under a new plan Gov. Gavin Newsom’s health chief described to state lawmakers Thursday morning. In a region where rising cases threaten to overwhelm limited intensive care unit capacity, residents will be directed to remain in their homes unless they are conducting essential activities… Newsom will divide the state into five geographic regions and lockdowns would last for three weeks minimum, based on the briefing. Residents would be unable to gather, while playgrounds, salons and restaurant dining would have to close. Food takeout would still be allowed, while hotels could only open for critical infrastructure support.
Okay, Gov. Newsom’s briefing has now started and here’s what he’s rolling out. As noted above, regions of the state where ICU capacity is down to 15% will have a 3-week stay-at-home order put in place automatically. The state will be broken into 5 regions: North, South (including LA and San Diego), the Central Valley, the Sacramento Area and the Bay Area.
Newsom predicts that within a week, possibly in the next two days, four of those regions will hit the 15% threshold. The exception is the Bay Area which he predicts will have up to an additional week before it hits the same threshold.
As for what the stay-at-home order means, bars, hair salons, personal services will all be closed while schools will remain open. Retail can remain open but at 20% capacity and restaurants can do carry-out and delivery but no dine-in. Newsom expressed his sympathy for restaurant owners saying as someone who owned a restaurant he knows how difficult this is going to be for them.
Newsom also announced a statewide restriction on non-essential travel. He didn’t discuss that part in detail so it’s not clear if it’s a recommendation or if it’s going to result in any concrete restrictions.
Newsom said during this briefing that the high numbers of new cases the state is seeing do not yet include cases prompted by Thanksgiving gatherings. In other words, he expects things to continue to get worse over the next week. So very soon most of the state is going to be back to a stay-at-home order and all of the state will be in it by the middle of the month. Because these orders last for three weeks minimum, that means the entire state will be locked down over the Christmas break and into New Year’s Day.
At the end of the briefing, Newsom said 327,000 doses of vaccine should be in California by the middle of the month. That’s a drop in the bucket obviously since each person gets 2 doses. Healthcare workers and the elderly will be prioritized but the exact details are still being worked out.
Here’s the briefing. You’ll have to scroll forward a bit to get to it:


hotair--2020-12-03--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Election beat, SCOTUS entreat, Minneapolis retreat, Georgia heat, and m

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Election beat, SCOTUS entreat, Minneapolis retreat, Georgia heat, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news @ @ @ @ @ show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and @ @ @ @ @ those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane @ @ @ @ @ us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a @ @ @ @ @ Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ll cover the latest updates from Wisconsin , delve @ @ @ @ @ of Georgia , and ask what ’ s causing the crime wave in Minneapolis .
@ @ @ @ @ !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent @ @ @ @ @ to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate @ @ @ @ @ too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in @ @ @ @ @ April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ll cover the latest updates from Wisconsin, delve into a new poll out of Georgia, and ask what’s causing the crime wave in Minneapolis. Don’t miss it!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-12-03--DNI Ratcliffe: 'China poses the greatest threat to America today'

The Wall Street Journal published a piece today by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe .
Ratcliffe says that as the person with the most access to U.S. intelligence after the president , the one thing he would like the American people to know is that China is the greatest threat to America and to democracy in today ’ s world : If I could communicate one thing to the American people from this unique vantage point , it is that the People ’ s Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today , and the greatest threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War II .
The intelligence is clear : Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically , militarily and technologically .
Many of China ’ s major public initiatives and prominent companies offer only a layer of camouflage to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party… Take Sinovel .
In 2018 a federal jury found the Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer guilty of stealing trade secrets from American Superconductor .
Penalties were imposed but the damage was done .
The theft resulted in the U.S. company losing more than $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 700 jobs .
Today Sinovel sells wind turbines world-wide as if it built a legitimate business through ingenuity and hard work rather than theft .
Without naming names , Ratcliffe suggests a thought experiment in which a Chinese owned firm employing American workers tells those workers that unless an elected representative changes their stance on a certain topic ( one not connected to the business in any way ) everyone could soon be out of a job .
Those workers then apply pressure to the elected representative to get them to change their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence operations directed by China are happening .
In fact he says China has carried them out six times as often as Russia .
Ratcliffe concludes : The world is being presented a choice between two wholly incompatible ideologies .
China ’ s leaders seek to subordinate the rights of the individual to the will of the Communist Party .
They exert government control over companies and subvert the privacy and freedom of their citizens with an authoritarian surveillance state .
We shouldn ’ t assume that Beijing ’ s efforts to drag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fail just because the forces of good have triumphed before in modern times .
China believes that a global order without it at the top is a historical aberration .
It aims to change that and reverse the spread of liberty around the world… This generation will be judged by its response to China ’ s effort to reshape the world in its own image and replace America as the dominant superpower .
The intelligence is clear .
Our response must be as well .
There ’ s plenty of evidence that China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you look around .
China is running a system of re-education camps , really prisons , for ethnic minorities in Xinjiang .
It is paying U.S. academics to deliver their expertise to Chinese universities .
It is trying to claim territory from India and has effectively ended independence in Hong Kong .
It is expanding its military presence in the South China Sea and is threatening the independence of Taiwan .
Its academics are promoting the statist views of a Nazi jurist to justify these actions .
It is blocking an investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while also using it for PR purposes internationally .
China is even reaching to the moon .
And while all of this happens , the western media is often missing the point or failing to connect the dots as Ratcliffe has done .
China is a threat to freedom and human rights not just within its own borders but around the globe .
There ’ s a WSJ video clip that ’ s worth a watch .
It ’ s based on something a promoter of democracy in Hong Kong was once told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never , ever trust the communists .
”

The Wall Street Journal published a piece today by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe says that as the person with the most access to U.S. intelligence after the president, the one thing he would like the American people to know is that China is the greatest threat to America and to democracy in today’s world:
If I could communicate one thing to the American people from this unique vantage point, it is that the People’s Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom world-wide since World War II. The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically. Many of China’s major public initiatives and prominent companies offer only a layer of camouflage to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party… Take Sinovel. In 2018 a federal jury found the Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer guilty of stealing trade secrets from American Superconductor. Penalties were imposed but the damage was done. The theft resulted in the U.S. company losing more than $1 billion in shareholder value and cutting 700 jobs. Today Sinovel sells wind turbines world-wide as if it built a legitimate business through ingenuity and hard work rather than theft.
Without naming names, Ratcliffe suggests a thought experiment in which a Chinese owned firm employing American workers tells those workers that unless an elected representative changes their stance on a certain topic (one not connected to the business in any way) everyone could soon be out of a job. Those workers then apply pressure to the elected representative to get them to change their view. Ratcliffe says these kind of influence operations directed by China are happening. In fact he says China has carried them out six times as often as Russia. Ratcliffe concludes:
The world is being presented a choice between two wholly incompatible ideologies. China’s leaders seek to subordinate the rights of the individual to the will of the Communist Party. They exert government control over companies and subvert the privacy and freedom of their citizens with an authoritarian surveillance state. We shouldn’t assume that Beijing’s efforts to drag the world back into the dark will fail just because the forces of good have triumphed before in modern times. China believes that a global order without it at the top is a historical aberration. It aims to change that and reverse the spread of liberty around the world… This generation will be judged by its response to China’s effort to reshape the world in its own image and replace America as the dominant superpower. The intelligence is clear. Our response must be as well.
There’s plenty of evidence that China is in a belligerent, expansionist mood if you look around. China is running a system of re-education camps, really prisons, for ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. It is paying U.S. academics to deliver their expertise to Chinese universities. It is trying to claim territory from India and has effectively ended independence in Hong Kong. It is expanding its military presence in the South China Sea and is threatening the independence of Taiwan. Its academics are promoting the statist views of a Nazi jurist to justify these actions. It is blocking an investigation into the origin of the coronavirus pandemic while also using it for PR purposes internationally. China is even reaching to the moon. And while all of this happens, the western media is often missing the point or failing to connect the dots as Ratcliffe has done.
China is a threat to freedom and human rights not just within its own borders but around the globe. There’s a WSJ video clip that’s worth a watch. It’s based on something a promoter of democracy in Hong Kong was once told by his father: “You can never, ever trust the communists.”


hotair--2020-12-03--Hoo boy: Ask me again in a few weeks if I still have confidence in Bill Barr, says Trump; <span clas

Hoo boy: Ask me again in a few weeks if I still have confidence in Bill Barr, says Trump; Update: DOJ bans Trump aide from building?

All I can think given his timeline is that he ’ s waiting to see if Barr comes up with something before the electoral college meets on December 14 .
If not , sayonara .
Watch , then read on .
You would think the fact that his own lawyers are now 1-41 in post-election lawsuits would help him grasp why Barr “ hasn ’ t done anything ” about election fraud thus far , but this is what happens when you start with a conclusion and then reason backwards from it .
Fraud must have occurred — so why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it yet ?
Note also his insistence that something criminal happened here .
Barr stressed in his interview with the AP earlier this week that , unless and until evidence of a crime is found , the proper avenues for challenging the results are civil lawsuits and election audits by state officials , not DOJ probes .
“ There ’ s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all , and people don ’ t like something they want the Department of Justice to come in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr , being verrrry careful not to specify which “ people ” — or person — he had in mind .
Reportedly his visit to the Oval Office on Tuesday , after he affirmed that the DOJ hasn ’ t found any proof of widespread fraud , went as well as we all expected : Barr spent roughly two and a half hours on White House grounds on Tuesday for what White House and Department of Justice officials previously said was a pre-planned meeting with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ once Barr was in the building for meetings , Trump wanted to see him .
One source briefed on the meeting described Barr ’ s interaction with the president as “ intense , ” but would not elaborate on any additional details about the content of their discussion .
The president is allegedly “ livid , ” and not just because of what Barr said about fraud : One senior administration official said there was a chance Trump would fire his attorney general and asserted that the president was not merely frustrated over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person said that several people are trying to persuade Trump not to do so .
Like others , this official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations .
Barr says he hasn ’ t seen fraud that could affect the election outcome Trump , the official said , was perhaps even angrier that Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham did not issue a public report of his findings before last month ’ s election , and that Barr had secretly appointed Durham as special counsel in October , giving him extra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work he started a year ago .
Durham is examining whether crimes were committed by law enforcement during its 2016 investigation of whether Trump ’ s campaign coordinated with Russia… Barr and Trump ’ s relationship had been deteriorating even before his comments to the AP .
One official said the two had barely spoken in recent months , as the president was frustrated by the attorney general ’ s not releasing any findings of Durham ’ s investigation before the election and not taking more aggressive steps to back his claims of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows , but it is unclear what they discussed .
We ’ re left with the eternal question of why deputies who ’ ve fallen out of favor don ’ t just resign instead of hanging around for POTUS to demean them or for rumors of their imminent firings to be whispered to reporters .
The eternal default answer is that they fear if they quit they ’ ll be replaced by someone with weaker ethics and blinder loyalty to Trump than they themselves have — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hang on as long as they can lest a less scrupulous crony take their place .
Normally that ’ s self-serving nonsense but in Barr ’ s case there may be something to it .
Trump probably can find someone within the ranks of the DOJ to be acting AG who ’ s willing to go out in front of cameras and start chattering about voter fraud whether or not he has evidence to bring a case .
Weird but true : Bill Barr may be the great Never Trump hope right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end this amazing series .
Meanwhile , Rudy Giuliani ’ s attempts to convince the public of a massive conspiracy to rig the vote against Trump across multiple states continues .
Yesterday he was in Michigan presenting witnesses like the lady who made the case for voter ID based on the fact that she thinks all Chinese-Americans look alike : The real star was Melissa Carone , though , a contract worker for Dominion who insists that she saw vans bringing in fake ballots and who sounded to some as if she were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got into a back-and-forth with one Michigan legislator — a Republican — over poll books , with Carone insisting that she saw some ballots counted multiple times and the Republican countering that the poll books didn ’ t back that up .
“ What ’ d you guys do , take it and do something crazy to it ?
” she retorted .
Say what you will about her but she ’ s more credible than the star witness in Pennsylvania , an amateur ghost-hunter who believes that a “ shadow person ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t Bill Barr indicted anyone based on this compelling testimony ?
Update : I realize POTUS believes the Justice Department should be an extension of the White House political shop , but this is ridiculous .
Heidi Stirrup , an ally of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller , was quietly installed at the Justice Department as a White House liaison a few months ago .
She was told within the last two weeks to vacate the building after top Justice officials learned of her efforts to collect insider information about ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on election fraud , the people said .
Stirrup is accused of approaching staffers in the department demanding they give her information about investigations , including election fraud matters , the people said .
They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter… Stirrup had also extended job offers to political allies for positions at some of the highest levels of the Justice Department without consulting any senior department officials or the White House counsel ’ s office and also attempted to interfere in the hiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the government ’ s human resources policies , one of the people said .
Was she … bribing prosecutors with job offers to try to get them to reveal information about their cases ?
If Trump thinks Barr is hiding something about voter fraud — which there ’ s no reason to believe — he should fire him immediately .
It ’ s absurd to resort to snooping on an agency to try to get the “ truth ” while leaving the head of that agency in place .

All I can think given his timeline is that he’s waiting to see if Barr comes up with something before the electoral college meets on December 14. If not, sayonara. Watch, then read on.
You would think the fact that his own lawyers are now 1-41 in post-election lawsuits would help him grasp why Barr “hasn’t done anything” about election fraud thus far, but this is what happens when you start with a conclusion and then reason backwards from it. Fraud must have occurred — so why hasn’t the Attorney General uncovered it yet?
Note also his insistence that something criminal happened here. Barr stressed in his interview with the AP earlier this week that, unless and until evidence of a crime is found, the proper avenues for challenging the results are civil lawsuits and election audits by state officials, not DOJ probes. “There’s a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all, and people don’t like something they want the Department of Justice to come in and ‘investigate,’” said Barr, being verrrry careful not to specify which “people” — or person — he had in mind.
Reportedly his visit to the Oval Office on Tuesday, after he affirmed that the DOJ hasn’t found any proof of widespread fraud, went as well as we all expected:
Barr spent roughly two and a half hours on White House grounds on Tuesday for what White House and Department of Justice officials previously said was a pre-planned meeting with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. However, sources told ABC News that once Barr was in the building for meetings, Trump wanted to see him. One source briefed on the meeting described Barr’s interaction with the president as “intense,” but would not elaborate on any additional details about the content of their discussion.
The president is allegedly “livid,” and not just because of what Barr said about fraud:
One senior administration official said there was a chance Trump would fire his attorney general and asserted that the president was not merely frustrated over Barr’s fraud-related assertions. The person said that several people are trying to persuade Trump not to do so. Like others, this official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Barr says he hasn’t seen fraud that could affect the election outcome Trump, the official said, was perhaps even angrier that Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham did not issue a public report of his findings before last month’s election, and that Barr had secretly appointed Durham as special counsel in October, giving him extra legal and political protection to continue the work he started a year ago. Durham is examining whether crimes were committed by law enforcement during its 2016 investigation of whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia… Barr and Trump’s relationship had been deteriorating even before his comments to the AP. One official said the two had barely spoken in recent months, as the president was frustrated by the attorney general’s not releasing any findings of Durham’s investigation before the election and not taking more aggressive steps to back his claims of election fraud. Barr met Tuesday with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, but it is unclear what they discussed.
We’re left with the eternal question of why deputies who’ve fallen out of favor don’t just resign instead of hanging around for POTUS to demean them or for rumors of their imminent firings to be whispered to reporters. The eternal default answer is that they fear if they quit they’ll be replaced by someone with weaker ethics and blinder loyalty to Trump than they themselves have — that is, they have an institutional duty to hang on as long as they can lest a less scrupulous crony take their place. Normally that’s self-serving nonsense but in Barr’s case there may be something to it. Trump probably can find someone within the ranks of the DOJ to be acting AG who’s willing to go out in front of cameras and start chattering about voter fraud whether or not he has evidence to bring a case.
Weird but true: Bill Barr may be the great Never Trump hope right now. What a plot twist to end this amazing series.
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani’s attempts to convince the public of a massive conspiracy to rig the vote against Trump across multiple states continues. Yesterday he was in Michigan presenting witnesses like the lady who made the case for voter ID based on the fact that she thinks all Chinese-Americans look alike:
One of Rudy Giuliani’s witnesses just said she thinks “all Chinese look alike” while making the argument for a voter ID requirement in Michigan pic.twitter.com/WUCYRTzmgu — philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) December 3, 2020
The real star was Melissa Carone, though, a contract worker for Dominion who insists that she saw vans bringing in fake ballots and who sounded to some as if she were slurring her speech at times. She got into a back-and-forth with one Michigan legislator — a Republican — over poll books, with Carone insisting that she saw some ballots counted multiple times and the Republican countering that the poll books didn’t back that up. “What’d you guys do, take it and do something crazy to it?” she retorted. Say what you will about her but she’s more credible than the star witness in Pennsylvania, an amateur ghost-hunter who believes that a “shadow person” once lived in his basement. Why hasn’t Bill Barr indicted anyone based on this compelling testimony?
Holy smokes the sequel is even better! Rudy Giuliani tries to shush her to calm her down and the Republican even tries to reel her in! She treats this Republican* like he’s a Chick-fil-A employee and the milkshake machine went down. *corrected pic.twitter.com/CK1HqGpp2d — Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) December 3, 2020
Update: I realize POTUS believes the Justice Department should be an extension of the White House political shop, but this is ridiculous.
Heidi Stirrup, an ally of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, was quietly installed at the Justice Department as a White House liaison a few months ago. She was told within the last two weeks to vacate the building after top Justice officials learned of her efforts to collect insider information about ongoing cases and the department’s work on election fraud, the people said. Stirrup is accused of approaching staffers in the department demanding they give her information about investigations, including election fraud matters, the people said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter… Stirrup had also extended job offers to political allies for positions at some of the highest levels of the Justice Department without consulting any senior department officials or the White House counsel’s office and also attempted to interfere in the hiring process for career staffers, a violation of the government’s human resources policies, one of the people said.
Was she … bribing prosecutors with job offers to try to get them to reveal information about their cases?
If Trump thinks Barr is hiding something about voter fraud — which there’s no reason to believe — he should fire him immediately. It’s absurd to resort to snooping on an agency to try to get the “truth” while leaving the head of that agency in place.


hotair--2020-12-03--<span class='red'>Breaking: WI supreme court shoots down expedited review for Trump election lawsuit

Donald Trump won ’ t get immediate relief from the Wisconsin state supreme court , but technically his lawsuit over the election isn ’ t dead either .
The court voted in a narrow 4-3 decision that the Trump v Evers lawsuit brought by the campaign should originate in a state district court rather than come directly to the top court first .
Notably , none of the concurrences or dissents discuss any factual issues presented in the complaint : The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday refused to hear President Donald Trump ’ s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , saying the case must first wind its way through lower courts .
The legal defeat was the latest in a string of losses for Trump ’ s post-election lawsuits .
Judges in multiple battleground states have rejected his claims of fraud or irregularities .
… Trump had wanted the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case directly , saying there wasn ’ t enough time to wage the legal battle by starting first with a lower court given the looming Dec. 14 date when presidential electors cast their votes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the state Department of Justice argued the law required the lawsuit to start with lower courts .
It ’ s worth noting that the Wisconsin supreme court has a narrow conservative majority , leading some to believe that Trump might have an edge in this decision .
It didn ’ t work out that way , but it might have come close .
The seven justices disagreed sharply on the role of the top court in emergency situations as the one posited here by the plaintiffs .
Writing for the majority after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hagedorn — more or less the court ’ s center these days — wrote that the circuit courts are designed to be finders of fact .
In fact , Hagedorn writes , the state ’ s statutes demand that division , but even apart from that the factual disputes are too involved to reconcile at an appellate level : Even if this court has constitutional authority to hear the case straightaway , notwithstanding the statutory text , the briefing reveals important factual disputes that are best managed by a circuit court.2 The parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , supported at times by competing affidavits .
I do not know how we could address all the legal issues raised in the petition without sorting through these matters , a task we are neither well-positioned nor institutionally designed to do .
The statutory process assigns this responsibility to the circuit court .
Wis. Stat .
§ 9.01 ( 8 ) ( b ) ( “ The [ circuit ] court shall separately treat disputed issues of procedure , interpretations of law , and findings of fact.
” ) .
We do well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time-tested judicial norms , even—and maybe especially—in high-profile cases .
Following the law governing challenges to election results is no threat to the rule of law .
I join the court ’ s denial of the petition for original action so that the petitioners may promptly exercise their right to pursue these claims in the manner prescribed by the legislature .
Justice Patience Roggensack dissented , arguing that the supreme court could take the case while assigning the fact-finding issues to a circuit court in parallel while the top court reviewed the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case would still come before them , Roggensack points out — why not expedite it ?
However , fact-finding may be central to our evaluation of some of the questions presented .
I agree that the circuit court should examine the record presented during the canvasses to make factual findings where legal challenges to the vote turn on questions of fact .
However , I dissent because I would grant the petition for original action , refer for necessary factual findings to the circuit court , who would then report its factual findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the important legal questions presented .
I also write separately to emphasize that by denying this petition , and requiring both the factual questions and legal questions be resolved first by a circuit court , four justices of this court are ignoring that there are significant time constraints that may preclude our deciding significant legal issues that cry out for resolution by the Wisconsin Supreme Court .
That ’ s actually a pretty good point .
I ’ m skeptical that this lawsuit has any chance of succeeding , especially on the remedies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have enough jurisdiction to manage this case , allowing circuit courts to conduct the fact-finding activities while the high court deals with the overriding legal questions involved .
In a separate dissent that includes all three in the minority ( including Roggensack ) , Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley writes that the majority ignores the obvious time pressure to get this right .
Wisconsin now has only five days before its Safe Harbor deadline for the Electoral College , she argues , which means this is not a good time to punt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority operating by whim rather than rule is to leave the interpretation of multiple election laws in flux—or worse yet , in the hands of the unelected members of the WEC .
“ To be free is to live under a government by law .
.
.
.
Miserable is the condition of individuals , danger is the condition of the state , if there is no certain law , or , which is the same thing , no certain administration of the law .
.
.
.
” Judgment in Rex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( K.B .
1784 ) ( Lord Mansfield presiding ) .
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has an institutional responsibility to decide important questions of law—not for the benefit of particular litigants , but for citizens we were elected to serve .
Justice for the people of Wisconsin means ensuring the integrity of Wisconsin ’ s elections .
A majority of this court disregards its duty to the people of Wisconsin , denying them justice .
“ No aspect of the judicial power is more fundamental than the judiciary ’ s exclusive responsibility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the law.
” Gabler v. Crime Victims Rights Bd.
, 2017 WI 67 , ¶37 , 376 Wis. 2d 147 , 897 N.W.2d 384 .
Once again , a majority of this court instead “ chooses to sit idly by , ” 7 in a nationally important and time-sensitive case involving voting rights and the integrity of Wisconsin ’ s elections , depriving the people of Wisconsin of answers to questions of statutory law that only the state ’ s highest court may resolve .
The majority ’ s “ refusal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State of [ Wisconsin ] , its voters , ” 8 and its elections .
Where does that leave Trump in Wisconsin ?
He will have to refile the complaint at the district level , which presumably the campaign will do immediately .
That will require a hearing on both the factual and legal disputes in question , but with very little time left to resolve either or both .
Again , the state supreme court didn ’ t touch on issues such as the remedies Trump seeks and their violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress requires states to stick with the method chosen for appointing electors status quo ante .
It does not allow legislatures to appoint electors when popular votes have already taken place , a point that the Pennsylvania state supreme court made in its denial of in Kelly Parnell et al , although only in its concurrences .
Perhaps the courts in Wisconsin can expedite this case .
Right now , however , it looks as though Trump ’ s running out of time .

Donald Trump won’t get immediate relief from the Wisconsin state supreme court, but technically his lawsuit over the election isn’t dead either. The court voted in a narrow 4-3 decision that the Trump v Evers lawsuit brought by the campaign should originate in a state district court rather than come directly to the top court first. Notably, none of the concurrences or dissents discuss any factual issues presented in the complaint:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday refused to hear President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, saying the case must first wind its way through lower courts. The legal defeat was the latest in a string of losses for Trump’s post-election lawsuits. Judges in multiple battleground states have rejected his claims of fraud or irregularities. … Trump had wanted the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case directly, saying there wasn’t enough time to wage the legal battle by starting first with a lower court given the looming Dec. 14 date when presidential electors cast their votes. But attorneys for Gov. Tony Evers and the state Department of Justice argued the law required the lawsuit to start with lower courts.
It’s worth noting that the Wisconsin supreme court has a narrow conservative majority, leading some to believe that Trump might have an edge in this decision. It didn’t work out that way, but it might have come close. The seven justices disagreed sharply on the role of the top court in emergency situations as the one posited here by the plaintiffs. Writing for the majority after the per curiam order, Justice Brian Hagedorn — more or less the court’s center these days — wrote that the circuit courts are designed to be finders of fact. In fact, Hagedorn writes, the state’s statutes demand that division, but even apart from that the factual disputes are too involved to reconcile at an appellate level:
Even if this court has constitutional authority to hear the case straightaway, notwithstanding the statutory text, the briefing reveals important factual disputes that are best managed by a circuit court.2 The parties clearly disagree on some basic factual issues, supported at times by competing affidavits. I do not know how we could address all the legal issues raised in the petition without sorting through these matters, a task we are neither well-positioned nor institutionally designed to do. The statutory process assigns this responsibility to the circuit court. Wis. Stat. § 9.01(8)(b) (“The [circuit] court shall separately treat disputed issues of procedure, interpretations of law, and findings of fact.”). We do well as a judicial body to abide by time-tested judicial norms, even—and maybe especially—in high-profile cases. Following the law governing challenges to election results is no threat to the rule of law. I join the court’s denial of the petition for original action so that the petitioners may promptly exercise their right to pursue these claims in the manner prescribed by the legislature.
Justice Patience Roggensack dissented, arguing that the supreme court could take the case while assigning the fact-finding issues to a circuit court in parallel while the top court reviewed the legal arguments surrounding them. Inevitably, the case would still come before them, Roggensack points out — why not expedite it?
However, fact-finding may be central to our evaluation of some of the questions presented. I agree that the circuit court should examine the record presented during the canvasses to make factual findings where legal challenges to the vote turn on questions of fact. However, I dissent because I would grant the petition for original action, refer for necessary factual findings to the circuit court, who would then report its factual findings to us, and we would decide the important legal questions presented. I also write separately to emphasize that by denying this petition, and requiring both the factual questions and legal questions be resolved first by a circuit court, four justices of this court are ignoring that there are significant time constraints that may preclude our deciding significant legal issues that cry out for resolution by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
That’s actually a pretty good point. I’m skeptical that this lawsuit has any chance of succeeding, especially on the remedies sought. But the state supreme court should have enough jurisdiction to manage this case, allowing circuit courts to conduct the fact-finding activities while the high court deals with the overriding legal questions involved.
In a separate dissent that includes all three in the minority (including Roggensack), Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley writes that the majority ignores the obvious time pressure to get this right. Wisconsin now has only five days before its Safe Harbor deadline for the Electoral College, she argues, which means this is not a good time to punt to a lower court:
The consequence of the majority operating by whim rather than rule is to leave the interpretation of multiple election laws in flux—or worse yet, in the hands of the unelected members of the WEC. “To be free is to live under a government by law . . . . Miserable is the condition of individuals, danger is the condition of the state, if there is no certain law, or, which is the same thing, no certain administration of the law . . . .” Judgment in Rex vs. Shipley, 21 St Tr 847 (K.B. 1784) (Lord Mansfield presiding). The Wisconsin Supreme Court has an institutional responsibility to decide important questions of law—not for the benefit of particular litigants, but for citizens we were elected to serve. Justice for the people of Wisconsin means ensuring the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections. A majority of this court disregards its duty to the people of Wisconsin, denying them justice. “No aspect of the judicial power is more fundamental than the judiciary’s exclusive responsibility to exercise judgment in cases and controversies arising under the law.” Gabler v. Crime Victims Rights Bd., 2017 WI 67, ¶37, 376 Wis. 2d 147, 897 N.W.2d 384. Once again, a majority of this court instead “chooses to sit idly by,”7 in a nationally important and time-sensitive case involving voting rights and the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections, depriving the people of Wisconsin of answers to questions of statutory law that only the state’s highest court may resolve. The majority’s “refusal to hear this case shows insufficient respect to the State of [Wisconsin], its voters,”8 and its elections.
Where does that leave Trump in Wisconsin? He will have to refile the complaint at the district level, which presumably the campaign will do immediately. That will require a hearing on both the factual and legal disputes in question, but with very little time left to resolve either or both. Again, the state supreme court didn’t touch on issues such as the remedies Trump seeks and their violation of the Federal Elections Act, in which Congress requires states to stick with the method chosen for appointing electors status quo ante. It does not allow legislatures to appoint electors when popular votes have already taken place, a point that the Pennsylvania state supreme court made in its denial of in Kelly Parnell et al, although only in its concurrences.
Perhaps the courts in Wisconsin can expedite this case. Right now, however, it looks as though Trump’s running out of time.


hotair--2020-12-03--NY-22: Inside the legal battle over StickyGate and recently discovered ballots

We ’ re a month out from election day and there are two undecided House races left in the country .
One of them , as I pointed out yesterday , has been certified with the GOP candidate winning by 6 votes .
The Democrat in that race has announced she will appeal directly to the U.S. House of Representatives which can choose to investigate and review the outcome and ultimately decide who will get the seat .
The other undecided race is NY-22 where final tallies from all counties show GOP candidate Claudia Tenney with a 12-vote lead over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this race is currently involved in a legal battle with both sides arguing their case before Justice Scott J. DelConte of the New York State Supreme Court .
Here ’ s where the race stands .
First , a problem cropped up last week regarding 39 absentee ballots cast in Oneida County .
A county election commissioner told Justice DelConte that sticky notes which had originally been placed on the ballots had fallen off .
As a result , officials don ’ t know if those ballots were already counted or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ StickyGate.
” Yes , really .
The commissioners said they intended to put a sticky note on each of the 39 ballots that outlined whether a ballot was counted , the basis of a candidate ’ s challenge and which candidate challenged it .
But by the time an envelope arrived at DelConte ’ s courtroom , at least eight ballots had no sticky note… Both commissioners said they believed each ballot had a sticky note on it and had no clue as to how they could have fallen off the ballots or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
“ We have a serious problem on our hands , ” DelConte said .
DelConte noted that one ballot had two stickies , both pink .
Another ballot appeared to have the wrong sticky .
It ’ s worth noting that Claudia Tenney won Oneida County by 11 points so there ’ s no reason to think these votes would necessarily cut into her lead .
In any case , the resolution of these ballots has become a major bone of contention .
Then on Tuesday , a lawyer for Chenago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found 55 ballots which had been misplaced and never counted .
Of those 55 , 11 were from people who were not registered to vote .
The other 44 ballots , which have not been opened yet , could potentially still be counted .
As with the StickyGate ballots it ’ s worth noting that Tenney won Chenago County by 12 points .
And the NY Times reported yesterday that most of the ballots appear to have come from Republicans : “ Of the remaining 44 ballots , more were cast by Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who holds the 12-vote lead.
” So it ’ s likely that counting these ballots would add to Tenney ’ s margin of victory .
But Tenney ’ s attorneys are arguing that Justice DelConte should allow the counties to certify the votes as it stands , which would make her the winner by 12 votes .
Brindisi ’ s lawyers are asking that the Stickygate votes be sorted out by hand and that the Chenago county ballots also be counted .
A blow-by-blow breakdown of the legal fight is being tweeted out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is reading all of the court filings so the rest of us don ’ t have to .
Here ’ s his thread describing the six separate filings made yesterday .
More filings are expected today by 4 pm , so the battle over StickyGate and the Chenago ballots will likely continue .
It really looks to me as if sorting out both of these problems would help Tenney ’ s margin of victory but I guess it makes sense for her camp to ask to certify the narrow win they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting disputed ballots .
Once they start there ’ s really no telling what will happen next .
Another county , perhaps one more favorable to Democratic Rep. Brindisi , could suddenly announce they have found a stack of uncounted ballots as well .
Given how carelessly ballots appear to have been handled in this district , I don ’ t think it would surprise anyone at this point .
But there is another risk here .
As mentioned above , the Democrat who lost the Iowa-2 race is now appealing that loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Justice DelConte allows the vote to be certified without sorting out these other problems , Rep. Brindisi could also appeal to the House and claim that he has grounds to do so because of StickyGate and the Chenago ballots weren ’ t resolved .
Again , that hasn ’ t happened yet , but with the ice being broken in Iowa it could happen in New York as well .
Turning this race over to Nancy Pelosi and friends could be a lot worse than leaving it in the hands of Justice @ @

We’re a month out from election day and there are two undecided House races left in the country. One of them, as I pointed out yesterday, has been certified with the GOP candidate winning by 6 votes. The Democrat in that race has announced she will appeal directly to the U.S. House of Representatives which can choose to investigate and review the outcome and ultimately decide who will get the seat.
The other undecided race is NY-22 where final tallies from all counties show GOP candidate Claudia Tenney with a 12-vote lead over incumbent Democratic Rep. Anthony Brindisi. However, this race is currently involved in a legal battle with both sides arguing their case before Justice Scott J. DelConte of the New York State Supreme Court.
Here’s where the race stands. First, a problem cropped up last week regarding 39 absentee ballots cast in Oneida County. A county election commissioner told Justice DelConte that sticky notes which had originally been placed on the ballots had fallen off. As a result, officials don’t know if those ballots were already counted or not. This has become known as “StickyGate.” Yes, really.
The commissioners said they intended to put a sticky note on each of the 39 ballots that outlined whether a ballot was counted, the basis of a candidate’s challenge and which candidate challenged it. But by the time an envelope arrived at DelConte’s courtroom, at least eight ballots had no sticky note… Both commissioners said they believed each ballot had a sticky note on it and had no clue as to how they could have fallen off the ballots or what could have gone wrong in the process. “We have a serious problem on our hands,” DelConte said. DelConte noted that one ballot had two stickies, both pink. Another ballot appeared to have the wrong sticky.
It’s worth noting that Claudia Tenney won Oneida County by 11 points so there’s no reason to think these votes would necessarily cut into her lead. In any case, the resolution of these ballots has become a major bone of contention.
Then on Tuesday, a lawyer for Chenago county announced that election officials had just found 55 ballots which had been misplaced and never counted. Of those 55, 11 were from people who were not registered to vote. The other 44 ballots, which have not been opened yet, could potentially still be counted.
As with the StickyGate ballots it’s worth noting that Tenney won Chenago County by 12 points. And the NY Times reported yesterday that most of the ballots appear to have come from Republicans: “Of the remaining 44 ballots, more were cast by Republicans, which should favor Ms. Tenney, who holds the 12-vote lead.” So it’s likely that counting these ballots would add to Tenney’s margin of victory.
But Tenney’s attorneys are arguing that Justice DelConte should allow the counties to certify the votes as it stands, which would make her the winner by 12 votes. Brindisi’s lawyers are asking that the Stickygate votes be sorted out by hand and that the Chenago county ballots also be counted.
A blow-by-blow breakdown of the legal fight is being tweeted out by a local reporter named Josh Rosenblatt who is reading all of the court filings so the rest of us don’t have to. Here’s his thread describing the six separate filings made yesterday.
First things first, there are three different types of documents submitted: affirmations, orders to show cause and memorandums of law. While they work hand-in-hand, each serves a slightly different purpose. 2/ — Josh Rosenblatt (@JRosenblattTV) December 2, 2020
The main Tenney argument, in the affirmation and the other documents, is the counties have reported final, unofficial tallies, and Justice DelConte should allow the counties to certify their results. The main Brindisi argument: the "sticky" issues need to be resolved first 3/ — Josh Rosenblatt (@JRosenblattTV) December 2, 2020
An order to show cause, which both legal teams filed, is the legal equivalent of telling someone to put their money where their mouth is. Essentially, it lays out a list of actions it wants the court to take. Then, it asks the other parties why those actions shouldn't happen 5/ — Josh Rosenblatt (@JRosenblattTV) December 2, 2020
Brindisi's order to show cause lays out a step-by-step, but somewhat complex way to fix the Oneida/sticky-note problem, but without going to a full recanvass. His orders do ask for the found Chenango ballots to be counted 7/ pic.twitter.com/95fQ2LXf5o — Josh Rosenblatt (@JRosenblattTV) December 2, 2020
Each one of these is at least ten pages long, so I'll do my best to summarize each one with relevant screenshots. Lots of little nuggets and insights in these 9/ — Josh Rosenblatt (@JRosenblattTV) December 2, 2020
Brindisi's MOU is much longer. It acknowledges that while these BOEs made errors, every effort should be made to fix them. It asks the justice to order each mistake be fixed one-by-one and lays out a process to do so 11/https://t.co/xpVoU2MVmQ — Josh Rosenblatt (@JRosenblattTV) December 2, 2020
Counter-arguments will be filed tomorrow. The next in-person court appearance is still set for Monday, December 7th 13/13 — Josh Rosenblatt (@JRosenblattTV) December 2, 2020
More filings are expected today by 4 pm, so the battle over StickyGate and the Chenago ballots will likely continue.
It really looks to me as if sorting out both of these problems would help Tenney’s margin of victory but I guess it makes sense for her camp to ask to certify the narrow win they have rather than start down the road of counting disputed ballots. Once they start there’s really no telling what will happen next. Another county, perhaps one more favorable to Democratic Rep. Brindisi, could suddenly announce they have found a stack of uncounted ballots as well. Given how carelessly ballots appear to have been handled in this district, I don’t think it would surprise anyone at this point.
But there is another risk here. As mentioned above, the Democrat who lost the Iowa-2 race is now appealing that loss directly to the House of Representatives. If Justice DelConte allows the vote to be certified without sorting out these other problems, Rep. Brindisi could also appeal to the House and claim that he has grounds to do so because of StickyGate and the Chenago ballots weren’t resolved.
Again, that hasn’t happened yet, but with the ice being broken in Iowa it could happen in New York as well. Turning this race over to Nancy Pelosi and friends could be a lot worse than leaving it in the hands of Justice DelConte.


hotair--2020-12-03--MAGA media clashes over Lin Wood as Pence keeps his distance from voter-fraud claims

It was a matter of time before Trumpy populists began splintering into different sects .
By the time this fiasco is over , there ’ ll be an entire religious taxonomy associated with it .
Democrats are heathens ; Republicans who don ’ t buy Trump ’ s election-fraud claims are heretics and apostates ; Republicans who *do* buy Trump ’ s election-fraud claims ( or are least willing to go along with them ) but feel obliged to vote in the Georgia Senate runoffs anyway are mainline MAGA ; and Republicans who buy Trump ’ s election-fraud claims and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the “ fraud ” is undone are fundamentalist MAGA .
The problem the president ’ s created for himself with his “ Georgia was rigged but you should vote in their next rigged election anyway ” message is that it leaves him with a potential schism on his hands .
The fundies have a point : If you believe fraud occurred , you should have the courage of your convictions and decline to participate in Georgia ’ s sham system until it ’ s reformed .
Trump wants to get Kelly Loeffler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partly to show that he ’ s still a political force on his way out the door and partly to remain in the good graces of righties who want their party succeed even with Trump out of office .
As usual , he ’ s putting his own interests first .
So he ’ s thrown in with the mainliners against the fundies .
And that ’ s going to create tension .
Click the images in the tweet for larger versions : The piece Breitbart published yesterday smells like part of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discredit Wood before he and Sidney Powell manage to talk Georgia Republicans into an election debacle .
Ed already noted Newt Gingrich ’ s tweet to the same effect this morning… …but , more significantly , Trump ’ s own campaign ended up tweeting out a link to the Breitbart piece : And here ’ s a new one of note out this afternoon from an unlikely figure , someone who probably wouldn ’ t risk alienating the fundie part of the base lest it jeopardize his future presidential chances unless the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s strange to me that Wood is being pulverized for having donated to Democrats when the leader of this cult , Donald J. Trump , did so himself many times over the years and even boasted about it during the 2016 primaries .
I was just playing the corrupt game that our corrupt system requires , Trump said at the time .
If you want some influence with politicians , you have to take out your checkbook .
Why are Wood ’ s donations to Democrats any sleazer or more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly considering that Wood ’ s donated to Republicans too ( or so he says ) ?
It ’ s obvious what ’ s happening here .
Just as Trump dumped Sidney Powell from his legal team once she started insinuating that Loeffler might have benefited from fraud to defeat Doug Collins , now he ’ s hammering Wood to counterprogram Wood ’ s and Powell ’ s call yesterday for Georgians to boycott the Senate runoff elections .
Anything goes with respect to the big voter-fraud kabuki as far as Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are concerned — with one exception .
You can make any claim of cheating you like , however wild and unsubstantiated ; you can accuse anyone you like of having participated in it ( except for Trump , Senate Republicans , and mainstream MAGA media , of course ) ; you can even threaten and intimidate local election officials and no one will say sh*t beyond a perfunctory “ threats are bad ” written statement .
But you do not , not , not jeopardize the GOP ’ s chances of holding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler and Perdue .
That ’ s the red line that Powell and then Wood crossed .
Trump and his cronies don ’ t care who ’ s libeled , who gets death threats , or what sort of dangerous , borderline seditious garbage is pushed by populist influencers to feed the fantasy that widespread vote-rigging really did happen even though no one ’ s been able to prove it in court .
All of that ’ s fine to these creatures .
But threaten their power and you ’ re out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats will flow within hours .
I sure hope the president doesn ’ t come to find that the Frankenstein he ’ s created in Wood and Powell , enabled by his own reckless conspiracy theorizing , turns out to be more powerful and influential than he expected .
There ’ s nothing set in stone anywhere that entitles him to be the head of the fundamentalist MAGA church in perpetuity .
The only interesting detail in all of this is the possibility that Mike Pence , Trump ’ s most loyal deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now that it ’ s derailed and is running over American norms involving the peaceful transfer of power : Since Nov. 25 , not a single fundraising email from the Trump campaign or its Republican National Committee fundraising account has featured Pence ’ s name in the “ from ” field .
And this week , that Republican National Committee joint fundraising committee , the Trump Make America Great Again Committee , made another subtle change : a handful of its emails swapped out the official Trump-Pence campaign logo for one featuring just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] everal high-level sources say that the graphics change , along with Pence ’ s disappearance from the headers of President Donald Trump ’ s increasingly frantic and conspiratorial pleas , are not actually coincidental .
According to four people with knowledge of the matter , they reflect an effort by the vice president and his team to distance Pence from some of the president ’ s more outlandish claims about a conspiracy to undermine the election and illegally deny him a second term in office .
“ It is an open secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pence absolutely does not feel the same way about the legal effort as President Trump does , ” said a senior administration official .
“ The vice president doesn ’ t want to go down with this ship… and believes much of the legal work has been unhelpful.
” Pence has barely tweeted about election irregularities , notes the Daily Beast .
It ’ s strange to me to think of him backing away now when he more than anyone has always seemed to grasp that one ’ s loyalty to Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test .
He ’ s bitten his tongue for more than four years and backed Trump every time he ’ s been pressed to do so because that ’ s simply what ’ s required when you work for the president .
Ask Bill Barr .
There ’ s no such thing as a “ reservoir of goodwill ” with Trump and his admirers .
The moment you let him down , you ’ re a traitor or “ compromised.
” The deal between Pence and Trump , I always thought , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he left office and then , maybe , if Trump himself didn ’ t want to run for president again and his kids weren ’ t willing to do so for whatever reason , Trump might endorse Pence .
Or , at the very least , Pence might convince him not to endorse anyone in the field and then count on his name recognition and Trump pedigree to make him the favorite of rank-and-file MAGA voters .
Conspicuously refusing to participate in the voter-fraud kabuki means Pence is now at risk of moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ heretics and apostates.
” Why would he do that ?
Has Trump at long last crossed a line that Pence can ’ t tolerate ?
That ’ s highly unlikely .
Or did Pence realize that Trump and/or his kids are probably going to run for president in the next several cycles , making Pence unlikely to win the MAGA vote and even less likely to win Trump ’ s endorsement ?
If his presidential dreams have finally been dashed , he might as well finally , finally do the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not really doing the right thing .
He ’ s not speaking out to say that there was no fraud and that people should stop sending death threats to election officials , for fark ’ s sake .
He ’ s nothing at all , as he ’ s wont to do .
Here ’ s a desperate-sounding Lindsey Graham begging the “ elite strike force ” of Trump ’ s legal team to put up some convincing evidence of systemic fraud in court already , for the love of God .

It was a matter of time before Trumpy populists began splintering into different sects. By the time this fiasco is over, there’ll be an entire religious taxonomy associated with it. Democrats are heathens; Republicans who don’t buy Trump’s election-fraud claims are heretics and apostates; Republicans who *do* buy Trump’s election-fraud claims (or are least willing to go along with them) but feel obliged to vote in the Georgia Senate runoffs anyway are mainline MAGA; and Republicans who buy Trump’s election-fraud claims and think doing so requires boycotting Georgia elections until the “fraud” is undone are fundamentalist MAGA.
The problem the president’s created for himself with his “Georgia was rigged but you should vote in their next rigged election anyway” message is that it leaves him with a potential schism on his hands. The fundies have a point: If you believe fraud occurred, you should have the courage of your convictions and decline to participate in Georgia’s sham system until it’s reformed. Trump wants to get Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue elected, though, partly to show that he’s still a political force on his way out the door and partly to remain in the good graces of righties who want their party succeed even with Trump out of office. As usual, he’s putting his own interests first.
So he’s thrown in with the mainliners against the fundies. And that’s going to create tension. Click the images in the tweet for larger versions:
Breitbart and Gateway Pundit now divided on Lin Wood situation pic.twitter.com/uod8AFzdQP — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) December 3, 2020
The piece Breitbart published yesterday smells like part of a coordinated effort by the White House to discredit Wood before he and Sidney Powell manage to talk Georgia Republicans into an election debacle. Ed already noted Newt Gingrich’s tweet to the same effect this morning…
Lin Wood and Sidney Powell are totally destructive. Every Georgia conservative who cares about America MUST vote in the runoff. Their dont vote strategy will cripple America — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) December 3, 2020
…but, more significantly, Trump’s own campaign ended up tweeting out a link to the Breitbart piece:
Records: Lin Wood Has for Decades Voted for, Donated to Democrats Including Barack Obama and David Perdue’s 2014 Opponent https://t.co/Sbw5ZWnpar — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) December 3, 2020
And here’s a new one of note out this afternoon from an unlikely figure, someone who probably wouldn’t risk alienating the fundie part of the base lest it jeopardize his future presidential chances unless the White House had made a request of him:
I don’t know who this clown is, but anyone saying America would be better off w/ Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader—producing huge tax increases, the Green New Deal, massive amnesty & a packed Supreme Court destroying the Bill of Rights—is trying to mislead the people of Georgia. https://t.co/jtEPT2UtzF — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 3, 2020
It’s strange to me that Wood is being pulverized for having donated to Democrats when the leader of this cult, Donald J. Trump, did so himself many times over the years and even boasted about it during the 2016 primaries. I was just playing the corrupt game that our corrupt system requires, Trump said at the time. If you want some influence with politicians, you have to take out your checkbook. Why are Wood’s donations to Democrats any sleazer or more disqualifying than Trump’s were, particularly considering that Wood’s donated to Republicans too (or so he says)?
It’s obvious what’s happening here. Just as Trump dumped Sidney Powell from his legal team once she started insinuating that Loeffler might have benefited from fraud to defeat Doug Collins, now he’s hammering Wood to counterprogram Wood’s and Powell’s call yesterday for Georgians to boycott the Senate runoff elections. Anything goes with respect to the big voter-fraud kabuki as far as Trump, Senate Republicans, and mainstream MAGA media are concerned — with one exception. You can make any claim of cheating you like, however wild and unsubstantiated; you can accuse anyone you like of having participated in it (except for Trump, Senate Republicans, and mainstream MAGA media, of course); you can even threaten and intimidate local election officials and no one will say sh*t beyond a perfunctory “threats are bad” written statement.
But you do not, not, not jeopardize the GOP’s chances of holding the Senate by discouraging Republicans from voting for Loeffler and Perdue. That’s the red line that Powell and then Wood crossed. Trump and his cronies don’t care who’s libeled, who gets death threats, or what sort of dangerous, borderline seditious garbage is pushed by populist influencers to feed the fantasy that widespread vote-rigging really did happen even though no one’s been able to prove it in court. All of that’s fine to these creatures. But threaten their power and you’re out. The hit pieces about your donations to Democrats will flow within hours.
I sure hope the president doesn’t come to find that the Frankenstein he’s created in Wood and Powell, enabled by his own reckless conspiracy theorizing, turns out to be more powerful and influential than he expected. There’s nothing set in stone anywhere that entitles him to be the head of the fundamentalist MAGA church in perpetuity.
The only interesting detail in all of this is the possibility that Mike Pence, Trump’s most loyal deputy, has hopped off the MAGA train now that it’s derailed and is running over American norms involving the peaceful transfer of power:
Since Nov. 25, not a single fundraising email from the Trump campaign or its Republican National Committee fundraising account has featured Pence’s name in the “from” field. And this week, that Republican National Committee joint fundraising committee, the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, made another subtle change: a handful of its emails swapped out the official Trump-Pence campaign logo for one featuring just the president’s name… [S]everal high-level sources say that the graphics change, along with Pence’s disappearance from the headers of President Donald Trump’s increasingly frantic and conspiratorial pleas, are not actually coincidental. According to four people with knowledge of the matter, they reflect an effort by the vice president and his team to distance Pence from some of the president’s more outlandish claims about a conspiracy to undermine the election and illegally deny him a second term in office. “It is an open secret [in Trumpworld] that Vice President Pence absolutely does not feel the same way about the legal effort as President Trump does,” said a senior administration official. “The vice president doesn’t want to go down with this ship… and believes much of the legal work has been unhelpful.”
Pence has barely tweeted about election irregularities, notes the Daily Beast. It’s strange to me to think of him backing away now when he more than anyone has always seemed to grasp that one’s loyalty to Trump is only as good as the next loyalty test. He’s bitten his tongue for more than four years and backed Trump every time he’s been pressed to do so because that’s simply what’s required when you work for the president. Ask Bill Barr. There’s no such thing as a “reservoir of goodwill” with Trump and his admirers. The moment you let him down, you’re a traitor or “compromised.” The deal between Pence and Trump, I always thought, was that Pence would serve him loyally until he left office and then, maybe, if Trump himself didn’t want to run for president again and his kids weren’t willing to do so for whatever reason, Trump might endorse Pence. Or, at the very least, Pence might convince him not to endorse anyone in the field and then count on his name recognition and Trump pedigree to make him the favorite of rank-and-file MAGA voters.
Conspicuously refusing to participate in the voter-fraud kabuki means Pence is now at risk of moving from the “mainline MAGA” category to “heretics and apostates.” Why would he do that? Has Trump at long last crossed a line that Pence can’t tolerate? That’s highly unlikely. Or did Pence realize that Trump and/or his kids are probably going to run for president in the next several cycles, making Pence unlikely to win the MAGA vote and even less likely to win Trump’s endorsement? If his presidential dreams have finally been dashed, he might as well finally, finally do the right thing. Except … he’s not really doing the right thing. He’s not speaking out to say that there was no fraud and that people should stop sending death threats to election officials, for fark’s sake. He’s nothing at all, as he’s wont to do.
Here’s a desperate-sounding Lindsey Graham begging the “elite strike force” of Trump’s legal team to put up some convincing evidence of systemic fraud in court already, for the love of God.


hotair--2020-12-03--CNN anchor: What is it with Democrat leaders and COVID-19 hypocrisy?

Kudos to Brianna Keilar for this remarkable segment , in which the CNN anchor neither plays Name That Party or indulges in whataboutism .
That ’ s partly based on the assumption that Republican leaders tend toward skepticism about mask and gathering mandates , of course , but at least they ’ re consistent about that , even if they are wrong .
Democrats are the ones lecturing Americans on what they can and can not do , as Keilar points out , while blaming Republicans for undermining their advice .
“ A lot of these leaders , they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who aren ’ t taking mask wearing seriously , ” Keilar notes .
“ But maybe , it ’ s time they also look in the mirror ” : KEILAR : A number of Democratic leaders , apologizing or reversing course , after multiple occurrences of “ do as I say , not as I do.
” They have been caught , not following their own coronavirus guidelines .
In San Francisco , Mayor London Breed facing backlash after it was revealed she attended a birthday party last month at the French Laundry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurant , with seven other people at her table .
… Now the restaurant has been quite the draw for Democratic officials defying the spirit , if not the letter , of the very regulations they are telling their constituents to follow .
The day before Breed ’ s dinner at the French Laundry , Governor Gavin Newsom also attended a party there with at least a dozen other people from different households .
… Now , the backlash was quick .
Cuomo suddenly changed his plans .
One of the governor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day Cuomo would now be working on the holiday .
The past few weeks brought into relief a pattern of leaders failing to lead by example , asking Americans to make sacrifices that they , themselves , are unwilling to make , and appearing sorry only when they ’ re caught .
Keilar ’ s right on that point .
Even when they do get caught and are forced to respond , they ’ re not terribly sorry for anything other than having to explain themselves .
For instance , here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his constituents about unnecessary travel and gatherings while he partied in Cabo San Lucas .
It ’ s an apology , but for causing “ confusion , ” couched in laments about how much his family had already sacrificed in the pandemic : “ I recognize that my travel set a bad example .
I recognize that the fact that I took that trip , and at the same time , was continuing to urge people to be cautious is confusing , ” he added .
“ I know that others have chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I know that in my position , I need to send a clearer message .
I ’ m sorry I took that trip .
It was a lapse in judgment , and I want you to know that I apologize.
” It ’ s not confusing at all , and Austin residents understand exactly what Adler thinks .
Adler thinks the rules that he sets only apply to the hoi polloi and not to their enlightened progressive autocrats , er , leaders .
More and more voters are getting the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those Keilar called out in her segment yesterday .
That ’ s not to say that the Republican governors ( are there any GOP mayors left ? )
skeptical of masking and social distancing have been proven correct .
But at least they ’ re not ordering restrictions on their constituents while blithely ignoring them to go off and party at fancy restaurants and resorts .
That kind of grotesque elitism is the nearly exclusive domain of the Democratic Party .

Kudos to Brianna Keilar for this remarkable segment, in which the CNN anchor neither plays Name That Party or indulges in whataboutism. That’s partly based on the assumption that Republican leaders tend toward skepticism about mask and gathering mandates, of course, but at least they’re consistent about that, even if they are wrong.
Democrats are the ones lecturing Americans on what they can and cannot do, as Keilar points out, while blaming Republicans for undermining their advice. “A lot of these leaders, they are looking across the aisle to blame Republicans who aren’t taking mask wearing seriously,” Keilar notes. “But maybe, it’s time they also look in the mirror”:
.@brikeilarcnn rolls the tape on Democratic officials caught not following their own Covid-19 guidelines: "The past few weeks, brought into relief a pattern of leaders, failing to lead by example. Asking Americans to make sacrifices that they, themselves, are unwilling to make” pic.twitter.com/V6Xq9gRxrw — CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) December 2, 2020
KEILAR: A number of Democratic leaders, apologizing or reversing course, after multiple occurrences of “do as I say, not as I do.” They have been caught, not following their own coronavirus guidelines. In San Francisco, Mayor London Breed facing backlash after it was revealed she attended a birthday party last month at the French Laundry, the famed and exclusive Napa Valley restaurant, with seven other people at her table. … Now the restaurant has been quite the draw for Democratic officials defying the spirit, if not the letter, of the very regulations they are telling their constituents to follow. The day before Breed’s dinner at the French Laundry, Governor Gavin Newsom also attended a party there with at least a dozen other people from different households. … Now, the backlash was quick. Cuomo suddenly changed his plans. One of the governor’s advisers telling CNN that the next day Cuomo would now be working on the holiday. The past few weeks brought into relief a pattern of leaders failing to lead by example, asking Americans to make sacrifices that they, themselves, are unwilling to make, and appearing sorry only when they’re caught.
Keilar’s right on that point. Even when they do get caught and are forced to respond, they’re not terribly sorry for anything other than having to explain themselves. For instance, here’s Austin mayor Steve Adler apologizing for lecturing his constituents about unnecessary travel and gatherings while he partied in Cabo San Lucas. It’s an apology, but for causing “confusion,” couched in laments about how much his family had already sacrificed in the pandemic:
“I recognize that my travel set a bad example. I recognize that the fact that I took that trip, and at the same time, was continuing to urge people to be cautious is confusing,” he added. “I know that others have chosen not to travel under the same circumstances, and I know that in my position, I need to send a clearer message. I’m sorry I took that trip. It was a lapse in judgment, and I want you to know that I apologize.”
It’s not confusing at all, and Austin residents understand exactly what Adler thinks. Adler thinks the rules that he sets only apply to the hoi polloi and not to their enlightened progressive autocrats, er, leaders. More and more voters are getting the same impression from other Democratic leaders such as those Keilar called out in her segment yesterday.
That’s not to say that the Republican governors (are there any GOP mayors left?) skeptical of masking and social distancing have been proven correct. But at least they’re not ordering restrictions on their constituents while blithely ignoring them to go off and party at fancy restaurants and resorts. That kind of grotesque elitism is the nearly exclusive domain of the Democratic Party.


hotair--2020-12-03--Minneapolis councilor: Crime wave a result of old "conventional wisdom" policies, not the hot new pl

Minneapolis councilor: Crime wave a result of old "conventional wisdom" policies, not the hot new plan we haven't yet produced

Well , let ’ s see .
Under the old “ conventional wisdom ” in place , Minneapolis had been experiencing a relatively low-crime period for the last twenty years .
The crime wave started in June , when the city council declared its intention to get rid of policing in the city and replace it with … something .
Just what should observers blame for the massive spike in violent crime — conventional wisdom or radical sloganeering ?
Conventional wisdom , of course , writes city council member Jeremiah Ellison .
It ’ s our new plan that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets .
What ’ s the plan ?
Er … Conventional wisdom has produced the results of this summer — from the death of Floyd to the uptick in violence .
They are both the result of a century-long failure to create a public safety system that is not police-only .
This conventional thinking tells us that the police will solve everything , despite having never done so .
And it tells us that we can question policing , or we can have safe communities , but we can ’ t do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the mayor and the chief have coasted on this conventional wisdom and no plan .
Not only no plan to address the uptick in violence , but absolutely no plan to prevent the next police killing .
Promises to ban warrior training required a good-faith handshake from Police Federation boss Bob Kroll ; promises to halt negotiations with the Federation were broken and illegal to begin with ; promises to reform the department became shallow remixes of previous reforms .
I think our communities deserve better , and that starts with addressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It starts with having a plan and the courage to pursue it .
… The budget proposal being authored by three of my colleagues , which I was honored to help shape and wholeheartedly endorse , is how we break from the “ increments ” that have ultimately gotten us nowhere , and leap into a direction for public safety we can build on .
Investing in citywide mental health response teams , growing our violence prevention capacity , and taking nonemergency reporting off the Minneapolis Police Department ’ s ( MPD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old policies created the crime wave ?
Does Ellison have an explanation as to how the old policies kept carjackings to a minimum , but they are up 537 % in November after the city council ’ s call to abolish the police altogether ?
The city ’ s active police force has been reduced by 20 % already .
If the council ’ s abolition plan is superior , shouldn ’ t we have seen a marked decrease in crime as a result of that attrition ?
Besides , Ellison ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their “ plan.
” They never did come up with a “ plan.
” The Charter Commission pointed that out when the council urged them to approve a police-abolition charter amendment this summer , even though Ellison , Lisa Bender , and the rest of the “ abolish the police ” crowd couldn ’ t explain how they would protect public safety without a police force .
They ’ re winging it in the budget process by demanding cuts rather than abolition now , but only because they can ’ t get rid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Minneapolis residents aren ’ t fooled by Ellison , at least for the most part .
They ’ re burying the city council in demands to do something about the crime wave , while the council mostly fiddles : More than 400 people signed up to dial into the livestreamed meeting , a showing unlike any other in recent city memory .
Residents were still speaking late into the night .
Some said their homes had been pierced by gunfire .
More than 500 people have been killed or wounded by gunshots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Others said carjackings and robberies have prompted them to rethink daily routines like grocery shopping and walking the dog .
“ I have just never felt so unsafe recently .
This isn ’ t the Minneapolis I know , ” said Brent Johnson , of Whittier , who attributed some of the violence to discussions about defunding the Police Department .
… Daniel Mendez , meanwhile , rejected the notion that calling police comes from a place of privilege and argued that conversations about defunding police had disproportionately harmed people of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my own children being targeted for looking white .
They are half white , half Mexican , which makes this whole racial issue a joke , ” said Mendez , who identified as Mexican American .
One notable contribution came from former mayor Sharon Sayles Benton , who appeared to chastise the council for its recklessness :

Well, let’s see. Under the old “conventional wisdom” in place, Minneapolis had been experiencing a relatively low-crime period for the last twenty years. The crime wave started in June, when the city council declared its intention to get rid of policing in the city and replace it with … something. Just what should observers blame for the massive spike in violent crime — conventional wisdom or radical sloganeering?
Conventional wisdom, of course, writes city council member Jeremiah Ellison. It’s our new plan that will save Minneapolis and bring peace to the streets. What’s the plan? Er …
Conventional wisdom has produced the results of this summer — from the death of Floyd to the uptick in violence. They are both the result of a century-long failure to create a public safety system that is not police-only. This conventional thinking tells us that the police will solve everything, despite having never done so. And it tells us that we can question policing, or we can have safe communities, but we can’t do, and have, both. For months, the mayor and the chief have coasted on this conventional wisdom and no plan. Not only no plan to address the uptick in violence, but absolutely no plan to prevent the next police killing. Promises to ban warrior training required a good-faith handshake from Police Federation boss Bob Kroll; promises to halt negotiations with the Federation were broken and illegal to begin with; promises to reform the department became shallow remixes of previous reforms. I think our communities deserve better, and that starts with addressing our residents’ safety in this budget. It starts with having a plan and the courage to pursue it. … The budget proposal being authored by three of my colleagues, which I was honored to help shape and wholeheartedly endorse, is how we break from the “increments” that have ultimately gotten us nowhere, and leap into a direction for public safety we can build on. Investing in citywide mental health response teams, growing our violence prevention capacity, and taking nonemergency reporting off the Minneapolis Police Department’s (MPD) plate just makes sense.
The old policies created the crime wave? Does Ellison have an explanation as to how the old policies kept carjackings to a minimum, but they are up 537% in November after the city council’s call to abolish the police altogether? The city’s active police force has been reduced by 20% already. If the council’s abolition plan is superior, shouldn’t we have seen a marked decrease in crime as a result of that attrition?
Besides, Ellison’s flat-out lying about the budget proposal being their “plan.” They never did come up with a “plan.” The Charter Commission pointed that out when the council urged them to approve a police-abolition charter amendment this summer, even though Ellison, Lisa Bender, and the rest of the “abolish the police” crowd couldn’t explain how they would protect public safety without a police force. They’re winging it in the budget process by demanding cuts rather than abolition now, but only because they can’t get rid of the police under the current charter.
Minneapolis residents aren’t fooled by Ellison, at least for the most part. They’re burying the city council in demands to do something about the crime wave, while the council mostly fiddles:
More than 400 people signed up to dial into the livestreamed meeting, a showing unlike any other in recent city memory. Residents were still speaking late into the night. Some said their homes had been pierced by gunfire. More than 500 people have been killed or wounded by gunshots this year, according to police statistics. Others said carjackings and robberies have prompted them to rethink daily routines like grocery shopping and walking the dog. “I have just never felt so unsafe recently. This isn’t the Minneapolis I know,” said Brent Johnson, of Whittier, who attributed some of the violence to discussions about defunding the Police Department. … Daniel Mendez, meanwhile, rejected the notion that calling police comes from a place of privilege and argued that conversations about defunding police had disproportionately harmed people of color. “I live in fear for my own children being targeted for looking white. They are half white, half Mexican, which makes this whole racial issue a joke,” said Mendez, who identified as Mexican American.
One notable contribution came from former mayor Sharon Sayles Benton, who appeared to chastise the council for its recklessness:
Former Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton also spoke, urging City Council members to cooperate with the mayor, and to do more methodical reviews before implementing new proposals. “When it comes to public safety we cannot be a city divided,” she said.
Ya think?


hotair--2020-12-03--Biden: We could lose another 250,000 people to COVID between now and January

If he means another 250,000 deaths between now and January 1 , i.e .
29 days from now , that ’ s wildly wrong .
Not even the most pessimistic projections of the current surge imagine upwards of 10,000 deaths per day this month .
Maybe Sleepy Joe had a brain hiccup ?
He might have meant to say “ another 100,000 people ” and somehow coughed up the overall death toll from the pandemic thus far .
( We ’ re a bit beyond 250,000 fatalities now , in fact . )
If , on the other hand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 , that ’ s also highly , highly unlikely — but I don ’ t know that I ’ d bet my life savings against it .
Watch , then read on .
Reading the COVID news this morning , I remembered that December 2 was the date scientist Trevor Bedford expected we would reach 2,000 daily deaths again .
We did reach a milestone yesterday , it turns out .
But it wasn ’ t 2,000 .
It was close to 3,000 .
More than 2,800 Covid-19 deaths were reported Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country has ever reported in a single day — as health care officials say their staff and facilities are struggling to support burgeoning numbers of patients .
The number of Covid-19 patients in US hospitals Wednesday — 100,226 , according to the COVID Tracking Project — also is the highest reported on a given day during the pandemic… “ By this time next week , we are going to be talking about 3,000 deaths a day — that ’ s 9/11 every single day , ” Dr. Jonathan Reiner , a cardiologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University , told CNN on Wednesday… As for cases : The country ’ s average number of new daily Covid-19 cases across a week was 164,103 Wednesday — nearly 2.5 times the summertime peak in July , JHU data show .
The COVID Tracking Project ’ s count of deaths yesterday was 2,733 , which made it the second deadliest day since the start of the pandemic by their reckoning .
The two-day total combined with Tuesday ’ s fatalities was the highest yet and the first time the U.S. has seen 5,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve reached a magical moment in America ’ s ongoing mismanaged COVID catastrophe where the president-elect can guesstimate 250,000 deaths over 30 days and everyone dunks on him because in reality it ’ ll “ only ” be 100,000 or so .
Another way to grasp the magnitude of losses yesterday is to recognize that , in a single 24-hour period , they amounted to one percent of the total U.S. death toll since the first fatality in March .
Johns Hopkins has recorded 273,746 dead as I write this and Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting you use .
One out of 100 Americans who ’ ve died from the disease died yesterday .
That trend is likely to continue too , or even be overtaken later this month as people infected during the big national pox party on Thanksgiving begin passing away .
Despite the enormous number of deaths already , we ’ ll be adding another one percent or more for weeks to come .
In fact , the pandemic is so ferocious right now that when I look at a graphic like this from Axios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I wonder if there ’ s a herd immunity effect driving the downturn : Maybe not .
Wisconsin , for instance , has nearly six million people ; even though they ’ ve been a hot spot for months , it ’ s hard to believe several million people might have been infected already .
Also , if midwestern states are reaching herd immunity , why haven ’ t our friends in Sweden reached it despite having taken more relaxed precautions against infection since the pandemic began ?
Sweden has 10 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fewer than 800,000 and South Dakota has fewer than 900,000 .
Is it possible that many weeks of the virus raging unchecked through those states has rendered a few hundred thousand immune , slowing the spread ?
Some scientists like Scott Gottlieb think so : “ We ’ re going to probably have by the end of this year , 30 % of the U.S. population infected , ” he told CNBC a few days ago .
“ You look at states like North Dakota and South Dakota , it ’ s probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as high as 50 % .
” The good news is that that high baseline of natural immunity may mean we reach herd immunity nationally more quickly than expected once the vaccine starts rolling out to people who haven ’ t been infected .
The bad news is , ah , another 100,000 to 200,000 deaths before that happens in all likelihood .
Good luck , everyone .

If he means another 250,000 deaths between now and January 1, i.e. 29 days from now, that’s wildly wrong. Not even the most pessimistic projections of the current surge imagine upwards of 10,000 deaths per day this month.
Maybe Sleepy Joe had a brain hiccup? He might have meant to say “another 100,000 people” and somehow coughed up the overall death toll from the pandemic thus far. (We’re a bit beyond 250,000 fatalities now, in fact.)
If, on the other hand, he means another 250,000 deaths by January 31, that’s also highly, highly unlikely — but I don’t know that I’d bet my life savings against it. Watch, then read on.
Biden stressed, "I don't want to scare anybody here but understand the facts: we're likely to lose another 250,000 people – dead, between now and January," calling on Americans not to travel for holidays. #BidenHarris2020 #COVID #holidays #Christmas2020 #BidenHarris pic.twitter.com/lrSb9yCDQe — Gloseeker (@glo_seeker) December 3, 2020
Reading the COVID news this morning, I remembered that December 2 was the date scientist Trevor Bedford expected we would reach 2,000 daily deaths again. We did reach a milestone yesterday, it turns out. But it wasn’t 2,000. It was close to 3,000.
More than 2,800 Covid-19 deaths were reported Wednesday in the United States — the most the country has ever reported in a single day — as health care officials say their staff and facilities are struggling to support burgeoning numbers of patients. The number of Covid-19 patients in US hospitals Wednesday — 100,226, according to the COVID Tracking Project — also is the highest reported on a given day during the pandemic… “By this time next week, we are going to be talking about 3,000 deaths a day — that’s 9/11 every single day,” Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at George Washington University, told CNN on Wednesday… As for cases: The country’s average number of new daily Covid-19 cases across a week was 164,103 Wednesday — nearly 2.5 times the summertime peak in July, JHU data show.
The COVID Tracking Project’s count of deaths yesterday was 2,733, which made it the second deadliest day since the start of the pandemic by their reckoning. The two-day total combined with Tuesday’s fatalities was the highest yet and the first time the U.S. has seen 5,000 dead over a two-day period. We’ve reached a magical moment in America’s ongoing mismanaged COVID catastrophe where the president-elect can guesstimate 250,000 deaths over 30 days and everyone dunks on him because in reality it’ll “only” be 100,000 or so.
Another way to grasp the magnitude of losses yesterday is to recognize that, in a single 24-hour period, they amounted to one percent of the total U.S. death toll since the first fatality in March. Johns Hopkins has recorded 273,746 dead as I write this and Wednesday toll was around 2,750 depending upon which reporting you use. One out of 100 Americans who’ve died from the disease died yesterday. That trend is likely to continue too, or even be overtaken later this month as people infected during the big national pox party on Thanksgiving begin passing away. Despite the enormous number of deaths already, we’ll be adding another one percent or more for weeks to come.
In fact, the pandemic is so ferocious right now that when I look at a graphic like this from Axios and see which states have declining hospitalizations, I wonder if there’s a herd immunity effect driving the downturn:
Maybe not. Wisconsin, for instance, has nearly six million people; even though they’ve been a hot spot for months, it’s hard to believe several million people might have been infected already. Also, if midwestern states are reaching herd immunity, why haven’t our friends in Sweden reached it despite having taken more relaxed precautions against infection since the pandemic began?
⚠We are watching Sweden. We are wondering what is happening. Because it is not good. 35,000+ new cases the last 7 days. 298 deaths in the last 7 days. Forecasted to be 900-1000 deaths in the next week in our Covid-19 Outbreak Tracker. More here: https://t.co/WY12w5zh7w pic.twitter.com/cboRpCpuFS — Brief19, your daily roundup of SARS-CoV-2. (@Brief_19) December 2, 2020
Sweden has 10 million people, though. North Dakota has fewer than 800,000 and South Dakota has fewer than 900,000. Is it possible that many weeks of the virus raging unchecked through those states has rendered a few hundred thousand immune, slowing the spread? Some scientists like Scott Gottlieb think so: “We’re going to probably have by the end of this year, 30% of the U.S. population infected,” he told CNBC a few days ago. “You look at states like North Dakota and South Dakota, it’s probably 30%, 35%. Maybe as high as 50%.” The good news is that that high baseline of natural immunity may mean we reach herd immunity nationally more quickly than expected once the vaccine starts rolling out to people who haven’t been infected.
The bad news is, ah, another 100,000 to 200,000 deaths before that happens in all likelihood. Good luck, everyone.