hotair--2020-12-16--Majority of Southern California nurses refusing the COVID vaccine

I ’ ll confess that I didn ’ t see this one coming .
Much of the cable news programming currently blasting across our screens these days is celebrating the arrival of the first COVID vaccines approved for general distribution .
People lining up to be the first in their state to receive it are hailed in the press like rock stars .
But out in Southern California , there ’ s one group of people who are choosing to either delay taking the shot or simply declining entirely .
Those are the nurses .
CBS Los Angeles is reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UCLS Fielding School of Public Health reports that a full two-thirds of the nurses surveyed either said no or at least… not yet .
A number of local healthcare workers have reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use , according to a new survey from the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health .
“ Two-thirds of the health workers that we surveyed wished to delay vaccination or not get vaccinated , ” Dr. Anne Rimoin , the senior author of the study , said Monday .
She said the survey collected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the end of October .
At least out where I live , healthcare workers are among the first being vaccinated , which kind of makes sense since so many of them are dealing with COVID patients on a daily basis .
And at least based on the information being spread around by the media , you would think that these educated individuals would put the most faith in the system that developed and tested these vaccines , right ?
So what gives with the nurses in California ?
A representative for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point out that their members are not “ anti-vaxxers.
” 90 % of them reportedly get the flu vaccine every year .
Their hesitation is specific to this particular vaccine .
The UCLS study concluded that most of the respondents who either refused the vaccine or wanted to wait were concerned that the process was rushed through Operation Warp Speed .
With that in mind , they didn ’ t have the same faith in it as they do with the flu vaccine .
As the CBS analysis notes , this isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community in Southern California .
Many of these nurses will be the same people who will have to administer the vaccines to patients .
If they ’ re not willing to take it , what sort of message does that send to the patients ?
But can you really blame them ?
This goes back to something I previously mentioned involving a conversation between myself and Ed Morrissey .
Ed said he was planning to get the vaccine as soon as it ’ s available .
I said I would get it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see if he survived .
I was only half-joking about that .
It ’ s not that I ’ m totally opposed to all vaccines .
Heck , I had two of them this fall , one for the flu and the other for shingles .
But this one is brand new , even if they have been working on the underlying technology for a while .
I saw how they had to stop the initial rollout in Great Britain when the snafu involving people with allergies cropped up .
Who knows what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ?
My wife and I still plan to get it , but I ’ m pretty sure I ’ ll just stay home and monitor the news for a while and see how the younger and healthier people fare for a few weeks or months after getting the shot .
Besides , I don ’ t fall into any of the “ special ” classes that get head of the line treatment , so I probably won ’ t get the opportunity until some time in the spring anyway .

I’ll confess that I didn’t see this one coming. Much of the cable news programming currently blasting across our screens these days is celebrating the arrival of the first COVID vaccines approved for general distribution. People lining up to be the first in their state to receive it are hailed in the press like rock stars. But out in Southern California, there’s one group of people who are choosing to either delay taking the shot or simply declining entirely. Those are the nurses. CBS Los Angeles is reporting that a recent survey conducted by the UCLS Fielding School of Public Health reports that a full two-thirds of the nurses surveyed either said no or at least… not yet.
A number of local healthcare workers have reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use, according to a new survey from the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. “Two-thirds of the health workers that we surveyed wished to delay vaccination or not get vaccinated,” Dr. Anne Rimoin, the senior author of the study, said Monday. She said the survey collected data from about 600 workers between mid-September and the end of October.
At least out where I live, healthcare workers are among the first being vaccinated, which kind of makes sense since so many of them are dealing with COVID patients on a daily basis. And at least based on the information being spread around by the media, you would think that these educated individuals would put the most faith in the system that developed and tested these vaccines, right? So what gives with the nurses in California?
A representative for the union covering these nurses was quick to point out that their members are not “anti-vaxxers.” 90% of them reportedly get the flu vaccine every year. Their hesitation is specific to this particular vaccine. The UCLS study concluded that most of the respondents who either refused the vaccine or wanted to wait were concerned that the process was rushed through Operation Warp Speed. With that in mind, they didn’t have the same faith in it as they do with the flu vaccine.
As the CBS analysis notes, this isn’t particularly heartening news for the medical community in Southern California. Many of these nurses will be the same people who will have to administer the vaccines to patients. If they’re not willing to take it, what sort of message does that send to the patients?
But can you really blame them? This goes back to something I previously mentioned involving a conversation between myself and Ed Morrissey. Ed said he was planning to get the vaccine as soon as it’s available. I said I would get it also, but only after I waited to see if he survived. I was only half-joking about that. It’s not that I’m totally opposed to all vaccines. Heck, I had two of them this fall, one for the flu and the other for shingles.
But this one is brand new, even if they have been working on the underlying technology for a while. I saw how they had to stop the initial rollout in Great Britain when the snafu involving people with allergies cropped up. Who knows what other potential pitfalls could be hiding out there? My wife and I still plan to get it, but I’m pretty sure I’ll just stay home and monitor the news for a while and see how the younger and healthier people fare for a few weeks or months after getting the shot. Besides, I don’t fall into any of the “special” classes that get head of the line treatment, so I probably won’t get the opportunity until some time in the spring anyway.


hotair--2020-12-16--Kelly Loeffler: I don't know if I'll object to the electoral results during Congress's session on Ja

Kelly Loeffler: I don't know if I'll object to the electoral results during Congress's session on January 6

I wonder how many times a day Loeffler asks herself , “ Wait , why do I want this job again ?
” Think of what she ’ s stooped to in the name of winning .
Gladhanding QAnon kooks .
Demagoging election officials .
Fighting dopey pretend culture-war battles with her own employees .
She ’ s worth mega-bucks and could enjoy a happy and comfortable life as a respectable private citizen .
Instead she ’ s waging political nuclear war for the opportunity to … sit quietly in the Senate like the rest of the caucus and rubber-stamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her .
Maybe she didn ’ t need to “ stoop.
” Maybe this is just who she is and what she enjoys .
But that ’ s hard to believe , just because Loeffler ’ s ended up in the eye of a populist storm and is very clearly not a populist herself .
I think when she was appointed to the Senate by Brian Kemp she imagined running in the jungle primary this year unopposed from the right and possibly winning on election night with 50.1 percent of the vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoff , her path would have been clear : As an accomplished businesswoman , she could run to the center and woo back the suburbanites who ’ ve been drifting left .
Instead she had to tack right to fend off Doug Collins in the primary and now has to cling to MAGA loyalty as the base goes all-in on Trumpist conspiracy theories about the election having been stolen .
She ’ s been implicated in “ the steal ” herself , in fact : Remember that Sidney Powell once suggested that Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Loeffler .
She ’ s a passenger on a runaway crazy train and has no choice but to go wherever it takes her .
Here ’ s where it ’ s taking her : That ’ s a nice dodge but it won ’ t work for long .
January 6 isn ’ t “ a long way out , ” which is why McConnell and John Thune are already twisting arms within the GOP caucus to make sure no one objects when the electoral votes are counted .
A refresher in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this : If one member of the House *and* one member of the Senate object to recording the electoral votes of a particular state , each chamber has to debate the matter for two hours and then hold a floor vote on whether to accept those results .
There ’ s no way the GOP can block any state ’ s results from being accepted , though ; if the Democratic House and Republican Senate deadlock , the tie is broken by the governor ’ s certification in the disputed state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ winner in all of the states Trump is contesting .
But there won ’ t be a deadlock .
There will certainly be three or more Senate Republicans who ’ ll vote with Democrats to accept a disputed state ’ s results , guaranteeing Biden ’ s victory .
The only suspense is whether any Republican will object in the first place , forcing a floor vote in which all senators will have to say on the record whether they accept or reject a state ’ s results .
That ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasoning that that sort of vote can only hurt his caucus .
If they can ’ t actually stop Biden , what ’ s to be gained by asking swing-state Republicans to choose between defending the integrity of the election and pandering to the conspiracy theorists in their base ?
What didn ’ t occur to me yesterday , though , was that Loeffler and David Perdue are in an especially impossible position with respect to that vote .
McConnell might be able to twist arms and persuade Senate populists like Rand Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the merits , but for Loeffler and Perdue objecting may be a matter of simple political survival .
Georgia MAGA fans will demand that they take a position on this before January 5 .
If they refuse to promise that they ’ ll object , they might lose enough support to tip the race to Warnock and Ossoff .
And so : The only person who could conceivably get them off the hook is Trump by saying , “ I don ’ t want any senator to object .
Just certify the electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But of course , Trump won ’ t do that .
He doesn ’ t really care about what ’ s good for the party , as we ’ re periodically reminded : “ We MUST defend Georgia from the Dems !
” he wrote in one recent text message .
“ I need YOU to secure a WIN in Georgia , ” he said in another .
“ Help us WIN both Senate races in Georgia & STOP Socialist Dems , ” he pleaded a few days later .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s new political machine is pocketing most of the dough — and the campaigns of the Georgia senators competing in the Jan. 5 races aren ’ t getting a cent .
Trump ’ s aggressive fundraising blitz appears to be devoted to helping the party defend Georgia ’ s two Senate seats and , with them , the Senate majority .
But the fine print shows that most of the proceeds are going toward Trump ’ s newly launched PAC , which he plans to use to fund his future political activities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican National Committee , which is investing $ 20 million into the runoffs .
Trump will certainly want some senator to object on January 6 , partly to show that he “ fought ” to the bitter end and partly because he sees the world as a series of loyalty tests and would appreciate an official list of which Senate Republicans are “ disloyal.
” That ’ s what the floor vote will give to him .
Loeffler and Perdue will probably have no choice but to make it happen , to McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Republicans in each chamber are apt to vote to reject the electoral votes from Georgia , Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin , and Arizona , I ’ d guess safely more than half of each caucus .
Got ta pass the loyalty test , even if that means taking a public dump on the integrity of U.S. elections .
Patterico raises a point here that I hadn ’ t considered but which strikes me as probably true : If the House GOP had done a bit better on election night , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis on January 6 .
The key word there , I think , is “ firm.
” If Republicans held a very narrow House majority , there ’ d probably be a handful who ’ d balk and vote with Democrats to affirm Biden ’ s win in order to avert the congressional equivalent of a coup .
But if the party held a “ firm ” majority of 20-30 seats ?
Yeah , it ’ s quite possible that the House would reject electoral votes from multiple states .
It would fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those electoral votes in order to prevent Republicans from stealing the election on Trump ’ s behalf .
Exit question : This guy isn ’ t going to object on January 6 ?
Really ?

I wonder how many times a day Loeffler asks herself, “Wait, why do I want this job again?” Think of what she’s stooped to in the name of winning. Gladhanding QAnon kooks. Demagoging election officials. Fighting dopey pretend culture-war battles with her own employees. She’s worth mega-bucks and could enjoy a happy and comfortable life as a respectable private citizen. Instead she’s waging political nuclear war for the opportunity to … sit quietly in the Senate like the rest of the caucus and rubber-stamp whatever Mitch McConnell puts in front of her.
Maybe she didn’t need to “stoop.” Maybe this is just who she is and what she enjoys.
But that’s hard to believe, just because Loeffler’s ended up in the eye of a populist storm and is very clearly not a populist herself. I think when she was appointed to the Senate by Brian Kemp she imagined running in the jungle primary this year unopposed from the right and possibly winning on election night with 50.1 percent of the vote. Even if she were forced into a runoff, her path would have been clear: As an accomplished businesswoman, she could run to the center and woo back the suburbanites who’ve been drifting left. Instead she had to tack right to fend off Doug Collins in the primary and now has to cling to MAGA loyalty as the base goes all-in on Trumpist conspiracy theories about the election having been stolen. She’s been implicated in “the steal” herself, in fact: Remember that Sidney Powell once suggested that Collins was the rightful winner of his battle with Loeffler.
She’s a passenger on a runaway crazy train and has no choice but to go wherever it takes her. Here’s where it’s taking her:
Shortly after voting, @SenatorLoeffler says she hasn’t decided yet whether she will object to Joe Biden’s electors on Jan. 6 in Congress.
“I haven't looked at it,” she says, adding: “January 6 is a long way out and there’s a lot to play out between now and then.” #gapol #gasen pic.twitter.com/goy1pMZwmg — Greg Bluestein (@bluestein) December 16, 2020
That’s a nice dodge but it won’t work for long. January 6 isn’t “a long way out,” which is why McConnell and John Thune are already twisting arms within the GOP caucus to make sure no one objects when the electoral votes are counted. A refresher in case you missed yesterday’s post about this: If one member of the House *and* one member of the Senate object to recording the electoral votes of a particular state, each chamber has to debate the matter for two hours and then hold a floor vote on whether to accept those results. There’s no way the GOP can block any state’s results from being accepted, though; if the Democratic House and Republican Senate deadlock, the tie is broken by the governor’s certification in the disputed state. And Biden has already been certified the winner in all of the states Trump is contesting.
But there won’t be a deadlock. There will certainly be three or more Senate Republicans who’ll vote with Democrats to accept a disputed state’s results, guaranteeing Biden’s victory. The only suspense is whether any Republican will object in the first place, forcing a floor vote in which all senators will have to say on the record whether they accept or reject a state’s results. That’s what McConnell’s trying to avoid, reasoning that that sort of vote can only hurt his caucus. If they can’t actually stop Biden, what’s to be gained by asking swing-state Republicans to choose between defending the integrity of the election and pandering to the conspiracy theorists in their base?
What didn’t occur to me yesterday, though, was that Loeffler and David Perdue are in an especially impossible position with respect to that vote. McConnell might be able to twist arms and persuade Senate populists like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz not to object on the merits, but for Loeffler and Perdue objecting may be a matter of simple political survival. Georgia MAGA fans will demand that they take a position on this before January 5. If they refuse to promise that they’ll object, they might lose enough support to tip the race to Warnock and Ossoff. And so:
Talked to a high-level GOP operative the other day who seemed pretty resigned to Trump pushing to overturn the election all the way until the Jan. 6 joint session, and Loeffler and Perdue being forced to go along with it to avoid alienating Trump voters in the Jan. 5 election. https://t.co/1fm59FBPLR — Jacob Rubashkin (@JacobRubashkin) December 16, 2020
The only person who could conceivably get them off the hook is Trump by saying, “I don’t want any senator to object. Just certify the electoral college’s votes and move on.” But of course, Trump won’t do that. He doesn’t really care about what’s good for the party, as we’re periodically reminded:
“We MUST defend Georgia from the Dems!” he wrote in one recent text message. “I need YOU to secure a WIN in Georgia,” he said in another. “Help us WIN both Senate races in Georgia & STOP Socialist Dems,” he pleaded a few days later. There’s just one hitch: Trump’s new political machine is pocketing most of the dough — and the campaigns of the Georgia senators competing in the Jan. 5 races aren’t getting a cent. Trump’s aggressive fundraising blitz appears to be devoted to helping the party defend Georgia’s two Senate seats and, with them, the Senate majority. But the fine print shows that most of the proceeds are going toward Trump’s newly launched PAC, which he plans to use to fund his future political activities. Only a fraction is going to the Republican National Committee, which is investing $20 million into the runoffs.
Trump will certainly want some senator to object on January 6, partly to show that he “fought” to the bitter end and partly because he sees the world as a series of loyalty tests and would appreciate an official list of which Senate Republicans are “disloyal.” That’s what the floor vote will give to him. Loeffler and Perdue will probably have no choice but to make it happen, to McConnell’s chagrin.
As for how many Republicans in each chamber are apt to vote to reject the electoral votes from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona, I’d guess safely more than half of each caucus. Gotta pass the loyalty test, even if that means taking a public dump on the integrity of U.S. elections. Patterico raises a point here that I hadn’t considered but which strikes me as probably true: If the House GOP had done a bit better on election night, we could be facing a bona fide democratic crisis on January 6.
Kevin McCarthy Refuses to Congratulate Biden on His Electoral College Win, or, Why the Republican Party is Toxic and Dangerous https://t.co/jYUyS37jUA pic.twitter.com/UmKa2T6WKG — Patterico (@Patterico) December 16, 2020
The key word there, I think, is “firm.” If Republicans held a very narrow House majority, there’d probably be a handful who’d balk and vote with Democrats to affirm Biden’s win in order to avert the congressional equivalent of a coup. But if the party held a “firm” majority of 20-30 seats? Yeah, it’s quite possible that the House would reject electoral votes from multiple states. It would fall to McConnell’s Senate to accept those electoral votes in order to prevent Republicans from stealing the election on Trump’s behalf.
Exit question: This guy isn’t going to object on January 6? Really?


hotair--2020-12-16--Trans activist: All children should have puberty blockers

Yes , the main focus of the article is an obvious bit of insanity coming from the left , but I do have to wonder if this isn ’ t a preview of what ’ s to come during a Biden/Harris administration when they start putting their own people in charge of HHS , the FDA and other health agencies .
Lauren McNamara ( originally Zachary Antolak ) , known to her online followers as “ Zinnia Jones , ” proposed a rather stunning change to accepted medical practices this month in the interest of transgender somethingorother .
The activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the right to have access to puberty-blocking drugs until they reach the age where they can “ decide which gender they want to be.
” And before you ask , no… she ’ s apparently not kidding .
( For the record , I ’ m generically using a female pronoun because I have no idea who this person is nor what their surgical status might be aside from having been born male . )
Details of the story come to us from The Blaze .
Lauren McNamara , known by followers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this month that children should be legally able to consent to the administration of puberty blockers since they already de facto consent to the “ permanent and irreversible changes ” that come naturally through puberty .
“ If children can ’ t consent to puberty blockers which pause any permanent changes even with the relevant professional evaluation , how can they consent to the permanent and irreversible changes that come with their own puberty with no professional evaluation whatsoever ?
” she wrote on Twitter .
The YouTuber went on to argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consent or understand the long-term consequences is actually an argument for putting every single cis and trans person on puberty blockers until they acquire that ability.
” Hoo boy .
I assume that “ Ms. ” Jones doesn ’ t regret making the statements because the tweets are still hanging out there .
Obviously , this isn ’ t activism .
It ’ s insanity , pure and simple .
If somehow enacted , it would be criminal insanity , or at least it should be .
In medical terms , this suggestion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to mention being a series of logical fallacies .
Jones is complaining about children being unable to “ consent ” to the onset of puberty and the normal maturation of their bodies .
That ’ s like arguing that you should be able to withhold “ consent ” to growing taller in case you decide later that you ’ d like to be a hobbit .
It ’ s bad enough that we already have people who are allegedly doctors in the United States prescribing puberty blockers for children whose parents have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are far too young to deal with questions about gender and sexuality .
Those are potentially dangerous drugs , such as Lupron , as we ’ ve discussed here before .
Those drugs are typically only prescribed for a short period of time to ward off the effects of precocious puberty , also known as early-onset puberty .
They have never been approved by the FDA for use in gender dysphoria in prepubescent children .
And do we really need to touch on the fact that children are not legally recognized as having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical procedures ?
You can go to jail for giving a tattoo to anyone under the age of 18 .
But hey… let ’ s just let 8-year-olds start mainlining Lupron if someone convinces them they were born “ the wrong gender.
” The damage these “ treatments ” can wreak on the body of a growing child could well be permanent .
And now we have activists wanting to make this practice available to any child in the country without even needing the consent of the parents ?
Again… this is nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we see the Democrats putting too many woke social justice warriors in positions of authority over the next four years , it ’ s an insanity that could potentially turn into official government policy .
UPDATE : Please see this column from attorney Hans Bader .
“ Transgender treatment is medical malpractice for many teens .
”

Yes, the main focus of the article is an obvious bit of insanity coming from the left, but I do have to wonder if this isn’t a preview of what’s to come during a Biden/Harris administration when they start putting their own people in charge of HHS, the FDA and other health agencies. Lauren McNamara (originally Zachary Antolak), known to her online followers as “Zinnia Jones,” proposed a rather stunning change to accepted medical practices this month in the interest of transgender somethingorother. The activist demanded that all prepubescent children should be given the right to have access to puberty-blocking drugs until they reach the age where they can “decide which gender they want to be.” And before you ask, no… she’s apparently not kidding. (For the record, I’m generically using a female pronoun because I have no idea who this person is nor what their surgical status might be aside from having been born male.) Details of the story come to us from The Blaze.
Lauren McNamara, known by followers as “Zinnia Jones,” argued earlier this month that children should be legally able to consent to the administration of puberty blockers since they already de facto consent to the “permanent and irreversible changes” that come naturally through puberty. “If children can’t consent to puberty blockers which pause any permanent changes even with the relevant professional evaluation, how can they consent to the permanent and irreversible changes that come with their own puberty with no professional evaluation whatsoever?” she wrote on Twitter. The YouTuber went on to argue that “an inability to offer informed consent or understand the long-term consequences is actually an argument for putting every single cis and trans person on puberty blockers until they acquire that ability.”
Hoo boy. I assume that “Ms.” Jones doesn’t regret making the statements because the tweets are still hanging out there.
If children can't consent to puberty blockers which pause any permanent changes even with the relevant professional evaluation, how can they consent to the permanent and irreversible changes that come with their own puberty with no professional evaluation whatsoever? — Zinnia Jones (@ZJemptv) December 2, 2020
An inability to offer informed consent or understand the long-term consequences is actually an argument for putting every single cis and trans person on puberty blockers until they acquire that ability. — Zinnia Jones (@ZJemptv) December 2, 2020
Obviously, this isn’t activism. It’s insanity, pure and simple. If somehow enacted, it would be criminal insanity, or at least it should be. In medical terms, this suggestion is a pile of hot garbage, not to mention being a series of logical fallacies.
Jones is complaining about children being unable to “consent” to the onset of puberty and the normal maturation of their bodies. That’s like arguing that you should be able to withhold “consent” to growing taller in case you decide later that you’d like to be a hobbit.
It’s bad enough that we already have people who are allegedly doctors in the United States prescribing puberty blockers for children whose parents have decided that they are transgender when they are far too young to deal with questions about gender and sexuality. Those are potentially dangerous drugs, such as Lupron, as we’ve discussed here before. Those drugs are typically only prescribed for a short period of time to ward off the effects of precocious puberty, also known as early-onset puberty. They have never been approved by the FDA for use in gender dysphoria in prepubescent children.
And do we really need to touch on the fact that children are not legally recognized as having the maturity to grant informed consent for medical procedures? You can go to jail for giving a tattoo to anyone under the age of 18. But hey… let’s just let 8-year-olds start mainlining Lupron if someone convinces them they were born “the wrong gender.”
The damage these “treatments” can wreak on the body of a growing child could well be permanent. And now we have activists wanting to make this practice available to any child in the country without even needing the consent of the parents? Again… this is nothing short of criminal insanity. But if we see the Democrats putting too many woke social justice warriors in positions of authority over the next four years, it’s an insanity that could potentially turn into official government policy.
UPDATE: Please see this column from attorney Hans Bader. “Transgender treatment is medical malpractice for many teens.”


hotair--2020-12-16--Why did Joe Biden pick Pete Buttigieg for Secretary of Transportation?

Joe Biden announced on Tuesday evening that he has chosen former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg as his choice for Secretary of Transportation .
I think it ’ s safe to say the universal reaction has been to question why this choice was made .
What qualifies Mayor Pete for the job ?
Buttigieg ended his candidacy for president before Super Tuesday .
He endorsed Joe Biden immediately after doing so .
Common opinion has had Buttigieg as a potential cabinet member as a reward for his support of Biden .
He actively campaigned for him once he became the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on political television shows as a Biden campaign surrogate .
He ’ s no longer Mayor of South Bend so he ’ s available .
His record in South Bend , though , isn ’ t stellar .
It looks as though this is a case of Buttigieg failing up .
There are stories about Mayor Pete and train whistles .
South Bend was a quiet zone for years and problems arose when the Grand Trunk Western — a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway — began blasting warning whistles at crossings and residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Buttigieg wrote about tackling this problem in his book .
It sounds like a typical problem a small city mayor would handle but that kind of experience doesn ’ t normally elevate a mayor to a presidential cabinet position .
Biden often spoke fondly of Buttigieg on the campaign trail , comparing him to his son Beau , now deceased .
He clearly wants to help elevate Buttigieg ’ s profile and add some top government experience to his resume .
There is little doubt that Buttigieg will run for president again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential candidate from the 2020 race in Biden ’ s cabinet , after Kamala .
Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood , a Republican who joined the Obama administration , calls it a good pick .
He thinks as a former mayor , Pete knows about the needs of mayors and other local officials .
“ It sends a loud message to mayors and to cities that they count .
It ’ s where the action is on putting people to work.
” Is Mayor Pete a good manager , though ?
He had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he didn ’ t address to the satisfaction of his fellow South Bend residents .
That ’ s the type of problem mayors everywhere confront .
Interestingly enough , while city residents waited for their streets to be repaired and stop having to get their vehicles repaired due to damage from potholes , Mayor Pete ’ s street was re-paved though it wasn ’ t even on the list to be re-paved .
That sort of petty special treatment doesn ’ t exactly inspire confidence in his leadership abilities .
Is he up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s infrastructure as the Biden administration anticipates spending billions of dollars on Joe ’ s “ build back better ” agenda ?
Buttigieg wanted the position of ambassador to the United Nations .
He was passed over for that , though , and Linda Thomas-Greenfield was nominated by Biden .
He was rumored to be up for the Secretary of Commerce job and a possible candidate for ambassador to China , too .
The point is that Buttigieg wants a gig that is high profile and a good resume-builder .
I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Transportation Secretary , though , right ?
It seems like this is a consolation prize kind of nomination .
What a cabinet position for Buttigieg does is to check another identity box for Team Biden .
It can not be stated enough how checking identity politics boxes is a top priority for the Biden administration .
Biden continues to prove this by the nominations he is making .
There is no rhyme or reason to many of his picks .
Pete Buttigieg will be the Biden administration ’ s openly gay cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that President Trump appointed Ric Grenell as acting DNI after Ric served as ambassador to Germany when he formally announces Pete ’ s nomination .
The media is happy to play along with the “ senate-confirmed ” wording of Buttigieg ’ s nomination in order to whitewash Grenell .
See how the Democrats do this sort of preening in order to virtue-signal that they are so open-minded and diverse , much more so that Republicans ?
It ’ s malarkey but this is the game they play .
The fact remains that Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience as mayor isn ’ t noteworthy enough to promote him to the national level of managing infrastructure .
The gay community is thrilled , though , and that is what matters , not experience or qualifications .
It ’ s about “ LGBTQ visibility.
” Pete Buttigieg had a real problem garnering support from black voters in the Democrat presidential primary .
His supporters were mostly white and college-educated .
Buttigieg ’ s allies want him to use his time in the Biden administration to build a relationship with the black community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this job , given his history in South Bend .
Just before news broke that Buttigieg will be Biden ’ s choice for the role , Black activists warned against his selection , saying he and other longtime Biden allies rumored for the spot have a poor record of working with communities of color .
Two Black community leaders from South Bend — Council member Henry Davis Jr. and local Black Lives Matter leader Jorden Giger — both of whom have criticized Buttigieg ’ s record throughout his presidential primary campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports that he was under consideration .
“ He did a really bad job for this community and my district in particular , ” Davis Jr. said .
“ Bus lines have been shut down and cut off in one of the poorest census tracts in this country.
” “ He has no history of working with Black owned businesses , ” added Giger .
“ Hurting Black communities is not worth the price of doing a political favor for Pete Buttigieg because he endorsed [ Biden ’ s ] campaign in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he checks off an important identity box , right ?
Past success ( or failure ) and experience won ’ t really matter for Status Quo Joe .

Joe Biden announced on Tuesday evening that he has chosen former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg as his choice for Secretary of Transportation. I think it’s safe to say the universal reaction has been to question why this choice was made. What qualifies Mayor Pete for the job?
Buttigieg ended his candidacy for president before Super Tuesday. He endorsed Joe Biden immediately after doing so. Common opinion has had Buttigieg as a potential cabinet member as a reward for his support of Biden. He actively campaigned for him once he became the party’s nominee and often appeared on political television shows as a Biden campaign surrogate. He’s no longer Mayor of South Bend so he’s available. His record in South Bend, though, isn’t stellar. It looks as though this is a case of Buttigieg failing up.
Mayor @PeteButtigieg is a leader, patriot, and problem-solver. He speaks to the best of who we are as a nation. I am nominating him for Secretary of Transportation because he's equipped to take on the challenges at the intersection of jobs, infrastructure, equity, and climate. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) December 16, 2020
There are stories about Mayor Pete and train whistles. South Bend was a quiet zone for years and problems arose when the Grand Trunk Western — a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway — began blasting warning whistles at crossings and residents were losing sleep at night. Apparently, Buttigieg wrote about tackling this problem in his book. It sounds like a typical problem a small city mayor would handle but that kind of experience doesn’t normally elevate a mayor to a presidential cabinet position.
Biden often spoke fondly of Buttigieg on the campaign trail, comparing him to his son Beau, now deceased. He clearly wants to help elevate Buttigieg’s profile and add some top government experience to his resume. There is little doubt that Buttigieg will run for president again. He will be the second former presidential candidate from the 2020 race in Biden’s cabinet, after Kamala. Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a Republican who joined the Obama administration, calls it a good pick. He thinks as a former mayor, Pete knows about the needs of mayors and other local officials. “It sends a loud message to mayors and to cities that they count. It’s where the action is on putting people to work.”
Is Mayor Pete a good manager, though? He had a pothole problem in South Bend which he didn’t address to the satisfaction of his fellow South Bend residents. That’s the type of problem mayors everywhere confront. Interestingly enough, while city residents waited for their streets to be repaired and stop having to get their vehicles repaired due to damage from potholes, Mayor Pete’s street was re-paved though it wasn’t even on the list to be re-paved. That sort of petty special treatment doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in his leadership abilities. Is he up for the job of overseeing America’s infrastructure as the Biden administration anticipates spending billions of dollars on Joe’s “build back better” agenda?
Buttigieg wanted the position of ambassador to the United Nations. He was passed over for that, though, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield was nominated by Biden. He was rumored to be up for the Secretary of Commerce job and a possible candidate for ambassador to China, too. The point is that Buttigieg wants a gig that is high profile and a good resume-builder. I don’t think anyone pays too much attention to Transportation Secretary, though, right? It seems like this is a consolation prize kind of nomination.
What a cabinet position for Buttigieg does is to check another identity box for Team Biden. It cannot be stated enough how checking identity politics boxes is a top priority for the Biden administration. Biden continues to prove this by the nominations he is making. There is no rhyme or reason to many of his picks. Pete Buttigieg will be the Biden administration’s openly gay cabinet member. Joe Biden will conveniently forget that President Trump appointed Ric Grenell as acting DNI after Ric served as ambassador to Germany when he formally announces Pete’s nomination.
Mayor Pete is not the first openly gay cabinet member. President Trump named @RichardGrenell the Acting Dir. of National Intelligence. Ric broke that barrier with @realDonaldTrump. Democrats are trying to erase history to suit their desired narrative. 🙄 pic.twitter.com/hEpm6izRKA — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) December 15, 2020
The media is happy to play along with the “senate-confirmed” wording of Buttigieg’s nomination in order to whitewash Grenell. See how the Democrats do this sort of preening in order to virtue-signal that they are so open-minded and diverse, much more so that Republicans? It’s malarkey but this is the game they play.
If confirmed, @PeteButtigieg would be the first Senate-confirmed openly LGBTQ Cabinet Secretary, @HRC notes in a press release. — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) December 15, 2020
The fact remains that Mayor Pete is a diversity pick. His experience as mayor isn’t noteworthy enough to promote him to the national level of managing infrastructure. The gay community is thrilled, though, and that is what matters, not experience or qualifications. It’s about “LGBTQ visibility.”
His nomination was met with ebullient praise from gay rights activists. In a tweet, the president and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Sarah Kate Ellis, called it an “historic milestone for LGBTQ visibility.” “Pete’s experience and skills as a leader, manager and brilliant communicator, combined with his heartland roots and his unqualified commitment to diversity and equality, will improve the lives of all Americans as Transportation Secretary,” she said.
Pete Buttigieg had a real problem garnering support from black voters in the Democrat presidential primary. His supporters were mostly white and college-educated. Buttigieg’s allies want him to use his time in the Biden administration to build a relationship with the black community. Black activists advised against nominating Pete for this job, given his history in South Bend.
Just before news broke that Buttigieg will be Biden’s choice for the role, Black activists warned against his selection, saying he and other longtime Biden allies rumored for the spot have a poor record of working with communities of color. Two Black community leaders from South Bend — Council member Henry Davis Jr. and local Black Lives Matter leader Jorden Giger — both of whom have criticized Buttigieg’s record throughout his presidential primary campaign, mobilized again this week in response to reports that he was under consideration. “He did a really bad job for this community and my district in particular,” Davis Jr. said. “Bus lines have been shut down and cut off in one of the poorest census tracts in this country.” “He has no history of working with Black owned businesses,” added Giger. “Hurting Black communities is not worth the price of doing a political favor for Pete Buttigieg because he endorsed [Biden’s] campaign in the primary.”
Ouch. But, hey, he checks off an important identity box, right? Past success (or failure) and experience won’t really matter for Status Quo Joe.


hotair--2020-12-16--Deputy DA criticizes his new boss George Gascon: 'They are sending people to court to monitor what w

Deputy DA criticizes his new boss George Gascon: 'They are sending people to court to monitor what we say'

Yesterday I wrote about some of the impacts incoming District Attorney George Gascon was having on specific cases in LA County .
Gascon ’ s decision to drop all special enhancements from prosecutions means some seriously violent people will likely be getting more lenient sentences .
For instance , Gascon is attempting to have enhancements dropped from the case of an accused double murderer who allegedly shot one person at random in the street and then , about an hour later , executed an off-duty police deputy by shooting him the back of the head .
In another case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly killed a passenger in another vehicle .
Gascon is also trying to remove the special circumstances against that driver which will put him back on the street sooner .
Last night one of Gascon ’ s own Deputy DA ’ s criticized what he sees taking place .
DDA Jon Hatami often prosecutes child abusers .
In 2017 he was the lead prosecutor in a high profile case in which a woman and her live in boyfriend tortured and eventually murdered her son Gabriel Fernandez .
A documentary about the case is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fernandez suffered was horrific and involved repeated beatings which eventually left him brain dead .
His mother was sentenced to life in prison and the boyfriend was sentenced to the death penalty .
Hatami doesn ’ t understand why Gascon would want to undo that .
He ’ s not imagining that .
Gascon ’ s office is apparently reprimanding DDA ’ s for having it noted in court that they are dropping sentencing enhancements in line with Gascon ’ s new order but against their own better judgment .
DDA Hatami was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacts his own cases : “ I just don ’ t understand why we ’ re not trying to prosecute child murderers to the fullest extent of the law , ” Hatami said… “ I believe that there needs to be some reforms , however , those reforms need to be based upon the law , ” said Hatami .
“ They also need to be based upon the protection of the public .
They need to be based upon the protection of children .
They need to be based upon the facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worried about losing his job for publicly criticizing the DA , but said “ Unless they run me out of here or they take away all my cases , I ’ m not going anywhere .
And I ’ m going to fight for all the kids.
” ABC 7 reports a group of LA ’ s nearly 800 Deputy DA ’ s are considering filing a state bar report against their boss but no other Deputy DAs were willing to go on camera for fear of professional repercussions .
Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , last night Tucker Carlson devoted a big part of his show to what Gascon is doing in LA County .
Much of this is what I covered in this post yesterday but the 2nd clip includes a new interview with the sister of the murdered police deputy .

Yesterday I wrote about some of the impacts incoming District Attorney George Gascon was having on specific cases in LA County. Gascon’s decision to drop all special enhancements from prosecutions means some seriously violent people will likely be getting more lenient sentences. For instance, Gascon is attempting to have enhancements dropped from the case of an accused double murderer who allegedly shot one person at random in the street and then, about an hour later, executed an off-duty police deputy by shooting him the back of the head.
In another case, a man accused of a third DUI allegedly killed a passenger in another vehicle. Gascon is also trying to remove the special circumstances against that driver which will put him back on the street sooner.
Last night one of Gascon’s own Deputy DA’s criticized what he sees taking place. DDA Jon Hatami often prosecutes child abusers. In 2017 he was the lead prosecutor in a high profile case in which a woman and her live in boyfriend tortured and eventually murdered her son Gabriel Fernandez. A documentary about the case is available on Netflix. The abuse that Fernandez suffered was horrific and involved repeated beatings which eventually left him brain dead. His mother was sentenced to life in prison and the boyfriend was sentenced to the death penalty. Hatami doesn’t understand why Gascon would want to undo that.
“A lot of DDAs (deputy district attorneys) are really scared,” said Hatami. “They are sending people to court to monitor what we say. They are working with the public defenders and alternate public defenders to intimidate us and document what we do and what we say.”
He’s not imagining that. Gascon’s office is apparently reprimanding DDA’s for having it noted in court that they are dropping sentencing enhancements in line with Gascon’s new order but against their own better judgment. DDA Hatami was emotional as he talked about how this impacts his own cases:
“I just don’t understand why we’re not trying to prosecute child murderers to the fullest extent of the law,” Hatami said… “I believe that there needs to be some reforms, however, those reforms need to be based upon the law,” said Hatami. “They also need to be based upon the protection of the public. They need to be based upon the protection of children. They need to be based upon the facts of each case.”
Hatami is clearly worried about losing his job for publicly criticizing the DA, but said “Unless they run me out of here or they take away all my cases, I’m not going anywhere. And I’m going to fight for all the kids.”
ABC 7 reports a group of LA’s nearly 800 Deputy DA’s are considering filing a state bar report against their boss but no other Deputy DAs were willing to go on camera for fear of professional repercussions. Here’s ABC 7’s report:

Finally, last night Tucker Carlson devoted a big part of his show to what Gascon is doing in LA County. Much of this is what I covered in this post yesterday but the 2nd clip includes a new interview with the sister of the murdered police deputy.
Tucker Carlson takes a deep dive into the nation's most important elections that impact our lives — but since few media outlets pay attention, a small group of radicals have had huge influence. Look at what George Soros has done — he's taken advantage of our system. pic.twitter.com/rrBmZQ8jkw — (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) December 16, 2020


hotair--2020-12-16--Will Trump force the new acting AG to appoint a special counsel for Hunter Biden?

Last night a Twitter pal speculated that what we might be seeing with Bill Barr ’ s departure is a sort of “ slow-motion Saturday Night Massacre.
” We still don ’ t know why Barr resigned/was fired but it ’ s been reported that he was “ unlikely ” to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden .
Maybe Trump demanded it and Barr told him no , which meant Barr had to go .
Next week the deputy AG , Jeffrey Rosen , will take over for Barr .
If Trump makes the same demand of him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would make Richard Donoghue the new acting AG .
What will he do if Trump tells him to appoint a special counsel ?
Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus quit in a matter of hours when Nixon demanded they fire Archibald Cox , but the Trump version could play out over several weeks .
If you believe this AP story , the stars are beginning to align .
There ’ s one big difference between the Saturday Night Massacre and what Trump ’ s doing , though : Appointing a special counsel to investigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Special counsels operate with greater independence than standard DOJ prosecutors do , which is what you ’ d want when probing the finances of the president ’ s son .
It ’ s a signal to the public that the matter is being pursued diligently , without fear or favor .
It may even be that Biden ’ s own Attorney General will end up making the appointment himself , to show the public that no special breaks will be given to anyone just because they ’ re relatives or cronies of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think Team Joe is secretly *hoping* Trump ’ s AG appoints a special counsel , as that would take this thorny issue out of their hands and make it easy for rank-and-file Democrats to complain that it ’ s political persecution , not a justifiable criminal investigation .
Which brings us back to the mystery of why Barr is allegedly opposed to making the appointment .
And whether Rosen might be any less opposed .
President Donald Trump is considering pushing to have a special counsel appointed to advance a federal tax investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , setting up a potential showdown with incoming acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen… Beyond appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the younger Biden , the sources said Trump is interested in having another special counsel appointed to look into his own baseless claims of election fraud .
But if he ’ s expecting his newly named acting attorney general to go further than Barr on either matter , he could end up quickly disappointed… Trump is still weighing his options , considering whether to pressure Rosen to make the special counsel appointment or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting attorney general with someone more likely to carry out his wishes .
He has even asked his team of lawyers , including personal attorney Rudy Giuliani , to look into whether the president has the power to appoint a special counsel himself .
That first boldfaced part is the “ slow-motion Saturday Night Massacre ” scenario .
The second boldfaced part is what I wrote about over the weekend , the possibility of the president appointing a special counsel directly .
Under DOJ regs , only the Attorney General has the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unitary executive theory of Article II , any power possessed by an executive branch official necessarily derives from the president ’ s constitutional authority .
If Barr or Rosen can make the appointment , by definition Trump can make the appointment .
I strongly suspect that ’ s how a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS would rule .
Which , again , would probably suit Biden ’ s interests just fine .
There ’ s no “ good ” outcome to the Hunter prosecution for his administration short of Hunter being cleared by Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is highly unlikely .
If the Justice Department is still looking at Biden once Sleepy Joe takes office , it means Hunter will be either charged and put on trial by his own father ’ s appointees ( bad ) or he ’ ll be cleared by those same appointees ( really bad ) .
The most Team Joe can hope for is for Trump to inadvertently discredit the case in the public ’ s eyes by making it look as shady and partisan as possible .
Firing Rosen because he won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help with that .
Having Trump himself appoint the special prosecutor would help a lot .
The one catch for Biden is that , if Trump makes the appointment , he very well might appoint some Fox News clown instead of a legit prosecutor .
Probably not — I assume Pat Cipollone would heavily influence the president ’ s selection — but you never know how POTUS might behave with the clock ticking on his presidency .
If he named , say , Jeanine Pirro as special counsel , Biden would then be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary step of firing her after being sworn in .
Maybe he ’ d make some sort of deal with Republicans in which he replaced Trump ’ s dubious appointee with a new special counsel who ’ s respected by Federalist Society types .
Anyway .
You ’ re probably reading all of that and thinking , “ How did we end up talking about firing Attorneys General ?
Wasn ’ t Trump supposed to be focused on firing Chris Wray and Gina Haspel during the lame-duck period ?
” Indeed he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to NBC .
But so far his legal advisors have convinced him to hold off , mainly because Trump has been so transparent about revenge as his motive in wanting to fire them that the White House might end up in legal trouble if he pulls the trigger : President Donald Trump has come so close to firing FBI Director Christopher Wray in recent months that the White House counsel ’ s office has warned him not to do so because it could put him in potential legal jeopardy , according to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discussion and a U.S. official familiar with the discussion… Their concern was that firing Wray could be seen as retaliation because the president has publicly pressured him to take specific actions on certain investigations — such as announcing a probe into President-elect Joe Biden ’ s son — and then expressed frustration that Wray has not followed his suggestions… The likelihood of Trump firing top officials he ’ s been frustrated with or feels betrayed by is expected to increase over the holidays , the current and former officials said .
White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were canned after James Comey it might lead people to believe that Trump was imposing a political “ loyalty test ” on the quasi-independent office of FBI director .
Which … is exactly what Trump ’ s doing , of course , not just with the FBI but with everyone and everything .
Every demand he makes of an underling or a Republican politician , no matter how outlandish , is ultimately a loyalty test of some sort .
According to Comey , he explicitly asked for “ loyalty ” at their now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part about him becoming more likely to fire people over the holidays , as he broods during his down time about his election defeat and the people who wronged him , made me laugh because it ’ s so obviously true .
Haspel has reportedly even begun clearing out her office at the CIA in the expectation that she ’ ll be axed without notice at some point before January 20 .
Imagine firing the head of foreign intelligence , Haspel , and the head of domestic intelligence , Wray , essentially on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad mood on Christmas or New Year ’ s Eve .
That ’ s the situation Trump ’ s aides and the country are facing right now .
“ I wouldn ’ t take anything off the table in coming weeks , ” said one senior administration official about who might be fired or pardoned as POTUS lashes out on his way to exit .
The finale of this gonzo four-year reality show should be action-packed .
Here ’ s Lindsey Graham making the case today for a special counsel to investigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think it ’ ll matter ; Biden won ’ t nuke his entire “ return to norms ” message by meddling to extinguish the prosecution of his son even if no special counsel is appointed .
Although I wouldn ’ t rule out a 2024 pardon…

Last night a Twitter pal speculated that what we might be seeing with Bill Barr’s departure is a sort of “slow-motion Saturday Night Massacre.” We still don’t know why Barr resigned/was fired but it’s been reported that he was “unlikely” to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. Maybe Trump demanded it and Barr told him no, which meant Barr had to go.
Next week the deputy AG, Jeffrey Rosen, will take over for Barr. If Trump makes the same demand of him, does he resign too? That would make Richard Donoghue the new acting AG. What will he do if Trump tells him to appoint a special counsel? Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus quit in a matter of hours when Nixon demanded they fire Archibald Cox, but the Trump version could play out over several weeks. If you believe this AP story, the stars are beginning to align.
There’s one big difference between the Saturday Night Massacre and what Trump’s doing, though: Appointing a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden would be … quite defensible. Special counsels operate with greater independence than standard DOJ prosecutors do, which is what you’d want when probing the finances of the president’s son. It’s a signal to the public that the matter is being pursued diligently, without fear or favor. It may even be that Biden’s own Attorney General will end up making the appointment himself, to show the public that no special breaks will be given to anyone just because they’re relatives or cronies of the new president. I continue to think Team Joe is secretly *hoping* Trump’s AG appoints a special counsel, as that would take this thorny issue out of their hands and make it easy for rank-and-file Democrats to complain that it’s political persecution, not a justifiable criminal investigation.
Which brings us back to the mystery of why Barr is allegedly opposed to making the appointment. And whether Rosen might be any less opposed.
President Donald Trump is considering pushing to have a special counsel appointed to advance a federal tax investigation into the son of President-elect Joe Biden, setting up a potential showdown with incoming acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen… Beyond appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the younger Biden, the sources said Trump is interested in having another special counsel appointed to look into his own baseless claims of election fraud. But if he’s expecting his newly named acting attorney general to go further than Barr on either matter, he could end up quickly disappointed… Trump is still weighing his options, considering whether to pressure Rosen to make the special counsel appointment or, if needed, to replace the acting attorney general with someone more likely to carry out his wishes. He has even asked his team of lawyers, including personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, to look into whether the president has the power to appoint a special counsel himself.
That first boldfaced part is the “slow-motion Saturday Night Massacre” scenario. The second boldfaced part is what I wrote about over the weekend, the possibility of the president appointing a special counsel directly. Under DOJ regs, only the Attorney General has the power to make the appointment. But under the unitary executive theory of Article II, any power possessed by an executive branch official necessarily derives from the president’s constitutional authority. If Barr or Rosen can make the appointment, by definition Trump can make the appointment. I strongly suspect that’s how a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS would rule.
Which, again, would probably suit Biden’s interests just fine. There’s no “good” outcome to the Hunter prosecution for his administration short of Hunter being cleared by Trump’s DOJ before January 20, which is highly unlikely. If the Justice Department is still looking at Biden once Sleepy Joe takes office, it means Hunter will be either charged and put on trial by his own father’s appointees (bad) or he’ll be cleared by those same appointees (really bad). The most Team Joe can hope for is for Trump to inadvertently discredit the case in the public’s eyes by making it look as shady and partisan as possible. Firing Rosen because he won’t appoint a special counsel would help with that. Having Trump himself appoint the special prosecutor would help a lot.
The one catch for Biden is that, if Trump makes the appointment, he very well might appoint some Fox News clown instead of a legit prosecutor. Probably not — I assume Pat Cipollone would heavily influence the president’s selection — but you never know how POTUS might behave with the clock ticking on his presidency. If he named, say, Jeanine Pirro as special counsel, Biden would then be forced to decide whether to take the extraordinary step of firing her after being sworn in.
Maybe he’d make some sort of deal with Republicans in which he replaced Trump’s dubious appointee with a new special counsel who’s respected by Federalist Society types.
Anyway. You’re probably reading all of that and thinking, “How did we end up talking about firing Attorneys General? Wasn’t Trump supposed to be focused on firing Chris Wray and Gina Haspel during the lame-duck period?” Indeed he was. And he has been, according to NBC. But so far his legal advisors have convinced him to hold off, mainly because Trump has been so transparent about revenge as his motive in wanting to fire them that the White House might end up in legal trouble if he pulls the trigger:
President Donald Trump has come so close to firing FBI Director Christopher Wray in recent months that the White House counsel’s office has warned him not to do so because it could put him in potential legal jeopardy, according to a senior administration official with direct knowledge of the discussion and a U.S. official familiar with the discussion… Their concern was that firing Wray could be seen as retaliation because the president has publicly pressured him to take specific actions on certain investigations — such as announcing a probe into President-elect Joe Biden’s son — and then expressed frustration that Wray has not followed his suggestions… The likelihood of Trump firing top officials he’s been frustrated with or feels betrayed by is expected to increase over the holidays, the current and former officials said.
White House lawyers supposedly worried that if Wray were canned after James Comey it might lead people to believe that Trump was imposing a political “loyalty test” on the quasi-independent office of FBI director. Which … is exactly what Trump’s doing, of course, not just with the FBI but with everyone and everything. Every demand he makes of an underling or a Republican politician, no matter how outlandish, is ultimately a loyalty test of some sort. According to Comey, he explicitly asked for “loyalty” at their now famous private dinner in 2017.
The part about him becoming more likely to fire people over the holidays, as he broods during his down time about his election defeat and the people who wronged him, made me laugh because it’s so obviously true. Haspel has reportedly even begun clearing out her office at the CIA in the expectation that she’ll be axed without notice at some point before January 20. Imagine firing the head of foreign intelligence, Haspel, and the head of domestic intelligence, Wray, essentially on a whim because you’re in a bad mood on Christmas or New Year’s Eve. That’s the situation Trump’s aides and the country are facing right now. “I wouldn’t take anything off the table in coming weeks,” said one senior administration official about who might be fired or pardoned as POTUS lashes out on his way to exit. The finale of this gonzo four-year reality show should be action-packed.
Here’s Lindsey Graham making the case today for a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. Ultimately I don’t think it’ll matter; Biden won’t nuke his entire “return to norms” message by meddling to extinguish the prosecution of his son even if no special counsel is appointed. Although I wouldn’t rule out a 2024 pardon…


hotair--2020-12-16--CNN: Biden's pick at DHS has more alleged corruption to explain than just Clinton pardon

Remember Alejandro Mayorkas ?
Joe Biden ’ s decision to appoint him as Secretary of Homeland Security has already raised eyebrows , given his role in securing a presidential pardon from Bill Clinton of a politically connected drug dealer .
Senate Republicans already have their pencils sharpened for the confirmation hearings over the Carlos Vignali deal , not just with Mayorkas at DHS but also Xavier Becerra at Health and Human Services .
That ’ s not the only corruption concern with Mayorkas , CNN reported yesterday .
During his time in the Obama administration as US Customs and Immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the target of an investigation into favoritism and possible corruption .
It ’ s an echo of the same issues that led to the Vignali pardon : Mayorkas is no stranger to the department , where he was known for connecting personally with staff .
Under former President Barack Obama , Mayorkas served as both the DHS deputy secretary and the director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services , an immigration agency within the department .
Prior to joining the Department of Homeland Security , Mayorkas was also a US attorney in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his actions while in those positions have recently resurfaced and could be a factor in his Senate confirmation hearing .
During his time at USCIS , for example , Mayorkas was accused of “ giving special access and treatment ” to wealthy foreign investors with ties to politically connected people , according to a watchdog report that cited concerns from more than a dozen employees .
The DHS inspector general was unable to determine Mayorkas ’ motives for his actions and found each of the decisions was “ legitimately within his purview.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EB-5 visa program .
That actually underplays what the inspector general found .
In his fact check of Sen. Tom Cotton ’ s overstatement of the case against Mayorkas , Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler reminds everyone that the IG dug up some very questionable actions from Mayorkas at USCIS : In the case of Mayorkas , the inspector general began an investigation after receiving a whistleblower complaint in 2012 .
The report said that Mayorkas intervened in an administrative appeal involving McAuliffe ’ s car company in 2011 ; expedited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal in 2013 , while taking the “ extraordinary step ” of requiring DHS staff to brief Reid ’ s staff on a weekly basis for several months ; and ordered the reversal of the USCIS decision to deny funding of movie projects in 2013 after he was in contact with Rendell .
“ In each of these three instances , but for Mr. Mayorkas ’ intervention , the matter would have been decided differently , ” John Roth , the inspector general , said in congressional testimony after the report was issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayorkas ’ s actions created in the agency .
“ The number and variety of witnesses was , in our experience , highly unusual , ” he said .
“ Each conveyed the same factual scenario : Certain applicants and stakeholders received preferential access to DHS leadership and preferential treatment in the manner in which their application or petition was handled.
” Mayorkas ’ s intervention in these three cases was especially striking because , the report noted , the EB-5 program has hundreds of regional centers to promote economic growth and during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 700 applications .
Roth said the cases stood out because “ we found a number of instances in which Mr. Mayorkas declined to become involved in certain matters , stating that he did not think it would be appropriate for the director to do so.
” The McAuliffe in this story is Terry McAuliffe , whose GreenTech car company got tangled up in an alleged visas-for-cash scheme reportedly involving Mayorkas , as well as Hillary Clinton ’ s brother Tony Rodham .
Rodham , readers will recall , was also involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2013 when Obama attempted to elevate Mayorkas to the deputy secretary position at DHS .
The alleged scheme came to light when McAuliffe made the monumental mistake of suing Watchdog.org for reporting on it , and they gleefully connected the dots at that time : Gulf Coast , which is headed by Anthony Rodham , Hillary Rodham Clinton ’ s younger brother , is a funding arm of GreenTech Automotive .
Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe was company chairman until April , when the company abruptly announced that he had resigned four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owner .
The financial and political links between the two ventures has been the subject of a series of investigative articles by Watchdog.org over the past eight months .
In April , GreenTech filed an $ 85 million lawsuit against Watchdog.org , alleging libel and saying the news organization ’ s reporting jeopardized millions of dollars in investments .
An email obtained by the AP said the primary complaint against Mayorkas was that he helped Gulf Coast win approval for an investor visa after the application was denied and an appeal was rejected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DHS Inspector General ’ s Office , the investigation of the investor visa program also includes allegations that other USCIS Office of General Counsel officials obstructed an audit of the visa program by the Securities and Exchange Commission .
The email did not name any specific official from the general counsel ’ s office .
That is apparently what prompted the IG probe .
Mayorkas didn ’ t exactly come out of it smelling like a rose , even if he didn ’ t stink quite as badly as Cotton alleged last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but only on a straight party-line vote while Democrats controlled the Senate .
That will not likely be the case in January , when Mayorkas comes up for the top job .
His roles in this pay-for-play setup and the equally scummy Vignali pardon will get lots of scrutiny from Senate Republicans whether they control the upper chamber or not .
In fact , if they do control it , Mitch McConnell should consider putting the hearings in prime time so as to feature the Clinton-era baggage that Biden ’ s bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gift-wrapped for both the GOP and the progressives across the aisle to demonstrate the moral vacuum within the Biden administration in not one but at least two key Cabinet posts .
Is anyone in the transition bothering to vet these Cabinet candidates at all ?

Remember Alejandro Mayorkas? Joe Biden’s decision to appoint him as Secretary of Homeland Security has already raised eyebrows, given his role in securing a presidential pardon from Bill Clinton of a politically connected drug dealer. Senate Republicans already have their pencils sharpened for the confirmation hearings over the Carlos Vignali deal, not just with Mayorkas at DHS but also Xavier Becerra at Health and Human Services.
That’s not the only corruption concern with Mayorkas, CNN reported yesterday. During his time in the Obama administration as US Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS), Mayorkas was the target of an investigation into favoritism and possible corruption. It’s an echo of the same issues that led to the Vignali pardon:
Mayorkas is no stranger to the department, where he was known for connecting personally with staff. Under former President Barack Obama, Mayorkas served as both the DHS deputy secretary and the director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, an immigration agency within the department. Prior to joining the Department of Homeland Security, Mayorkas was also a US attorney in the Central District of California. Some of his actions while in those positions have recently resurfaced and could be a factor in his Senate confirmation hearing. During his time at USCIS, for example, Mayorkas was accused of “giving special access and treatment” to wealthy foreign investors with ties to politically connected people, according to a watchdog report that cited concerns from more than a dozen employees. The DHS inspector general was unable to determine Mayorkas’ motives for his actions and found each of the decisions was “legitimately within his purview.” He had wide discretion in overseeing the EB-5 visa program.
That actually underplays what the inspector general found. In his fact check of Sen. Tom Cotton’s overstatement of the case against Mayorkas, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler reminds everyone that the IG dug up some very questionable actions from Mayorkas at USCIS:
In the case of Mayorkas, the inspector general began an investigation after receiving a whistleblower complaint in 2012. The report said that Mayorkas intervened in an administrative appeal involving McAuliffe’s car company in 2011; expedited review of investor petitions in the casino deal in 2013, while taking the “extraordinary step” of requiring DHS staff to brief Reid’s staff on a weekly basis for several months; and ordered the reversal of the USCIS decision to deny funding of movie projects in 2013 after he was in contact with Rendell. “In each of these three instances, but for Mr. Mayorkas’ intervention, the matter would have been decided differently,” John Roth, the inspector general, said in congressional testimony after the report was issued. Roth detailed the significant resentment that Mayorkas’s actions created in the agency. “The number and variety of witnesses was, in our experience, highly unusual,” he said. “Each conveyed the same factual scenario: Certain applicants and stakeholders received preferential access to DHS leadership and preferential treatment in the manner in which their application or petition was handled.” Mayorkas’s intervention in these three cases was especially striking because, the report noted, the EB-5 program has hundreds of regional centers to promote economic growth and during the period in question had received more than 700 applications. Roth said the cases stood out because “we found a number of instances in which Mr. Mayorkas declined to become involved in certain matters, stating that he did not think it would be appropriate for the director to do so.”
The McAuliffe in this story is Terry McAuliffe, whose GreenTech car company got tangled up in an alleged visas-for-cash scheme reportedly involving Mayorkas, as well as Hillary Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham. Rodham, readers will recall, was also involved in the Vignali pardon. This scandal emerged in 2013 when Obama attempted to elevate Mayorkas to the deputy secretary position at DHS. The alleged scheme came to light when McAuliffe made the monumental mistake of suing Watchdog.org for reporting on it, and they gleefully connected the dots at that time:
Gulf Coast, which is headed by Anthony Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s younger brother, is a funding arm of GreenTech Automotive. Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe was company chairman until April, when the company abruptly announced that he had resigned four months before. He is still an owner. The financial and political links between the two ventures has been the subject of a series of investigative articles by Watchdog.org over the past eight months. In April, GreenTech filed an $85 million lawsuit against Watchdog.org, alleging libel and saying the news organization’s reporting jeopardized millions of dollars in investments. An email obtained by the AP said the primary complaint against Mayorkas was that he helped Gulf Coast win approval for an investor visa after the application was denied and an appeal was rejected. According to the email from the DHS Inspector General’s Office, the investigation of the investor visa program also includes allegations that other USCIS Office of General Counsel officials obstructed an audit of the visa program by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The email did not name any specific official from the general counsel’s office.
That is apparently what prompted the IG probe. Mayorkas didn’t exactly come out of it smelling like a rose, even if he didn’t stink quite as badly as Cotton alleged last week. Mayorkas ended up getting confirmed anyway, but only on a straight party-line vote while Democrats controlled the Senate.
That will not likely be the case in January, when Mayorkas comes up for the top job. His roles in this pay-for-play setup and the equally scummy Vignali pardon will get lots of scrutiny from Senate Republicans whether they control the upper chamber or not. In fact, if they do control it, Mitch McConnell should consider putting the hearings in prime time so as to feature the Clinton-era baggage that Biden’s bringing back into Washington. This is practically gift-wrapped for both the GOP and the progressives across the aisle to demonstrate the moral vacuum within the Biden administration in not one but at least two key Cabinet posts.
Is anyone in the transition bothering to vet these Cabinet candidates at all?


hotair--2020-12-16--AOC: Pelosi must go -- but there's no one to take her place

She ’ s wrong about so many things .
So very , very many .
But not everything .
The news value in this critique is simply that it ’ s AOC making it , not the substance of the critique itself .
For years now , House Democrats have grumbled sotto voce to reporters about the stranglehold on leadership maintained by the geriatrics in their caucus .
It ’ s been Nancy , Steny Hoyer , and James Clyburn at the top for ages , leaving ambitious next-gen backbenchers with few opportunities to learn the ropes of how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone like Cedric Richmond for bailing out of Pelosistan , knowing his path to the top is blocked , and taking a job with the Biden White House instead ?
Who would fault Ben Ray Lujan , a potential Speaker of the House , for throwing in the towel and running for Senate instead ?
It ’ d be bad enough if the Dem House caucus was a monarchy , with everyone waiting around for decades for Pelosi to give up the throne .
But in light of the immense power that leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s really more of a dictatorship .
No wonder rank-and-file members of the House spend so much time fundraising .
What else do they have to do with their time except wait for Pelosi to airdrop some new bill onto the House floor and then be asked to give thumbs up or down ?
AOC ’ s had enough , understandably .
The wrinkle is that , because Pelosi has ruled for ages , no one in the caucus has developed the skills to succeed her .
What do they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ocasio-Cortez argued that there are no viable alternatives for House or Senate leadership at the moment because the caucus ’ s current leaders spent a number of years concentrating power without any “ real grooming of a next generation of leadership.
” “ A lot of this is not just about these two personalities , but also about the structural shifts that these two personalities have led in their time in leadership , ” Ocasio-Cortez said .
“ The structural shifts of power in the House , both in process and rule , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both parties , frankly , but in Democratic Party leadership to such a degree that an individual member has far less power than they did 30 , 40 , 50 years ago.
” This dynamic is what pushes the “ really talented members of Congress that do come along ” to leave or run for statewide office instead .
But Pelosi has also indicated that this upcoming term could be her last , “ and the left isn ’ t really making a plan for that either , ” Ocasio-Cortez added .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s something that we really need to think about.
” She ’ s not angling to replace Pelosi herself .
( “ The House is extraordinarily complex and I ’ m not ready.
” ) For one thing , a 31-year-old who ’ ll be in her second term next year isn ’ t about to leapfrog colleagues who ’ ve been there for decades , patiently waiting for the queen to abdicate .
For another , she ’ s too far left .
We just got through an election , you may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate and nearly took back the House thanks to high-profile left-wing messaging about socialism and defunding the police scaring the hell out of voters .
Making AOC Speaker , knowing how that would play in swing districts , would amount to mass political suicide by the House Dems who chose her .
Note what she says too about the “ structural shifts of power in the House.
” Members of both parties have complained about that for years .
The way Congress is supposed to work is that a bill comes to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendments are offered by members , bargains are struck , and the final product is a glorious messy compromise that everyone can grudgingly live with .
The way it actually works is that the Speaker negotiates with Senate leaders on something that she believes can pass and then that bill comes to the floor in take-it-or-leave-it fashion , with members expected to rubber-stamp it .
We ’ re seeing this play out right now with the interminable COVID stimulus negotiations .
The most leverage a member can exercise over the final product is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t support a bill that lacks a certain provision — as AOC did last night — and let the Speaker factor that into her vote-tallying .
Justin Amash has grumbled about this on the right and did so again last night in responding to Ocasio-Cortez : Amash is retiring and AOC has toyed with retiring .
It ’ s no fun living in a dictatorship .
By the way , in this same interview she called it “ horrible ” that Biden is stocking his cabinet with Obama-era retreads .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remember is that we now have a Biden administration that ’ s bringing back a lot of Obama appointees , but when Obama was making appointments , he was bringing back a lot of Clinton appointees , ” she told The Intercept , correctly .
A WaPo analysis published over the weekend found that around 80 percent of nominees announced by Biden so far have an Obama credential somewhere on the resume .
And while Biden ’ s nominated a number of women and minorities , they too have tended to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s the same problem as in Pelosi ’ s caucus : Where do younger Democrats go to shape policy if they ’ re locked out of influence in the House and they ’ re locked out of influence in the White House ?
“ We can not move forward in a new direction with just the same people including some of the people who are responsible for the mess we are in , ” said Evan Weber , the political director of the Sunrise Movement , a liberal group focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to see more young progressives in roles in the Biden administration.
” … “ There ’ s more appointments of color , but there is a lot of same old , same old , ” said Sayu Bhojwani , a pro-immigration activist and president of New American Leaders , a group that pushes for more diversity among elected leaders .
“ Having voices of color who have kind of grown up in a system that wasn ’ t built for people of color means that we ’ re not going to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get people who are risk averse because they know the system.
” Biden ’ s doing his best to satisfy all constituencies in terms of meeting racial and gender quotas although it ’ s ultimately an impossible task .
“ There were no people of color among those announced as Biden ’ s chief of staff , deputy chief of staff , communications director , press secretary , or legislative affairs director , ” Politico noted on Monday .
But his big vulnerability has been and remains the dearth of loud-and-proud progressives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor secretary coveted by Bernie Sanders could be his solution to that problem .
I wonder if the public carping by lefties like AOC about his cabinet picks is really just a way to put pressure on him to nominate Bernie .
Stay tuned .

She’s wrong about so many things. So very, very many.
But not everything.
The news value in this critique is simply that it’s AOC making it, not the substance of the critique itself. For years now, House Democrats have grumbled sotto voce to reporters about the stranglehold on leadership maintained by the geriatrics in their caucus. It’s been Nancy, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn at the top for ages, leaving ambitious next-gen backbenchers with few opportunities to learn the ropes of how to manage a caucus. Who can blame someone like Cedric Richmond for bailing out of Pelosistan, knowing his path to the top is blocked, and taking a job with the Biden White House instead? Who would fault Ben Ray Lujan, a potential Speaker of the House, for throwing in the towel and running for Senate instead?
It’d be bad enough if the Dem House caucus was a monarchy, with everyone waiting around for decades for Pelosi to give up the throne. But in light of the immense power that leaders of both caucuses wield over legislation, it’s really more of a dictatorship. No wonder rank-and-file members of the House spend so much time fundraising. What else do they have to do with their time except wait for Pelosi to airdrop some new bill onto the House floor and then be asked to give thumbs up or down?
AOC’s had enough, understandably. The wrinkle is that, because Pelosi has ruled for ages, no one in the caucus has developed the skills to succeed her. What do they do in 2023 when she steps down?
Ocasio-Cortez argued that there are no viable alternatives for House or Senate leadership at the moment because the caucus’s current leaders spent a number of years concentrating power without any “real grooming of a next generation of leadership.” “A lot of this is not just about these two personalities, but also about the structural shifts that these two personalities have led in their time in leadership,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “The structural shifts of power in the House, both in process and rule, to concentrate power in party leadership of both parties, frankly, but in Democratic Party leadership to such a degree that an individual member has far less power than they did 30, 40, 50 years ago.” This dynamic is what pushes the “really talented members of Congress that do come along” to leave or run for statewide office instead. But Pelosi has also indicated that this upcoming term could be her last, “and the left isn’t really making a plan for that either,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “So I do think that it’s something that we really need to think about.”
She’s not angling to replace Pelosi herself. (“The House is extraordinarily complex and I’m not ready.”) For one thing, a 31-year-old who’ll be in her second term next year isn’t about to leapfrog colleagues who’ve been there for decades, patiently waiting for the queen to abdicate. For another, she’s too far left. We just got through an election, you may recall, in which Republicans held the Senate and nearly took back the House thanks to high-profile left-wing messaging about socialism and defunding the police scaring the hell out of voters. Making AOC Speaker, knowing how that would play in swing districts, would amount to mass political suicide by the House Dems who chose her.
Note what she says too about the “structural shifts of power in the House.” Members of both parties have complained about that for years. The way Congress is supposed to work is that a bill comes to the floor, it’s debated, amendments are offered by members, bargains are struck, and the final product is a glorious messy compromise that everyone can grudgingly live with. The way it actually works is that the Speaker negotiates with Senate leaders on something that she believes can pass and then that bill comes to the floor in take-it-or-leave-it fashion, with members expected to rubber-stamp it. We’re seeing this play out right now with the interminable COVID stimulus negotiations. The most leverage a member can exercise over the final product is to inform the Speaker that they won’t support a bill that lacks a certain provision — as AOC did last night — and let the Speaker factor that into her vote-tallying. Justin Amash has grumbled about this on the right and did so again last night in responding to Ocasio-Cortez:
Imagine if leaders would just let us take votes on various amendments as though we were an actual legislature. You’d have some ideas. I’d have some. Others would have some. And then the House—and ultimately Congress—would come to some consensus through a representative process. — Justin Amash (@justinamash) December 16, 2020
Amash is retiring and AOC has toyed with retiring. It’s no fun living in a dictatorship.
By the way, in this same interview she called it “horrible” that Biden is stocking his cabinet with Obama-era retreads. “I think what a lot of people fail to remember is that we now have a Biden administration that’s bringing back a lot of Obama appointees, but when Obama was making appointments, he was bringing back a lot of Clinton appointees,” she told The Intercept, correctly. A WaPo analysis published over the weekend found that around 80 percent of nominees announced by Biden so far have an Obama credential somewhere on the resume. And while Biden’s nominated a number of women and minorities, they too have tended to be older and alumni of the Obama administration. It’s the same problem as in Pelosi’s caucus: Where do younger Democrats go to shape policy if they’re locked out of influence in the House and they’re locked out of influence in the White House?
“We cannot move forward in a new direction with just the same people including some of the people who are responsible for the mess we are in,” said Evan Weber, the political director of the Sunrise Movement, a liberal group focused on climate issues. “We would like to see more young progressives in roles in the Biden administration.”… “There’s more appointments of color, but there is a lot of same old, same old,” said Sayu Bhojwani, a pro-immigration activist and president of New American Leaders, a group that pushes for more diversity among elected leaders. “Having voices of color who have kind of grown up in a system that wasn’t built for people of color means that we’re not going to get innovation and we’re going to get people who are risk averse because they know the system.”
Biden’s doing his best to satisfy all constituencies in terms of meeting racial and gender quotas although it’s ultimately an impossible task. “There were no people of color among those announced as Biden’s chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, communications director, press secretary, or legislative affairs director,” Politico noted on Monday. But his big vulnerability has been and remains the dearth of loud-and-proud progressives in his inner circle. The position of labor secretary coveted by Bernie Sanders could be his solution to that problem. I wonder if the public carping by lefties like AOC about his cabinet picks is really just a way to put pressure on him to nominate Bernie. Stay tuned.


hotair--2020-12-16--Biden deputy chief of staff: Healing and bipartisanship means working with the "bunch of f****rs" on

Biden deputy chief of staff: Healing and bipartisanship means working with the "bunch of f****rs" on the other side of the aisle

Give Jen O ’ Malley Dillon full credit for honesty , at least , if not for class and decorum .
When hasn ’ t bipartisanship and compromise meant working with “ a bunch of f****rs ” in the other party ?
It ’ s practically the dictionary definition in the Beltway .
Joe Biden ’ s incoming deputy chief of staff is only offering a vulgar version of what everyone already knows .
Usually , though , that ’ s the attitude an administration makes public only after it ’ s been around a couple of years .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to paint itself as the Bearer of All Reasonable Sweetness and Light .
And in O ’ Malley Dillon ’ s interview with Glamour Magazine , she actually started off well enough : Like Joe Biden says all the time , “ Great leadership starts with listening.
” It ’ s challenging for us to do that right now , because of how polarized we are .
But politics breaks down to one-on-one conversations and not being afraid to talk .
I get that you ’ re not supposed to talk politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuck that .
It ’ s because we don ’ t do that that we are in this situation now .
I also think , as in love , compromise is a good thing .
The atmosphere in the world now is like , “ Oh , if you compromise , you don ’ t believe in something.
” No , it ’ s : I believe in it so much that I ’ m going to work to find a path we can both go down together .
That feels to me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and success across the board .
Awwwwwwww .
Love and success !
And , er … well … That might be what we ’ re missing—is that redefining of compromise .
That it is or it can be the ultimate victory .
Yes , exactly .
And frankly , that ’ s what we need .
The president-elect was able to connect with people over this sense of unity .
In the primary , people would mock him , like , “ You think you can work with Republicans ?
” I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bunch of fuckers .
Mitch McConnell is terrible .
But this sense that you couldn ’ t wish for that , you couldn ’ t wish for this bipartisan ideal ?
He rejected that .
From start to finish , he set out with this idea that unity was possible , that together we are stronger , that we , as a country , need healing , and our politics needs that too .
So let ’ s get this straight .
The message from the incoming White House is … Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , everyone in the other party is a “ bunch of f****rs ” !
Sounds pretty much like the Obama administration ’ s attitude , right ?
Plus ça change , plus ce la même chose .
Barack Obama and his team were just a little smarter about it , at least at first … but only at first : Can you feel all the healing ?
David Harsanyi can !
Twitchy has more reaction to this find from Politico ’ s Alex Thompson , but no one ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriously disputing O ’ Malley Dillon ’ s take either .
Will compromise be tough to find ?
Sure , but that ’ s not because the “ f****rs ” are all on one side of the aisle .
In fact , there ’ s a high likelihood of an even distribution of them , a point that perhaps O ’ Malley Dillon should concede if she really does want compromise .
And if McConnell ’ s office doesn ’ t have a graphic up by tomorrow celebrating his status as “ Mitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eat my hat .

Give Jen O’Malley Dillon full credit for honesty, at least, if not for class and decorum. When hasn’t bipartisanship and compromise meant working with “a bunch of f****rs” in the other party? It’s practically the dictionary definition in the Beltway. Joe Biden’s incoming deputy chief of staff is only offering a vulgar version of what everyone already knows.
Usually, though, that’s the attitude an administration makes public only after it’s been around a couple of years. When they first arrive, a new administration wants to paint itself as the Bearer of All Reasonable Sweetness and Light. And in O’Malley Dillon’s interview with Glamour Magazine, she actually started off well enough:
Like Joe Biden says all the time, “Great leadership starts with listening.” It’s challenging for us to do that right now, because of how polarized we are. But politics breaks down to one-on-one conversations and not being afraid to talk. I get that you’re not supposed to talk politics at the holiday dinner. Well, fuck that. It’s because we don’t do that that we are in this situation now. I also think, as in love, compromise is a good thing. The atmosphere in the world now is like, “Oh, if you compromise, you don’t believe in something.” No, it’s: I believe in it so much that I’m going to work to find a path we can both go down together. That feels to me like the heart of relationships and love and success across the board.
Awwwwwwww. Love and success! And, er … well …
That might be what we’re missing—is that redefining of compromise. That it is or it can be the ultimate victory. Yes, exactly. And frankly, that’s what we need. The president-elect was able to connect with people over this sense of unity. In the primary, people would mock him, like, “You think you can work with Republicans?” I’m not saying they’re not a bunch of fuckers. Mitch McConnell is terrible. But this sense that you couldn’t wish for that, you couldn’t wish for this bipartisan ideal? He rejected that. From start to finish, he set out with this idea that unity was possible, that together we are stronger, that we, as a country, need healing, and our politics needs that too.
So let’s get this straight. The message from the incoming White House is … Our country needs healing! And at the same time, everyone in the other party is a “bunch of f****rs”!
Sounds pretty much like the Obama administration’s attitude, right? Plus ça change, plus ce la même chose. Barack Obama and his team were just a little smarter about it, at least at first … but only at first:
Is it new, though? Obama in 2012 called conservatism a « fever » to break or « blister » to pop. GOP in 2020 said Biden would ban Christmas and destroy America. But negotiations continued. https://t.co/XKMWKfxDGR — Olivier Knox (@OKnox) December 16, 2020
Can you feel all the healing? David Harsanyi can!
The healing is palpable. https://t.co/meytuYzmSE — David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) December 16, 2020
Twitchy has more reaction to this find from Politico’s Alex Thompson, but no one’s really surprised, and no one’s seriously disputing O’Malley Dillon’s take either. Will compromise be tough to find? Sure, but that’s not because the “f****rs” are all on one side of the aisle. In fact, there’s a high likelihood of an even distribution of them, a point that perhaps O’Malley Dillon should concede if she really does want compromise.
And if McConnell’s office doesn’t have a graphic up by tomorrow celebrating his status as “Mitch the Terrible,” I’ll eat my hat.