hotair--2020-12-23--Great moments in media balance: Atlanta Journal-Constitution sums up Georgia runoff

We see lots of examples of media bias against conservatives , especially in campaign coverage .
Having an outlet provide such a clear side-by-side example of it for its consumers , however , is pretty rare .
Fox News editor David Rutz shared today ’ s Atlanta Journal-Constitution coverage of the Georgia special election runoff on Twitter , and it ’ s a picture perfect example of the balance conservatives and Republicans can expect from the mainstream media .
In fact , this isn ’ t even the worst of it , but we ’ ll save that for later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler is “ losing moderate image , ” while “ Warnock endures attacks ” ?
Warnock has defended radicals like Louis Farrakhan , Jeremiah Wright , and even Fidel Castro , but it ’ s Loeffler that has an issue with moderate credibility and is tracking toward extremism ?
Yes , that ’ s certainly a balanced way for a supposedly neutral media outlet to frame the runoff election with less than two weeks to go — and in the middle of early voting , to boot .
So what could make this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but even that ’ s not equal .
The Loeffler profile has an “ updated ” tag for December 20th , this past Sunday , although there isn ’ t any indication when it first ran .
The Warnock profile has a date of … October 7th .
This turns out to be absolutely false , as the entire victim-lamenting lead focuses on the GOP ’ s oppo research since the end of the November 3rd general election , but there ’ s no way of knowing when it was last updated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus to set up the criticisms , an approach that the Loeffler profile eschews .
Here ’ s their first four paragraphs about Loeffler : When U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler took to the makeshift stage at an upscale restaurant in Peachtree Corners , she might as well have channeled President Donald Trump .
She promoted her private-sector business record , tore into Democrats and then spun right into repeating some of the president ’ s greatest hits .
“ I ’ ve been attacked — but do you know why ?
” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t owe anyone in Washington anything .
The swamp , the career politicians and the fake news , they despise strong conservative women .
I don ’ t owe them anything .
I ’ m only here working for you.
” This sort of red-meat pro-Trump speech in the heart of one of Georgia ’ s most competitive territories wasn ’ t exactly how the state ’ s political class envisioned the race a few months ago .
And here ’ s the first five on Warnock : The Rev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run for a political office — knew the hits were coming .
So just days after he had secured the most votes in a contentious 21-candidate race for the U.S. Senate , winning a spot in the Jan. 5 runoff against well-financed Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler , Warnock released an attack ad — against himself .
The effete way he eats pizza with a knife and fork .
It was funny and deeply ironic .
But it offered a warning to Warnock ’ s supporters and people in the middle that Loeffler was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m just spitballing here — it shows that Warnock was well aware of his radical , hard-left rhetoric and support for Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan , and hoped to sucker media outlets into sympathetic coverage with that pre-emptive ad .
If so , it worked .
Brilliantly .
But I doubt that Warnock needed to bother , as the AJC seems very comfortable with its own peculiar sense of “ balance ” in covering elections .

We see lots of examples of media bias against conservatives, especially in campaign coverage. Having an outlet provide such a clear side-by-side example of it for its consumers, however, is pretty rare. Fox News editor David Rutz shared today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution coverage of the Georgia special election runoff on Twitter, and it’s a picture perfect example of the balance conservatives and Republicans can expect from the mainstream media.
In fact, this isn’t even the worst of it, but we’ll save that for later (via Instapundit):
Ajc Metro this morning pic.twitter.com/JsXjSGuniT — David Rutz (@DavidRutz) December 23, 2020
Ahem. Loeffler is “losing moderate image,” while “Warnock endures attacks”? Warnock has defended radicals like Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and even Fidel Castro, but it’s Loeffler that has an issue with moderate credibility and is tracking toward extremism? Yes, that’s certainly a balanced way for a supposedly neutral media outlet to frame the runoff election with less than two weeks to go — and in the middle of early voting, to boot.
So what could make this worse? The two pieces are reruns, but even that’s not equal. The Loeffler profile has an “updated” tag for December 20th, this past Sunday, although there isn’t any indication when it first ran. The Warnock profile has a date of … October 7th. This turns out to be absolutely false, as the entire victim-lamenting lead focuses on the GOP’s oppo research since the end of the November 3rd general election, but there’s no way of knowing when it was last updated.
They certainly gave him a soft focus to set up the criticisms, an approach that the Loeffler profile eschews. Here’s their first four paragraphs about Loeffler:
When U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler took to the makeshift stage at an upscale restaurant in Peachtree Corners, she might as well have channeled President Donald Trump. She promoted her private-sector business record, tore into Democrats and then spun right into repeating some of the president’s greatest hits. “I’ve been attacked — but do you know why?” she asked. “It’s because I don’t owe anyone in Washington anything. The swamp, the career politicians and the fake news, they despise strong conservative women. I don’t owe them anything. I’m only here working for you.” This sort of red-meat pro-Trump speech in the heart of one of Georgia’s most competitive territories wasn’t exactly how the state’s political class envisioned the race a few months ago.
And here’s the first five on Warnock:
The Rev. Raphael Warnock — who had never run for a political office — knew the hits were coming. So just days after he had secured the most votes in a contentious 21-candidate race for the U.S. Senate, winning a spot in the Jan. 5 runoff against well-financed Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler, Warnock released an attack ad — against himself. The effete way he eats pizza with a knife and fork. His hatred of puppies. It was funny and deeply ironic. But it offered a warning to Warnock’s supporters and people in the middle that Loeffler was coming.
Or maybe — and I’m just spitballing here — it shows that Warnock was well aware of his radical, hard-left rhetoric and support for Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, and hoped to sucker media outlets into sympathetic coverage with that pre-emptive ad. If so, it worked. Brilliantly. But I doubt that Warnock needed to bother, as the AJC seems very comfortable with its own peculiar sense of “balance” in covering elections.


hotair--2020-12-23--Why didn't Trump demand $2,000 stimulus checks before the election?

Last night ’ s surprise demand for more generous checks in the new COVID relief package was baffling in a hundred ways but none more so than the timing .
Pelosi and Mnuchin have been negotiating this deal since summer .
At any point Trump could have burst through the wall like Kool-Aid Man and said , “ Oh yeeeeaaaah .
Two grand for everyone.
” Last night , he finally did — seven weeks after losing the election and one day after Congress already , uh , passed a final bill .
Yes , I realize that he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day .
In early October , for instance , he proposed Hawley-esque $ 1,200 payments for everyone .
But he never went to the mat for them the way he did last night with a dramatic video ultimatum .
In fact , for most of the fall he seemed completely checked out of the negotiation process , farming it out to Mnuchin and Mark Meadows while he campaigned ( and battled COVID ) .
If he had thrown down the gauntlet and forced a showdown over $ 2,000 checks in the final weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have won .
He lost Wisconsin , Arizona , and Georgia by something like 45,000 votes combined .
An early visit from Santa Trump leaving big checks under the tree might have flipped those states , creating a 269-269 electoral college tie .
If Nevada had flipped too he would have won outright .
Why the hell didn ’ t he do this before November 3 ?
Pundits of all stripes were mystified as to why he let the Senate GOP boss him around on the one thing that might have boosted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me quote myself on October 6 , the day Trump tweeted that he was giving up on stimulus negotiations ( ! )
: “ The $ 200 gift cards for prescription drugs that the White House is looking to send to seniors is a naked attempt to bribe them with taxpayer money before Election Day .
The [ stimulus ] negotiations with Pelosi are an opportunity to increase that bribe by several orders of magnitude and expand it to a much larger segment of the electorate .
And yet , instead of grabbing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to get it done , he ’ s walking away.
” The supreme irony of last night ’ s demand is that he ’ s been grasping around for conspiracy theories to explain why he lost the election when his protracted inattention to the country ’ s most pressing policy crisis explains it much more neatly .
He didn ’ t get his hands dirty on COVID negotiations until 50 days into his lame-duck tenure , after Congress had finally , finally , finally come to an agreement .
Why didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What on earth was he thinking ?
Why he didn ’ t act sooner to help himself is half the mystery .
Why he acted last night , surely knowing how badly it would hurt Senate Republicans , is the other half .
This is a Category Five clusterfark for Mitch McConnell since it puts the president on the side of Pelosi and the Democrats in demanding checks that Cocaine Mitch ’ s caucus doesn ’ t want to approve .
They ’ re screwed now no matter what they do .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand for more money then the deal falls apart , no aid goes out to desperately hurting Americans , and Republicans get all the blame .
If the Senate GOP grudgingly agrees to Trump ’ s demand then the big show they ’ re putting on about being deficit hawks again as Biden prepares to take office will be exposed for the fraud that is — by the leader of their own party .
Did I neglect to mention that there ’ s an election coming up in Georgia that ’ ll determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is now momentarily aligned with Democrats against the McConnell-backed Republicans ?
Pelosi is so excited about Trump ’ s proposal that she ’ s going to bring it to the floor on Christmas Eve during a pro forma session of the House and offer it for unanimous consent , creating a no-win situation for Republicans .
Any House GOPer can block it by objecting , but doing so would mean ( a ) you ’ re against the president ’ s idea and ( b ) you ’ re inviting voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the other hand , if no House Republican objects , that means the $ 2,000 check proposal advances to the Senate and lands like a flaming bag of sh*t on McConnell ’ s doorstep .
Then it becomes his problem to convince his caucus of pretend “ fiscal conservatives ” to either bite the bullet and pass it or go to war with Trump to block it — again , knowing that voters will blame them for doing so .
Did I also neglect to mention that , because the COVID package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government funding for the next nine months , this is all happening with a shutdown looming ?
McConnell thought he had dodged that bullet when he and Pelosi finally made a deal .
Now here ’ s Trump grabbing the gun and firing another bullet right at the Senate GOP ’ s heart .
Is it even true that Congress can override his veto and pass the bill as is ?
They have the votes to do it — I think .
( The bill passed both chambers with far more than two-thirds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has signaled his opposition . )
The problem isn ’ t mustering the votes in this case , it ’ s the timing .
Chad Pergram of Fox News pointed out last night that this term of Congress ends on January 3 .
In theory , Trump could run out the clock on the session by executing a “ pocket veto , ” i.e .
neither signing nor vetoing the bill within 10 days after it ’ s presented to him .
In this case , because the session will end before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe it would mean that the bill would expire and would have to be re-passed by the new Congress in January .
Then Trump could run off another 10 days or formally veto that one ( or sign it , of course ) , and then the new Congress could attempt an override .
But that means forcing Americans to go without aid for several more weeks until this gets hashed out , just when it seemed like Congress was finally about to help .
And it also creates uncertainty in that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor , members of the new Congress may want other things added to or subtracted from it that could end up jeopardizing the deal .
Imagine the first week of January with all of that happening : WaPo spoke to one administration official last night about all of this .
How did they feel about the president blowing up COVID relief at 11:59 on the legislative clock ?
“ So dumb , ” he said .
“ So , so dumb.
” Democrats don ’ t have to lift a finger ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As for the rest of the president ’ s complaints about the bill in the video he posted , all of which had to do with the government funding portion rather than the COVID relief part , that ’ s hard to understand too : One way he could avoid a crisis would be to sign the bill as-is and then demand an additional bill for a new round of $ 1,400 checks .
Combined with the $ 600 checks in the current one , that would get him to $ 2,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , is that Senate Republicans would have no incentive to cooperate with him on further checks .
All of the leverage he has over them at the moment stems from the dire consequences that would result if the current bill doesn ’ t become law .
Once that leverage is gone , the Senate GOP can shrug him off in the knowledge that he ’ ll be out of office in a matter of weeks .
*If* he ’ s serious about getting to $ 2,000 then he has to be willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one for which he and especially the legislators in his own party will be blamed .
Which brings us to the big question .
Why ’ d he do it ?
Why , with weeks to go and many months of quiescence about the stimulus negotiations under his belt , did he finally do the Kool-Aid Man thing last night ?
My guess is that it ’ s another case of him being influenced by whichever media and advisors have been in his ear most recently .
He ’ s probably been reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid in the bill and didn ’ t realize that his own budget plan called for much of that foreign aid .
And maybe he ’ s hearing from the likes of Josh Hawley and other populists that $ 600 checks are a meager amount and that he should do better to show that he ’ s looking out for working-class Americans .
A nice thought , but one that would have been much nicer for everyone in October .
But I wonder if what cinched this for him was his realization of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate GOP .
He ’ s already declared war on the caucus leadership and is planning to declare war on the backbenchers on January 6 after they vote to certify Biden ’ s victory .
As his anxiety over losing the election rises , he ’ s probably never felt less secure about the “ loyalty ” of establishment Republicans than he does right now and is searching for new and ever more draconian ways to test that loyalty .
Daring them to override his veto of the defense bill is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a momentous one .
But blowing up their stimulus deal and then telling them , “ Whaddaya gon na do about it ?
” , is another .
He may have done it just to see what would happen if he made an outlandish last-second demand like tripling ( more than tripling , actually ) the amount in the checks provided for in the bill .
Will McConnell and the rest kneel before Zod and do what he wants or will they show more “ disloyalty ” ?
If they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more reason for MAGA fans to hate them .
Trump wants a war with the party to punish them for not backing him up on election fraud and this may be one of the early battles in it .
Update : Exactly my point in the last paragraph :

Last night’s surprise demand for more generous checks in the new COVID relief package was baffling in a hundred ways but none more so than the timing. Pelosi and Mnuchin have been negotiating this deal since summer. At any point Trump could have burst through the wall like Kool-Aid Man and said, “Oh yeeeeaaaah. Two grand for everyone.” Last night, he finally did — seven weeks after losing the election and one day after Congress already, uh, passed a final bill.
What?
Yes, I realize that he did sporadically call for beefier checks before Election Day. In early October, for instance, he proposed Hawley-esque $1,200 payments for everyone. But he never went to the mat for them the way he did last night with a dramatic video ultimatum. In fact, for most of the fall he seemed completely checked out of the negotiation process, farming it out to Mnuchin and Mark Meadows while he campaigned (and battled COVID). If he had thrown down the gauntlet and forced a showdown over $2,000 checks in the final weeks before the election, he very well might have won. He lost Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia by something like 45,000 votes combined. An early visit from Santa Trump leaving big checks under the tree might have flipped those states, creating a 269-269 electoral college tie. If Nevada had flipped too he would have won outright.
Why the hell didn’t he do this before November 3? Pundits of all stripes were mystified as to why he let the Senate GOP boss him around on the one thing that might have boosted him meaningfully in the polls. Let me quote myself on October 6, the day Trump tweeted that he was giving up on stimulus negotiations(!): “The $200 gift cards for prescription drugs that the White House is looking to send to seniors is a naked attempt to bribe them with taxpayer money before Election Day. The [stimulus] negotiations with Pelosi are an opportunity to increase that bribe by several orders of magnitude and expand it to a much larger segment of the electorate. And yet, instead of grabbing Senate Republicans by the throat and telling them to get it done, he’s walking away.”
The supreme irony of last night’s demand is that he’s been grasping around for conspiracy theories to explain why he lost the election when his protracted inattention to the country’s most pressing policy crisis explains it much more neatly. He didn’t get his hands dirty on COVID negotiations until 50 days into his lame-duck tenure, after Congress had finally, finally, finally come to an agreement. Why didn’t he do that months ago? What on earth was he thinking?
Why he didn’t act sooner to help himself is half the mystery. Why he acted last night, surely knowing how badly it would hurt Senate Republicans, is the other half. This is a Category Five clusterfark for Mitch McConnell since it puts the president on the side of Pelosi and the Democrats in demanding checks that Cocaine Mitch’s caucus doesn’t want to approve. They’re screwed now no matter what they do. If the Senate GOP refuses Trump’s demand for more money then the deal falls apart, no aid goes out to desperately hurting Americans, and Republicans get all the blame. If the Senate GOP grudgingly agrees to Trump’s demand then the big show they’re putting on about being deficit hawks again as Biden prepares to take office will be exposed for the fraud that is — by the leader of their own party.
Did I neglect to mention that there’s an election coming up in Georgia that’ll determine control of the Senate in which the president is now momentarily aligned with Democrats against the McConnell-backed Republicans?
$2,000 checks now. — Jon Ossoff (@ossoff) December 23, 2020
President Trump may not know it but he just threw Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue under the bus. pic.twitter.com/CWnXbcMaCL — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) December 23, 2020
Pelosi is so excited about Trump’s proposal that she’s going to bring it to the floor on Christmas Eve during a pro forma session of the House and offer it for unanimous consent, creating a no-win situation for Republicans. Any House GOPer can block it by objecting, but doing so would mean (a) you’re against the president’s idea and (b) you’re inviting voters to blame Republicans for thwarting the checks. On the other hand, if no House Republican objects, that means the $2,000 check proposal advances to the Senate and lands like a flaming bag of sh*t on McConnell’s doorstep. Then it becomes his problem to convince his caucus of pretend “fiscal conservatives” to either bite the bullet and pass it or go to war with Trump to block it — again, knowing that voters will blame them for doing so.
Did I also neglect to mention that, because the COVID package is part of the same bill as government funding for the next nine months, this is all happening with a shutdown looming? McConnell thought he had dodged that bullet when he and Pelosi finally made a deal. Now here’s Trump grabbing the gun and firing another bullet right at the Senate GOP’s heart.
We are in the beginnings of a full-blown legislative crisis. It's two days before Christmas. Congress is home. We're in a pandemic. Unemployment insurance runs out on Saturday. Govt shuts down Monday. And the president is suggesting he'll blow up a bipartisan bill to avert this. — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 23, 2020
If Trump vetos this eventually, Congress may be able to override it. that's humiliating for him. if they can't, @JoeBiden will just pick this whole thing up and pass it in January. So Biden will get the credit, and Trump will get none. 4D chess. — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 23, 2020
Is it even true that Congress can override his veto and pass the bill as is? They have the votes to do it — I think. (The bill passed both chambers with far more than two-thirds support but that could change now that Trump has signaled his opposition.) The problem isn’t mustering the votes in this case, it’s the timing. Chad Pergram of Fox News pointed out last night that this term of Congress ends on January 3. In theory, Trump could run out the clock on the session by executing a “pocket veto,” i.e. neither signing nor vetoing the bill within 10 days after it’s presented to him. In this case, because the session will end before the pocket veto takes effect, I believe it would mean that the bill would expire and would have to be re-passed by the new Congress in January. Then Trump could run off another 10 days or formally veto that one (or sign it, of course), and then the new Congress could attempt an override. But that means forcing Americans to go without aid for several more weeks until this gets hashed out, just when it seemed like Congress was finally about to help. And it also creates uncertainty in that, once the bill comes back to the floor, members of the new Congress may want other things added to or subtracted from it that could end up jeopardizing the deal.
Imagine the first week of January with all of that happening:
If Trump did a pocket veto that would mean the government would be shut down from December 28 through the Georgia elections, into the swearings-in, and for the January 6 count of the electoral votes where he wants Republicans to vote to steal the election. — Josh Barro (@jbarro) December 23, 2020
WaPo spoke to one administration official last night about all of this. How did they feel about the president blowing up COVID relief at 11:59 on the legislative clock? “So dumb,” he said. “So, so dumb.” Democrats don’t have to lift a finger; it’s now Trump versus the GOP. As for the rest of the president’s complaints about the bill in the video he posted, all of which had to do with the government funding portion rather than the COVID relief part, that’s hard to understand too:
Good compilation here from @Kevinliptakcnn re: Pres. Trump’s list of objections to the spending package last night vs. Pres. Trump’s own budget requests: pic.twitter.com/x2WfSDSpgy — Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) December 23, 2020
One way he could avoid a crisis would be to sign the bill as-is and then demand an additional bill for a new round of $1,400 checks. Combined with the $600 checks in the current one, that would get him to $2,000. The problem with that approach, though, is that Senate Republicans would have no incentive to cooperate with him on further checks. All of the leverage he has over them at the moment stems from the dire consequences that would result if the current bill doesn’t become law. Once that leverage is gone, the Senate GOP can shrug him off in the knowledge that he’ll be out of office in a matter of weeks. *If* he’s serious about getting to $2,000 then he has to be willing to plunge the country into crisis — one for which he and especially the legislators in his own party will be blamed.
Which brings us to the big question. Why’d he do it? Why, with weeks to go and many months of quiescence about the stimulus negotiations under his belt, did he finally do the Kool-Aid Man thing last night? My guess is that it’s another case of him being influenced by whichever media and advisors have been in his ear most recently. He’s probably been reading online commentary from righties grumbling about foreign aid in the bill and didn’t realize that his own budget plan called for much of that foreign aid. And maybe he’s hearing from the likes of Josh Hawley and other populists that $600 checks are a meager amount and that he should do better to show that he’s looking out for working-class Americans. A nice thought, but one that would have been much nicer for everyone in October.
But I wonder if what cinched this for him was his realization of how badly it would screw McConnell and the Senate GOP. He’s already declared war on the caucus leadership and is planning to declare war on the backbenchers on January 6 after they vote to certify Biden’s victory. As his anxiety over losing the election rises, he’s probably never felt less secure about the “loyalty” of establishment Republicans than he does right now and is searching for new and ever more draconian ways to test that loyalty. Daring them to override his veto of the defense bill is one. The vote on January 6 will be a momentous one. But blowing up their stimulus deal and then telling them, “Whaddaya gonna do about it?”, is another. He may have done it just to see what would happen if he made an outlandish last-second demand like tripling (more than tripling, actually) the amount in the checks provided for in the bill. Will McConnell and the rest kneel before Zod and do what he wants or will they show more “disloyalty”? If they’re disloyal, that’s just one more reason for MAGA fans to hate them. Trump wants a war with the party to punish them for not backing him up on election fraud and this may be one of the early battles in it.
Update: Exactly my point in the last paragraph:


hotair--2020-12-23--NY-22 race down to 3-5 votes with more than a thousand left to review

Earlier this week we learned that a recanvas of votes in three counties had left Republican Claudia Tenney with an unofficial lead of 19 votes .
However , Oneida County had informed Judge DelConte , who is overseeing this circus , that they wouldn ’ t have their recanvas done before Christmas .
But in the past two days , Oneida County has been walking through various challenged ballots and as a result the race is now down to 3-5 votes , though Anthony Brinidisi ’ s sttorney wouldn ’ t say which candidate currently has the lead .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have claimed the lead if they had it so it ’ s probably still Tenney in the lead .
In any case , only about a third of the contested ballots from Oneida County have been reviewed so far .
Not all of the votes they review are being counted and none will be added to the official count until after this process is done .
Oneida County officials and campaign representatives on Monday reviewed 253 contested affidavit ballots .
Of them , 89 or 90 ballots were counted , attorneys said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ though it hadn ’ t yet been determined at about 5 p.m. Tuesday how many would be added to the count .
In addition to the 689 ballots reviewed today and yesterday , 1,797 have yet to be reviewed .
It ’ s worth noting that Tenney , the Republican , won Oneida County narrowly by 1.6 percent .
But with almost 100,000 votes cast in this county , the remaining 1,791 ballots could slightly favor one candidate or the other .
In a race this close that ’ s all it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction .
Judge DelConte expects to finish the recanvas of ballots from Oneida County by next week .
Only then will he make a decision about which ballots will become part of the official count and which will not .
I think the point is to apply a consistent standard across all counties .
CNY Central has a bit more on what ’ s happening inside the courtroom .
In Madison County , at least 90 absentee ballots were challenged by Tenney ’ s team because the timestamp from the BOE marked one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Madison ’ s election commissioner swore under oath saying those ballots arrived on time on Nov. 3 , but they marked them one day late .
Delconte asked her , “ Are you telling me those timestamps on those ballots aren ’ t correct ?
” Mary Egger replied , “ Yes , sir.
” The judge is withholding his ruling on almost every ballot .
Tenney won Madison County by 4 , so counting those ballots would likely help her .
Today the judge and the attorneys will be looking at ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won the former and Brindisi won the latter .
The next Congress officially starts on January 3rd and it looks like NY-22 will not have a certified winner by then .
But who knows .
There have been a lot of surprises in this race so far .
Maybe one of the candidates will still surprise us all and concede the race .

Earlier this week we learned that a recanvas of votes in three counties had left Republican Claudia Tenney with an unofficial lead of 19 votes. However, Oneida County had informed Judge DelConte, who is overseeing this circus, that they wouldn’t have their recanvas done before Christmas. But in the past two days, Oneida County has been walking through various challenged ballots and as a result the race is now down to 3-5 votes, though Anthony Brinidisi’s sttorney wouldn’t say which candidate currently has the lead.
Incumbent Anthony Brindisi (D) and Claudia Tenney (R) are separated by three to five votes, according to an update in court from one of Brindisi’s attorneys.
My guess is Brindisi’s camp would have claimed the lead if they had it so it’s probably still Tenney in the lead. In any case, only about a third of the contested ballots from Oneida County have been reviewed so far. Not all of the votes they review are being counted and none will be added to the official count until after this process is done.
Oneida County officials and campaign representatives on Monday reviewed 253 contested affidavit ballots. Of them, 89 or 90 ballots were counted, attorneys said. Today, they reviewed 436 ballots, though it hadn’t yet been determined at about 5 p.m. Tuesday how many would be added to the count. In addition to the 689 ballots reviewed today and yesterday, 1,797 have yet to be reviewed.
It’s worth noting that Tenney, the Republican, won Oneida County narrowly by 1.6 percent. But with almost 100,000 votes cast in this county, the remaining 1,791 ballots could slightly favor one candidate or the other. In a race this close that’s all it will take is a tiny edge in either direction.
Judge DelConte expects to finish the recanvas of ballots from Oneida County by next week. Only then will he make a decision about which ballots will become part of the official count and which will not. I think the point is to apply a consistent standard across all counties. CNY Central has a bit more on what’s happening inside the courtroom.
In Madison County, at least 90 absentee ballots were challenged by Tenney’s team because the timestamp from the BOE marked one day after the Nov. 3rd deadline. Madison’s election commissioner swore under oath saying those ballots arrived on time on Nov. 3, but they marked them one day late. Delconte asked her, “Are you telling me those timestamps on those ballots aren’t correct?” Mary Egger replied, “Yes, sir.” The judge is withholding his ruling on almost every ballot.
Tenney won Madison County by 4, so counting those ballots would likely help her. Today the judge and the attorneys will be looking at ballots from Chenango and Broome counties. Tenney won the former and Brindisi won the latter.
The next Congress officially starts on January 3rd and it looks like NY-22 will not have a certified winner by then. But who knows. There have been a lot of surprises in this race so far. Maybe one of the candidates will still surprise us all and concede the race.


hotair--2020-12-23--Trump threatens John Thune: Your political career is over

It ’ s been five long years but I think we may have finally arrived at a kumbaya moment for MAGA and Never Trump .
Never Trumpers want to see the GOP establishment burn because of how servile they ’ ve behaved towards the president .
MAGA wants to see the GOP establishment burn because they haven ’ t behaved servile enough .
Now here ’ s POTUS seemingly prepared to torch the party on his way out the door because they haven ’ t done enough to help him pull off a coup .
Seems to me like everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christmas this year .
C ’ mon .
Bring it in here for a hug .
If you missed it , this post from yesterday will explain why he ’ s mad at Thune .
Thune and Mitch McConnell don ’ t want any Republican senators objecting to the electoral college results when Congress meets on January 6 , as that ’ ll force an awkward floor vote for the caucus .
Vote to accept the results and you ’ re a traitor to MAGA .
Vote to reject them and you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thune has been warning people , publicly and privately , that the votes just aren ’ t there in the Senate to reject any state ’ s election results , which means anyone who objects will be forcing a painful floor vote to no end .
Nothing ’ s going to change .
Biden ’ s win will be certified .
The floor vote will achieve zippo except to ensure that sizable blocs of voters across the political spectrum end up pissed off at Senate Republicans for one reason or another .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thune realizes that … that ’ s the point .
Trump and his allies in the House , like Mo Brooks , know how to count .
They understand that they ’ re destined to lose on January 6 .
They ’ re not forcing a floor vote to try to stop Biden ’ s victory , they ’ re doing it to create an enemies list for the president and his fans .
President Donald Trump is plotting a final stand in Congress on Jan. 6 , casting it as the ultimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in power and shutting out anyone who won ’ t get in line… The objections will … force Republicans in Congress to go on record voting to affirm Biden ’ s victory — acknowledging the outcome and likely inflaming Trump ’ s diehard supporters , a crucial GOP faction that has joined the president in denying the election results .
Republican strategists and Trump allies inside and outside Washington said Trump ’ s core supporters will remember how their lawmakers vote on Jan. 6… “ It certainly does put Republicans in a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposing President Trump when most of them have done pretty much everything they can do to support his presidency , ” said a veteran GOP operative .
“ It obviously sets you off into a 2022 cycle where the president and his supporters are going to play a big role in continuing to shape the party and you want to keep everybody under the tent.
” Everybody wins .
MAGA gets a group of Republicans to despise and primary the next time they ’ re up for reelection and Never Trumpers get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never support again .
All thanks to Santa Trump and Tommy Tuberville or whichever other Senate Republican ends up objecting to various states ’ electoral votes .
What more could one ask for from the president in his final month in office ?
He ’ s not just targeting Thune , by the way .
Two days ago , Republican senators received this in their email inboxes from the White House : That ’ s what McConnell got for congratulating Biden on becoming president-elect after the electoral college voted last week .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be said that McConnell would have won comfortably in Kentucky over Amy McGrath whether or not Trump endorsed him .
( Whether he would have won a primary against a Trump-backed challenger is a separate question . )
Note in the graphic that the robocall that supposedly propelled McConnell to victory came when he was already ahead of McGrath by double digits in the polling , and remember that polls grossly underestimated Republicans in races across the country .
In all likelihood Cocaine Mitch was ahead of McGrath by 15 points for weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need Trump ’ s support — but he probably did need Trump not to be actively opposed to him .
That was the point of sending this slide around to McConnell ’ s caucus , I presume .
Trump ’ s telling them that if they don ’ t vote the right way on January 6 , they ’ ll find out firsthand what it ’ s like to have the president campaigning for their opponent .
In case that message wasn ’ t already clear , last night ’ s tweet about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s career really over , though ?
Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in South Dakota in 2016 by 30 points .
Thune defeated his Democratic opponent in the same election by … 43 , and secured 37,000 more votes than Trump did in the process .
If Trump ’ s serious about leading a GOP civil war in the 2022 primaries against “ disloyal ” Republicans , his first move is to find a primary challenger in SD who ’ s willing and able to knock off Thune .
And there *is* someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t sound willing : Kristi Noem doesn ’ t want to be senator , she wants to be president .
And she may figure that making enemies of the Republican establishment by primarying Thune will hurt her more in that effort than earning Trump ’ s gratitude will help her as he prepares to formally exit politics ( for awhile ) .
She can always revisit her decision next year or in early 2022 if MAGA remains the engine of Republican politics and she concludes that pandering to Trump fans by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her in 2024 .
But that ’ s a steep bet : If she primaries Thune and loses , she ’ ll have made a lot of enemies in her state and will receive no thanks from Trumpers .
It ’ ll be her career that ’ s over , not his .
Anyway , an exit question on the subject of civil war : Did Trump blow up the stimulus bill last night with his new demand for $ 2,000 checks really just to screw McConnell and the Senate GOP ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post .

It’s been five long years but I think we may have finally arrived at a kumbaya moment for MAGA and Never Trump. Never Trumpers want to see the GOP establishment burn because of how servile they’ve behaved towards the president. MAGA wants to see the GOP establishment burn because they haven’t behaved servile enough. Now here’s POTUS seemingly prepared to torch the party on his way out the door because they haven’t done enough to help him pull off a coup.
Seems to me like everyone’s getting what they want for Christmas this year.
C’mon. Bring it in here for a hug.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1341547750710800385
If you missed it, this post from yesterday will explain why he’s mad at Thune. Thune and Mitch McConnell don’t want any Republican senators objecting to the electoral college results when Congress meets on January 6, as that’ll force an awkward floor vote for the caucus. Vote to accept the results and you’re a traitor to MAGA. Vote to reject them and you’re playing along with the coup attempt. Thune has been warning people, publicly and privately, that the votes just aren’t there in the Senate to reject any state’s election results, which means anyone who objects will be forcing a painful floor vote to no end. Nothing’s going to change. Biden’s win will be certified. The floor vote will achieve zippo except to ensure that sizable blocs of voters across the political spectrum end up pissed off at Senate Republicans for one reason or another.
But I’m not sure if Thune realizes that … that’s the point. Trump and his allies in the House, like Mo Brooks, know how to count. They understand that they’re destined to lose on January 6. They’re not forcing a floor vote to try to stop Biden’s victory, they’re doing it to create an enemies list for the president and his fans.
They’re declaring a GOP civil war.
President Donald Trump is plotting a final stand in Congress on Jan. 6, casting it as the ultimate loyalty test in his quest to remain in power and shutting out anyone who won’t get in line… The objections will … force Republicans in Congress to go on record voting to affirm Biden’s victory — acknowledging the outcome and likely inflaming Trump’s diehard supporters, a crucial GOP faction that has joined the president in denying the election results. Republican strategists and Trump allies inside and outside Washington said Trump’s core supporters will remember how their lawmakers vote on Jan. 6… “It certainly does put Republicans in a position of appearing as though they are actively opposing President Trump when most of them have done pretty much everything they can do to support his presidency,” said a veteran GOP operative. “It obviously sets you off into a 2022 cycle where the president and his supporters are going to play a big role in continuing to shape the party and you want to keep everybody under the tent.”
Everybody wins. MAGA gets a group of Republicans to despise and primary the next time they’re up for reelection and Never Trumpers get a different group of Republicans to despise and never support again. All thanks to Santa Trump and Tommy Tuberville or whichever other Senate Republican ends up objecting to various states’ electoral votes.
What more could one ask for from the president in his final month in office?
He’s not just targeting Thune, by the way. Two days ago, Republican senators received this in their email inboxes from the White House:
Just an incredible slide that the WH has sent to Republican Senators in which they cite a Trump tweet in support of McConnell and a robocall he cut as key to his victory! Via @jonathanvswan https://t.co/b6pkwciKAE pic.twitter.com/qWQb0u9pLb — Sam Stein (@samstein) December 22, 2020
That’s what McConnell got for congratulating Biden on becoming president-elect after the electoral college voted last week. I hope it doesn’t need to be said that McConnell would have won comfortably in Kentucky over Amy McGrath whether or not Trump endorsed him. (Whether he would have won a primary against a Trump-backed challenger is a separate question.) Note in the graphic that the robocall that supposedly propelled McConnell to victory came when he was already ahead of McGrath by double digits in the polling, and remember that polls grossly underestimated Republicans in races across the country. In all likelihood Cocaine Mitch was ahead of McGrath by 15 points for weeks or months. He didn’t need Trump’s support — but he probably did need Trump not to be actively opposed to him.
That was the point of sending this slide around to McConnell’s caucus, I presume. Trump’s telling them that if they don’t vote the right way on January 6, they’ll find out firsthand what it’s like to have the president campaigning for their opponent. In case that message wasn’t already clear, last night’s tweet about Thune made it crystal.
Is Thune’s career really over, though? Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in South Dakota in 2016 by 30 points. Thune defeated his Democratic opponent in the same election by … 43, and secured 37,000 more votes than Trump did in the process. If Trump’s serious about leading a GOP civil war in the 2022 primaries against “disloyal” Republicans, his first move is to find a primary challenger in SD who’s willing and able to knock off Thune. And there *is* someone who might be able. But she doesn’t sound willing:
.@johnthune is a friend of mine, and I will not be challenging him. I’m honored to be Governor of South Dakota and will ask the people to give me an opportunity to continue serving them as Governor in 2022. — Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) December 23, 2020
Kristi Noem doesn’t want to be senator, she wants to be president. And she may figure that making enemies of the Republican establishment by primarying Thune will hurt her more in that effort than earning Trump’s gratitude will help her as he prepares to formally exit politics (for awhile). She can always revisit her decision next year or in early 2022 if MAGA remains the engine of Republican politics and she concludes that pandering to Trump fans by taking on Thune will pay off for her in 2024. But that’s a steep bet: If she primaries Thune and loses, she’ll have made a lot of enemies in her state and will receive no thanks from Trumpers. It’ll be her career that’s over, not his.
Anyway, an exit question on the subject of civil war: Did Trump blow up the stimulus bill last night with his new demand for $2,000 checks really just to screw McConnell and the Senate GOP? We’ll discuss it in a separate post.


hotair--2020-12-23--Christmas Eve nutcracker for GOP: House Dems to rush Trump-proposed $2000/person relief aid

Which Republican wants to play the Grinch on Christmas Eve ?
After Donald Trump blew up weeks of negotiations over the COVID-19 relief bill last night by claiming the $ 600 per person check was a “ disgrace , ” Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Bernie Sanders rushed to embrace his new proposal for more than three times that amount .
According to CBS News , Pelosi and her caucus now plan to introduce a bill tomorrow on unanimous consent that will put money where Trump ’ s mouth is : House Democrats will bring forward a bill to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday , after President Trump called on Congress to amend a newly passed coronavirus relief bill to increase direct payments to $ 2,000 , with $ 4,000 for a couple .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will try to pass the bill by unanimous consent — meaning that only one Republican member opposing the proposal needs to be present in order to block the bill .
One has to wonder how Trump and Pelosi got to the $ 2000 per person figure … just as one has to wonder how Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why not $ 4000 ?
Why not $ 8000 ?
Why not eleventy-thousand ?
All of this is imaginary money anyway , which is why this process has been absurd from the beginning .
That ’ s especially true for Senate Republicans , who resisted the inclusion of any direct payments to taxpayers , even though a child could have explained how bad the political optics would be to send hundreds of billions in aid to corporations while taxpayers struggled to keep food on the table .
Speaking of Senate Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham still stubbornly refusing to see the optics : What in the world does Section 230 have to do with COVID-19 relief — or COVID-19 at all ?
Trump didn ’ t even bring up Section 230 in his complaints about the relief bill as passed on Monday .
Why should this be a new condition on a completely unrelated issue ?
Does Graham really plan on blocking relief payments just to satisfy Trump ’ s demand on Big Tech issues ?
Other than maybe Trump himself , I ’ d love to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thinks that will impress .
Pelosi ’ s smarter than Graham .
Let ’ s see if she ’ s smarter than Kevin McCarthy and the House Republican caucus .
If House Republicans object to the bill tomorrow , Democrats can beat the hell out of them for the next couple of years over aid , especially with Trump ’ s castigation serving as a perfect foil .
Even Donald Trump acknowledged that Republicans are uncaring cheapskates !
Of course , this situation might have been avoided had Trump bothered to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pushed Mitch McConnell into a bigger package of direct relief .

Which Republican wants to play the Grinch on Christmas Eve? After Donald Trump blew up weeks of negotiations over the COVID-19 relief bill last night by claiming the $600 per person check was a “disgrace,” Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Bernie Sanders rushed to embrace his new proposal for more than three times that amount. According to CBS News, Pelosi and her caucus now plan to introduce a bill tomorrow on unanimous consent that will put money where Trump’s mouth is:
House Democrats will bring forward a bill to provide direct checks of $2,000 to individuals on Thursday, after President Trump called on Congress to amend a newly passed coronavirus relief bill to increase direct payments to $2,000, with $4,000 for a couple. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will try to pass the bill by unanimous consent — meaning that only one Republican member opposing the proposal needs to be present in order to block the bill.
PELOSI puts the 2k check in @GOPLeader’s lap— pic.twitter.com/V2TsWZ6Z8i — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 23, 2020
One has to wonder how Trump and Pelosi got to the $2000 per person figure … just as one has to wonder how Steve Mnuchin got to the $600 figure. Why not $4000? Why not $8000? Why not eleventy-thousand? All of this is imaginary money anyway, which is why this process has been absurd from the beginning. That’s especially true for Senate Republicans, who resisted the inclusion of any direct payments to taxpayers, even though a child could have explained how bad the political optics would be to send hundreds of billions in aid to corporations while taxpayers struggled to keep food on the table.
Speaking of Senate Republicans, here’s the normally sensible Lindsey Graham still stubbornly refusing to see the optics:
I hope Speaker Pelosi will agree with President Trump that Big Tech needs to be reined in by winding down Section 230 liability protections. I have reason to believe this combination will lead to President Trump supporting the NDAA and COVID19 omnibus bills. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 23, 2020
What in the world does Section 230 have to do with COVID-19 relief — or COVID-19 at all? Trump didn’t even bring up Section 230 in his complaints about the relief bill as passed on Monday. Why should this be a new condition on a completely unrelated issue? Does Graham really plan on blocking relief payments just to satisfy Trump’s demand on Big Tech issues? Other than maybe Trump himself, I’d love to hear Graham’s explanation on who he thinks that will impress.
Pelosi’s smarter than Graham. Let’s see if she’s smarter than Kevin McCarthy and the House Republican caucus. If House Republicans object to the bill tomorrow, Democrats can beat the hell out of them for the next couple of years over aid, especially with Trump’s castigation serving as a perfect foil. Even Donald Trump acknowledged that Republicans are uncaring cheapskates! Of course, this situation might have been avoided had Trump bothered to get personally involved in the negotiations weeks ago and pushed Mitch McConnell into a bigger package of direct relief.


hotair--2020-12-23--White House to staffers: Your departure begins on January 4; <span class='red'>Update: "Disregard"?<

White House to staffers: Your departure begins on January 4; Update: "Disregard"?

Not January 7 , eh ?
Donald Trump publicly insists that he won the election and will be vindicated , but his White House isn ’ t waiting around for Congress to formalize the inevitable .
Staffers received memos last night ordering them to begin the process of vacating the executive offices starting on January 4 , two days before Congress completes the Electoral College vote : Staffers in the Executive Office of the President were informed Tuesday that they “ will start departing ” on the week of Jan. 4 , according to an email from the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was obtained by POLITICO , also included information pertaining to outgoing employees ’ payroll , benefits , sick leave , work records , ethics debriefing and security clearance .
The internal White House communication contradicts the ongoing public effort by President Donald Trump and his top aides to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election .
That ’ s not the only contradictory sign , either .
Yesterday ’ s tranche of pardons suggested that Trump had gotten past any concerns over political damage or congressional probes into his decisions .
For that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start appointing his advisers and allies to commissions also signals a recognition that the end is nigh , Axios noted : President Trump on Tuesday included some of his most loyal defenders in more than three dozen appointments to federal board seats , including former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi , former acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell and former National Security Council staffer Ezra Cohen-Watnick .
Why it matters : The president is still refusing to publicly acknowledge his election loss but such appointments are a typical means for outgoing presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are usually unpaid , have little political power and do not require Senate confirmations .
Hope Hicks , perhaps Trump ’ s most loyal aide , got an appointment to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board .
She could do both at the same time — these are largely ceremonial positions anyway — but it might be awkward for the board to have Hicks join while still working in the White House .
The same goes for Stephanie Grisham , who got an appointment to the National Board for Education Sciences .
The fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly the same time strongly indicates that a corner might have been turned in the Oval Office .
Add in the report that Sidney Powell suddenly finds herself persona non grata in the West Wing , and it looks like Trump has grudgingly concluded that he ’ s not going to win another term in office after all .
This also doesn ’ t appear to just be a conditional alert , either .
The order instructs employees to begin boxing up supplies by next Monday , and to start taking home personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memo is detailed enough to include warnings about cleaning out the fridges and the microwaves : Looks like a transition has begun , even if it doesn ’ t involve Joe Biden quite yet .
If Trump thought he ’ d be sticking around , this trifecta over the last sixteen hours wouldn ’ t have taken place .
His Twitter feed has been pretty quiet other than his blast at the COVID-19 relief bill about 15 hours ago , but that will be a pretty good temperature gauge for just how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Update : Or this might be a good gauge too :

Not January 7, eh? Donald Trump publicly insists that he won the election and will be vindicated, but his White House isn’t waiting around for Congress to formalize the inevitable. Staffers received memos last night ordering them to begin the process of vacating the executive offices starting on January 4, two days before Congress completes the Electoral College vote:
Staffers in the Executive Office of the President were informed Tuesday that they “will start departing” on the week of Jan. 4, according to an email from the White House Management Office. The memo, which was obtained by POLITICO, also included information pertaining to outgoing employees’ payroll, benefits, sick leave, work records, ethics debriefing and security clearance. The internal White House communication contradicts the ongoing public effort by President Donald Trump and his top aides to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election.
That’s not the only contradictory sign, either. Yesterday’s tranche of pardons suggested that Trump had gotten past any concerns over political damage or congressional probes into his decisions. For that matter, Trump’s decision to start appointing his advisers and allies to commissions also signals a recognition that the end is nigh, Axios noted:
President Trump on Tuesday included some of his most loyal defenders in more than three dozen appointments to federal board seats, including former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, former acting director of national intelligence Richard Grenell and former National Security Council staffer Ezra Cohen-Watnick. Why it matters: The president is still refusing to publicly acknowledge his election loss but such appointments are a typical means for outgoing presidents to extend their legacy. The positions are usually unpaid, have little political power and do not require Senate confirmations.
Hope Hicks, perhaps Trump’s most loyal aide, got an appointment to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. She could do both at the same time — these are largely ceremonial positions anyway — but it might be awkward for the board to have Hicks join while still working in the White House. The same goes for Stephanie Grisham, who got an appointment to the National Board for Education Sciences.
The fact that all of these decisions emerged at nearly the same time strongly indicates that a corner might have been turned in the Oval Office. Add in the report that Sidney Powell suddenly finds herself persona non grata in the West Wing, and it looks like Trump has grudgingly concluded that he’s not going to win another term in office after all.
This also doesn’t appear to just be a conditional alert, either. The order instructs employees to begin boxing up supplies by next Monday, and to start taking home personal effects more or less immediately. The memo is detailed enough to include warnings about cleaning out the fridges and the microwaves:
Looks like a transition has begun, even if it doesn’t involve Joe Biden quite yet. If Trump thought he’d be sticking around, this trifecta over the last sixteen hours wouldn’t have taken place. His Twitter feed has been pretty quiet other than his blast at the COVID-19 relief bill about 15 hours ago, but that will be a pretty good temperature gauge for just how much Trump’s convinced of his departure.
Update: Or this might be a good gauge too:


hotair--2020-12-23--Keith Ellison is still suing restaurants staying open to stay alive

As we ’ ve reported here previously , a number of restaurant and bar owners around the country have begun reopening for normal service in defiance of government shutdown mandates .
That trend has been showing up in Minnesota as well , where up to a dozen eateries and public houses have decided to risk the wrath of the government rather than going bankrupt and sending all of their workers to the unemployment lines .
But unlike the situation in Pennsylvania linked above , where there ’ s something of a stalemate going on , Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners and hitting them with massive fines .
( CBS Minnesota ) Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on Monday announced that three more lawsuits have been filed against restaurants operating indoor dining in violation of the current COVID-19 restrictions .
According to Ellison , the lawsuits include St. Patrick ’ s Tavern in New Prague , Pour House in Clarks Grove and The Interchange in Albert Lea .
Ellison says St. Patrick ’ s Tavern had 150 to 200 vehicles in its parking lot on Dec. 18 and witnesses reported the establishment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packed inside so tightly that it was difficult to move around inside.
” It appears that Minnesota has more than its fair share of social distancing snitches because the CBS report indicates that police were answering complaints from locals about the packed nature of the three establishments that Ellison filed suit against this week .
At first glance , I ’ ll grant you that some of the conditions sound alarming in terms of social distancing .
Reports concerning the Pour House in Clarks Grove allege that the bar was at maximum capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were wearing face masks .
Ellison described these operations as , “ threatening their customers , their workers , and their communities by refusing to comply and violating the law.
” Perhaps , but I keep coming back to the same two points when considering these ongoing confrontations .
First , pretty much every one of these businesses has already sunk huge amounts of money into making changes that would allow them to comply with government restrictions .
Despite that , they keep getting hit with orders to shut down entirely , reopen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then completely shut down again .
Their employees have been alternating between being on limited hours or simply unemployed to the point where their heads must be spinning .
The situation was always going to reach a breaking point and that point appears to have arrived .
The other factor is once again a personal choice .
Every one of the customers in those bars and restaurants was able to see the number of people in the establishment and , in some cases , the lack of masks and other PPE .
Nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dinner or for a few beers with friends .
Don ’ t they bear some of the responsibility for their own decisions ?
We ’ re not talking about a public school full of children .
These are all adults .
Granted , you can make the argument that if one hundred people in a crowded bar become infected , they will take that infection home to their families and possibly other members of the community .
But is that the fault of the restaurant owner or the diners who chose to risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that people are reaching the end of their ropes after nearly a year of isolation and our business owners are going down for the count at this point .
I don ’ t think additional massive fines are the answer to anyone ’ s problems .
In the meantime , South Dakota Governor Krisi Noem has come up with a different solution .
She ’ s inviting all of the bar and restaurant owners to her state with a promise not to shut them down .
( NY Post ) As a bonus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Governor Noem with a flamethrower .
A generous offer , but if all of the customers don ’ t follow them and move to South Dakota as well , will they be able to stay in business ?

As we’ve reported here previously, a number of restaurant and bar owners around the country have begun reopening for normal service in defiance of government shutdown mandates. That trend has been showing up in Minnesota as well, where up to a dozen eateries and public houses have decided to risk the wrath of the government rather than going bankrupt and sending all of their workers to the unemployment lines. But unlike the situation in Pennsylvania linked above, where there’s something of a stalemate going on, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has been busy filing lawsuits against the owners and hitting them with massive fines. (CBS Minnesota)
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on Monday announced that three more lawsuits have been filed against restaurants operating indoor dining in violation of the current COVID-19 restrictions. According to Ellison, the lawsuits include St. Patrick’s Tavern in New Prague, Pour House in Clarks Grove and The Interchange in Albert Lea. Ellison says St. Patrick’s Tavern had 150 to 200 vehicles in its parking lot on Dec. 18 and witnesses reported the establishment was standing room only, with it “packed inside so tightly that it was difficult to move around inside.”
It appears that Minnesota has more than its fair share of social distancing snitches because the CBS report indicates that police were answering complaints from locals about the packed nature of the three establishments that Ellison filed suit against this week. At first glance, I’ll grant you that some of the conditions sound alarming in terms of social distancing. Reports concerning the Pour House in Clarks Grove allege that the bar was at maximum capacity and neither the staff nor the customers were wearing face masks.
Ellison described these operations as, “threatening their customers, their workers, and their communities by refusing to comply and violating the law.”
Perhaps, but I keep coming back to the same two points when considering these ongoing confrontations. First, pretty much every one of these businesses has already sunk huge amounts of money into making changes that would allow them to comply with government restrictions. Despite that, they keep getting hit with orders to shut down entirely, reopen at limited, unprofitable capacity, and then completely shut down again. Their employees have been alternating between being on limited hours or simply unemployed to the point where their heads must be spinning. The situation was always going to reach a breaking point and that point appears to have arrived.
The other factor is once again a personal choice. Every one of the customers in those bars and restaurants was able to see the number of people in the establishment and, in some cases, the lack of masks and other PPE. Nobody was forcing them to go out to dinner or for a few beers with friends. Don’t they bear some of the responsibility for their own decisions? We’re not talking about a public school full of children. These are all adults.
Granted, you can make the argument that if one hundred people in a crowded bar become infected, they will take that infection home to their families and possibly other members of the community. But is that the fault of the restaurant owner or the diners who chose to risk leaving their homes? The fact is that people are reaching the end of their ropes after nearly a year of isolation and our business owners are going down for the count at this point. I don’t think additional massive fines are the answer to anyone’s problems.
In the meantime, South Dakota Governor Krisi Noem has come up with a different solution. She’s inviting all of the bar and restaurant owners to her state with a promise not to shut them down. (NY Post)
“Come to South Dakota! We respect your rights. We won’t shut you down,” the Republican governor wrote Monday on Twitter. Noem, 49, is widely seen as a Republican rising star and is an outspoken advocate against lockdowns. Noem, who also posted this week a photo of herself using a flamethrower, invited bar owners to move after neighboring state Minnesota’s Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison sued bars that defied Democratic Gov. Tim Walz’s pandemic restrictions on indoor dining.
Come to South Dakota! We respect your rights. We won’t shut you down. https://t.co/FDaRj92Qmu — Governor Kristi Noem (@govkristinoem) December 21, 2020
As a bonus, here’s an Instagram picture of Governor Noem with a flamethrower.
A generous offer, but if all of the customers don’t follow them and move to South Dakota as well, will they be able to stay in business?


hotair--2020-12-23--Elite contagion: Leadership mask hypocrisy spreads to Scotland

And here we thought that the world might have contained this disease to the United States .
Scotland ’ s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon , who has demanded and enforced some of the world ’ s toughest mask mandates , got caught in a pub bald-facedly chatting up some of her constituents .
An onlooker was sufficiently shocked enough to take a picture of it , and the Scottish Sun ran it as a Page 1 story : NICOLA Sturgeon breaks her own Covid law by chatting to pensioners in a pub without wearing a face mask .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public , the First Minister was seen chatting to three women as she stood up at an Edinburgh venue after a funeral last Friday .
The photo of Ms Sturgeon was taken in the public part of the venue , not in the function area where the wake was taking place .
The three older women shown in the picture were not funeral guests .
On the same day the photo was taken , Sturgeon announced a draconian lockdown of Scotland for three weeks after Christmas .
She also lectured Scots on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ : The First Minister revealed tonight members of the public can only meet loved ones for 24 hours on December 25 .
It was also confirmed that all mainland areas across the country will face Level Four curbs from December 26 onwards due to fears over a new strain of the virus .
… The SNP leader said a strict travel ban to and from England would remain in place over the festive period – even on Christmas Day .
Ms Sturgeon said eight Scots from three households would still be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stressed members of the public should stay at home where possible .
Earlier today , Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament that she was “ kicking myself ” over her violation .
“ I ’ m not going to offer any excuses , ” Sturgeon promised : “ This was a stupid mistake and I ’ m really sorry , ” First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said after the Scottish edition of The Sun published a front page photo of her talking to a group of women last Friday without a face covering .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of masks , so I ’ m not going to offer any excuses , ” said the leader of the Scottish Government .
“ I was in the wrong , I ’ m kicking myself , and I ’ m sorry , ” she said .
Yeah … just who does Sturgeon think she is ?
Gavin Newsom ?
Andrew Cuomo ?
Austin mayor Steve Adler ?
At least Sturgeon just admitted her violation without any excuses , but even so , her dramatic claim that she ’ s being tougher on herself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false .
If Sturgeon really thought that , she ’ d resign her leadership position and allow the SNP to select someone less compromised on the lockdowns to take over .
This isn ’ t a “ stupid mistake ” in a vacuum ; she ’ s locking Scots in their houses for three weeks while pubbing maskless .
This is the basic problem with this contagion of elitism .
The masks and the social distancing might be very good ideas , but only if they apply to everyone equally .
The very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as mandates keep turning out to be the ones who think those mandates shouldn ’ t apply to themselves .
They shouldn ’ t be “ kicking themselves ” — they should be kicked out of office .
Hard .

And here we thought that the world might have contained this disease to the United States. Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has demanded and enforced some of the world’s toughest mask mandates, got caught in a pub bald-facedly chatting up some of her constituents. An onlooker was sufficiently shocked enough to take a picture of it, and the Scottish Sun ran it as a Page 1 story:
Tomorrow's Scottish Sun front page leads on Nicola Sturgeon breaking her own Covid law by not wearing a face mask in a bar while chatting to pensioners Read our exclusive story: https://t.co/sOAWfjyG6p pic.twitter.com/ujvgCNr8HH — The Scottish Sun (@ScottishSun) December 22, 2020
NICOLA Sturgeon breaks her own Covid law by chatting to pensioners in a pub without wearing a face mask. In a photograph supplied by a concerned member of the public, the First Minister was seen chatting to three women as she stood up at an Edinburgh venue after a funeral last Friday. The photo of Ms Sturgeon was taken in the public part of the venue, not in the function area where the wake was taking place. The three older women shown in the picture were not funeral guests.
On the same day the photo was taken, Sturgeon announced a draconian lockdown of Scotland for three weeks after Christmas. She also lectured Scots on the definition of their “Christmas bubble“:
The First Minister revealed tonight members of the public can only meet loved ones for 24 hours on December 25. It was also confirmed that all mainland areas across the country will face Level Four curbs from December 26 onwards due to fears over a new strain of the virus. … The SNP leader said a strict travel ban to and from England would remain in place over the festive period – even on Christmas Day. Ms Sturgeon said eight Scots from three households would still be allowed to meet on December 25, but stressed members of the public should stay at home where possible.
Earlier today, Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament that she was “kicking myself” over her violation. “I’m not going to offer any excuses,” Sturgeon promised:
“This was a stupid mistake and I’m really sorry,” First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said after the Scottish edition of The Sun published a front page photo of her talking to a group of women last Friday without a face covering. “I talk every day about the importance of masks, so I’m not going to offer any excuses,” said the leader of the Scottish Government. “I was in the wrong, I’m kicking myself, and I’m sorry,” she said.
Yeah … just who does Sturgeon think she is? Gavin Newsom? Andrew Cuomo? Austin mayor Steve Adler?
At least Sturgeon just admitted her violation without any excuses, but even so, her dramatic claim that she’s being tougher on herself than any of her critics rings rather false. If Sturgeon really thought that, she’d resign her leadership position and allow the SNP to select someone less compromised on the lockdowns to take over. This isn’t a “stupid mistake” in a vacuum; she’s locking Scots in their houses for three weeks while pubbing maskless.
This is the basic problem with this contagion of elitism. The masks and the social distancing might be very good ideas, but only if they apply to everyone equally. The very politicians who seem most eager to impose them as mandates keep turning out to be the ones who think those mandates shouldn’t apply to themselves. They shouldn’t be “kicking themselves” — they should be kicked out of office. Hard.


hotair--2020-12-24--Ossoff: Sorry, but my company's finances are confidential

Georgia Senate Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff has a few words for anyone wondering about where he got all of his money and the finances of his film production company .
That ’ s none of your business .
This beacon of transparency who would like to replace Republican David Perdue in the upper chamber has faced questions recently about payments made to Insight TWI , his movie company , from Asian interests with ties to the Chinese Communist Party .
After initially fessing up to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about one payment that somehow failed to show up on his initial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information .
But Ossoff has apparently tired of discussing the subject , telling the Washington Post this week that Insight TWI ’ s finances are “ confidential.
” ( Free Beacon ) Even after a number of controversial payments to Jon Ossoff ’ s foreign film company surfaced in September—including one from a Chinese-backed media giant—the Georgia Democrat refused to release additional financial documents from the company .
In a recent interview with the Washington Post , Ossoff declined the outlet ’ s request to “ release further financial information ” relating to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particulars of our annual finances are confidential.
” The refusal comes months after Ossoff quietly disclosed receiving at least $ 5,000 from PCCW , a Hong Kong-based media corporation owned in part by the Chinese Communist Party .
Ossoff ’ s withholding of financial information could undermine his ability to fend off attacks from his Republican opponent .
Senator David Perdue has criticized Ossoff for accepting funds from a “ communist Chinese news agency ” and called on him to explain “ where his money comes from ” in an October debate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealing the details of their business finances was A Bad Thing .
Haven ’ t we heard that about President Trump from the moment he announced he was running for the GOP nomination until the present day ?
There are clearly some cases where corporate finances can be considered proprietary information , particularly if the owners are private figures .
But Ossoff doesn ’ t have to worry about offending anyone else when it comes to the film company ’ s dealings .
He ’ s the majority owner and CEO of Insight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchasing the company in 2013 and investing “ an unspecified amount ” of money into it .
Adding to the mystery is the fact that he got the money to do this via a generous family inheritance .
How much did he inherit ?
Reporters have asked about that also , but Ossoff has declined to offer any specifics .
Most candidates are fairly clear about their financial dealings when disclosure is required .
In Ossoff ’ s case , as CEO , he could readily turn over the company ’ s financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been taking money from the CCP ) if he wished to do so .
It ’ s also hard to understand what would make him so secretive about his inheritance .
There ’ s nothing wrong with inheriting money from your parents or other relatives… unless you ’ ve been playing fast and loose with your taxes , of course .
For the record , I haven ’ t seen any indication that Ossoff has broken the law regarding either his personal taxes or his company ’ s business dealings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to discuss it with his potential constituents doesn ’ t exactly fill us with brimming levels of confidence in terms of transparency , either .
There are a dozen days left until the Georgia runoff elections .
Choose wisely .

Georgia Senate Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff has a few words for anyone wondering about where he got all of his money and the finances of his film production company. That’s none of your business. This beacon of transparency who would like to replace Republican David Perdue in the upper chamber has faced questions recently about payments made to Insight TWI, his movie company, from Asian interests with ties to the Chinese Communist Party. After initially fessing up to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about one payment that somehow failed to show up on his initial campaign finance filing, reporters sought more information. But Ossoff has apparently tired of discussing the subject, telling the Washington Post this week that Insight TWI’s finances are “confidential.” (Free Beacon)
Even after a number of controversial payments to Jon Ossoff’s foreign film company surfaced in September—including one from a Chinese-backed media giant—the Georgia Democrat refused to release additional financial documents from the company. In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Ossoff declined the outlet’s request to “release further financial information” relating to his company, noting that “the particulars of our annual finances are confidential.” The refusal comes months after Ossoff quietly disclosed receiving at least $5,000 from PCCW, a Hong Kong-based media corporation owned in part by the Chinese Communist Party. Ossoff’s withholding of financial information could undermine his ability to fend off attacks from his Republican opponent. Senator David Perdue has criticized Ossoff for accepting funds from a “communist Chinese news agency” and called on him to explain “where his money comes from” in an October debate.
I distinctly remember being told that politicians concealing the details of their business finances was A Bad Thing. Haven’t we heard that about President Trump from the moment he announced he was running for the GOP nomination until the present day?
There are clearly some cases where corporate finances can be considered proprietary information, particularly if the owners are private figures. But Ossoff doesn’t have to worry about offending anyone else when it comes to the film company’s dealings. He’s the majority owner and CEO of Insight TWI. He obtained that position by purchasing the company in 2013 and investing “an unspecified amount” of money into it.
Adding to the mystery is the fact that he got the money to do this via a generous family inheritance. How much did he inherit? Reporters have asked about that also, but Ossoff has declined to offer any specifics.
Most candidates are fairly clear about their financial dealings when disclosure is required. In Ossoff’s case, as CEO, he could readily turn over the company’s financial statements for examination (particularly if he’s been taking money from the CCP) if he wished to do so. It’s also hard to understand what would make him so secretive about his inheritance. There’s nothing wrong with inheriting money from your parents or other relatives… unless you’ve been playing fast and loose with your taxes, of course.
For the record, I haven’t seen any indication that Ossoff has broken the law regarding either his personal taxes or his company’s business dealings. But the fact that he doesn’t want to discuss it with his potential constituents doesn’t exactly fill us with brimming levels of confidence in terms of transparency, either. There are a dozen days left until the Georgia runoff elections. Choose wisely.


hotair--2020-12-24--'Happy Days' star Henry Winkler responds to Scott Baio's criticism of cast's Democrat fundraiser

The cast of Happy Days reunited for a virtual fundraiser for the Democrat Party of Wisconsin in October .
Most of the actors came together to support the Democrat ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
One cast member , however , was not in favor of that decision and made his objections known at the time .
At the time , it was no surprise that well-known anti-Trump Hollywood liberals like Ron Howard and Henry Winkler signed on to participate .
Howard frequently posted his opinions on social media like so many others in the entertainment industry calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one in his lifetime .
Scott Baio is a loyal Trump supporter , though , and he declined to take part in the fundraiser .
He criticized the decision of the actors to use the show in a political way .
The hook of the fundraiser was that Happy Days , a sitcom set in Milwaukee in the 1950s , is an all-American classic .
Wisconsin Democrats were eager to make the connection with Milwaukee in their fundraising efforts .
Baio rightly criticized the liberal actors for dragging the memory of the show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Henry Winkler and Scott Baio made their names as actors on that show .
Both actors are still referred to as their characters ’ names even to this day .
Fonzie and Chachi are cultural touchstones for Baby Boomers and Gen Xers .
According to Winkler , the bond between the older Winkler and the younger Baio was real and nothing has changed that .
It ’ s been over three decades since Winkler took on the role of Arthur “ Fonzie ” Fonzarelli , the doting older cousin of Charles “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beloved ABC show about the Cunningham family , which ran from 1974 to 1984 .
The two sitcom stars had the opportunity to reunite with the rest of the cast at a Democratic fundraiser held in Wisconsin in October .
Many , including Winkler , participated in the event , but Baio , a vocal President Trump supporter , was noticeably absent .
At the time , Baio dubbed the event “ a little bizarre , ” given that its purpose was to “ promote ” then-Democratic nominees Joe Biden and Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Business ’ Maria Bartiromo .
Winkler caught up with Fox News this week , when he made it clear that the bond struck between Fonz and Chachi wasn ’ t just manufactured for the small screen .
“ Scott is my family , ” Winkler , 75 , told Fox News in a written statement .
“ But he has his political life and I have mine.
” Baio said his opinion that the show should remain non-political had nothing to do with his relationships with the other cast members .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not personal .
Donnie Most was less generous than Winkler , though Winkler ’ s comment was brief .
Most said that he ’ s as entitled to express his political opinion as Baio is .
He conflates his personal political opinion with the reputation of the show , though .
Baio ’ s objection was to preserve the show from this kind of political fall-out .
“ I knew that he would not be a part of this because of the differences in political views .
So it was not a question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it or not .
That was a given , ” Most , 67 , told Fox News .
“ But you know , Scott and I , we played golf together .
It ’ s been a while now , about a couple of years , but we ’ ve stayed in touch somewhat .
But in the last year , I haven ’ t seen him.
” Most went on to say that it was a “ little disappointing ” to hear Baio ’ s harsh words about the fundraiser .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of line , ” Most admitted .
“ I really did .
Because we are entitled to our opinions .
And we were all as a group uniting to do something , just like he proposes his views .
He was part of the show and people are aware of him because of that show .
And he ’ s using that as a way to present his views .
We ’ re entitled to do the same .
And we were all united in the way we felt.
” No one liked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s grumblings , it ’ s a nice kumbaya story at Christmas .
Live and let live .
The castmates ’ little family sounds a lot like most real families today .
Most families consist of members with contrasting political views .
Family is more important than politics .
Prioritize accordingly .

The cast of Happy Days reunited for a virtual fundraiser for the Democrat Party of Wisconsin in October. Most of the actors came together to support the Democrat ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. One cast member, however, was not in favor of that decision and made his objections known at the time.
At the time, it was no surprise that well-known anti-Trump Hollywood liberals like Ron Howard and Henry Winkler signed on to participate. Howard frequently posted his opinions on social media like so many others in the entertainment industry calling the November presidential election the most important one in his lifetime. Scott Baio is a loyal Trump supporter, though, and he declined to take part in the fundraiser. He criticized the decision of the actors to use the show in a political way.
The hook of the fundraiser was that Happy Days, a sitcom set in Milwaukee in the 1950s, is an all-American classic. Wisconsin Democrats were eager to make the connection with Milwaukee in their fundraising efforts. Baio rightly criticized the liberal actors for dragging the memory of the show into politics to raise money for Democrats. Henry Winkler and Scott Baio made their names as actors on that show. Both actors are still referred to as their characters’ names even to this day. Fonzie and Chachi are cultural touchstones for Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. According to Winkler, the bond between the older Winkler and the younger Baio was real and nothing has changed that.
It’s been over three decades since Winkler took on the role of Arthur “Fonzie” Fonzarelli, the doting older cousin of Charles “Chachi” Arcola (Baio) in the beloved ABC show about the Cunningham family, which ran from 1974 to 1984. The two sitcom stars had the opportunity to reunite with the rest of the cast at a Democratic fundraiser held in Wisconsin in October. Many, including Winkler, participated in the event, but Baio, a vocal President Trump supporter, was noticeably absent. At the time, Baio dubbed the event “a little bizarre,” given that its purpose was to “promote” then-Democratic nominees Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, the actor told FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo. Winkler caught up with Fox News this week, when he made it clear that the bond struck between Fonz and Chachi wasn’t just manufactured for the small screen. “Scott is my family,” Winkler, 75, told Fox News in a written statement. “But he has his political life and I have mine.”
Baio said his opinion that the show should remain non-political had nothing to do with his relationships with the other cast members. It’s just business, it’s not personal.
“Invoking the show’s name to support a candidate for office was just wrong, in my opinion. That doesn’t change how much I love Donny, Henry [Winkler] and the rest of the crew from ‘Happy Days.’ I just wish they had thought this all the way through,” Baio continued.
Donnie Most was less generous than Winkler, though Winkler’s comment was brief. Most said that he’s as entitled to express his political opinion as Baio is. He conflates his personal political opinion with the reputation of the show, though. Baio’s objection was to preserve the show from this kind of political fall-out.
“I knew that he would not be a part of this because of the differences in political views. So it was not a question of whether he would be a part of it or not. That was a given,” Most, 67, told Fox News. “But you know, Scott and I, we played golf together. It’s been a while now, about a couple of years, but we’ve stayed in touch somewhat. But in the last year, I haven’t seen him.” Most went on to say that it was a “little disappointing” to hear Baio’s harsh words about the fundraiser. “I felt it was way out of line,” Most admitted. “I really did. Because we are entitled to our opinions. And we were all as a group uniting to do something, just like he proposes his views. He was part of the show and people are aware of him because of that show. And he’s using that as a way to present his views. We’re entitled to do the same. And we were all united in the way we felt.”
No one liked Ralph Malph anyway.
Despite Most’s grumblings, it’s a nice kumbaya story at Christmas. Live and let live. The castmates’ little family sounds a lot like most real families today. Most families consist of members with contrasting political views. Family is more important than politics. Prioritize accordingly.


hotair--2020-12-24--LA County DA Gascon backs down on some enhancements after telling murder victim's family to 'keep th

LA County DA Gascon backs down on some enhancements after telling murder victim's family to 'keep their mouth shut''

When he took office this month , DA George Gascon immediately announced he would do away with any enhancements for charges , such as those for people who commit multiple murders or hate crimes .
That didn ’ t sit well with victim ’ s families or with some of Gascon ’ s own Deputy DAs .
Yesterday Deputy DA Paul Moll became the second deputy to publicly criticize his own boss : He has been a Los Angeles County prosecutor for the last 15 years but in the last two weeks under new rules by District Attorney George Gascón @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s working for the defense .
He says , “ It ’ s like it ’ s been a hostile takeover of the DA ’ s office by the defense bar , the way they work together to prevent us from keeping people safe .
It ’ s shocking !
” … Moll adds , “ Public safety seems to have been thrown out the window .
I ’ m supposed to argue to let serious , violent , repeat offenders that , you know , are going to go out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let them go.
” For not doing just that , Moll says a defense attorney reported him to his superiors .
He ’ s convinced Gascón ’ s team is working closely with defense attorneys .
Gascon is also hearing from a number of family members of murder victims who are not happy that enhancement charges against their son ’ s killers are suddenly being dropped wholesale .
Last week the mother of a man who was thrown off a cliff in Azusa by five suspects said she saw her son ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were dropped : Gascon also came face to face with another family of a murder victim last week .
It happened in Pomona where Gascon was confronted by the family of Joshua Rodriguez who was murdered in 2015 .
Gascon snapped at the family , “ It ’ s unfortunate that some people do not have enough education to keep their mouth shut so we can talk.
” His response was caught on video : Gascon later issued a statement apologizing for his comments : “ I did not understand what they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they were victims .
Regardless , it ’ s not how I should have reacted .
Clearly this family is in pain , and I will be contacted them to speak directly and hear them out.
” All of this must be getting to Gascon , at least a little .
On Friday he reversed course and decided that enhancements for some circumstances would continue to be used in LA County : I guess that ’ s something but these changes don ’ t address the parts of Gascon ’ s order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about : So a lot of the changes Gascon has put in place won ’ t get the same attention but they are going to result in more lenient sentences and more convicted felons back on the streets more quickly .

When he took office this month, DA George Gascon immediately announced he would do away with any enhancements for charges, such as those for people who commit multiple murders or hate crimes. That didn’t sit well with victim’s families or with some of Gascon’s own Deputy DAs. Yesterday Deputy DA Paul Moll became the second deputy to publicly criticize his own boss:
He has been a Los Angeles County prosecutor for the last 15 years but in the last two weeks under new rules by District Attorney George Gascón, Moll says it feels more like he’s working for the defense. He says, “It’s like it’s been a hostile takeover of the DA’s office by the defense bar, the way they work together to prevent us from keeping people safe. It’s shocking!”… Moll adds, “Public safety seems to have been thrown out the window. I’m supposed to argue to let serious, violent, repeat offenders that, you know, are going to go out and victimize people again, to just let them go.” For not doing just that, Moll says a defense attorney reported him to his superiors. He’s convinced Gascón’s team is working closely with defense attorneys.
Gascon is also hearing from a number of family members of murder victims who are not happy that enhancement charges against their son’s killers are suddenly being dropped wholesale. Last week the mother of a man who was thrown off a cliff in Azusa by five suspects said she saw her son’s killers “smirk” when the enhancements were dropped:
“It’s sick,” Andrade said. “This is all sick.” “I felt let down by this justice system,” she added… “They brutally murdered my son,” said the grieving mother.
Gascon also came face to face with another family of a murder victim last week. It happened in Pomona where Gascon was confronted by the family of Joshua Rodriguez who was murdered in 2015. Gascon snapped at the family, “It’s unfortunate that some people do not have enough education to keep their mouth shut so we can talk.” His response was caught on video:
BREAKING: We've obtained video of LA D.A. George Gascon at the Pomona courthouse today where he can be heard saying "It's unfortunate that some people do not have enough education to keep their mouth shut so we can talk" as the family of a murdered victim yells at him. @FOXLA pic.twitter.com/IkHVhhp25u — Bill Melugin (@BillFOXLA) December 19, 2020
Gascon later issued a statement apologizing for his comments: “I did not understand what they were yelling about until later, let alone that they were victims. Regardless, it’s not how I should have reacted. Clearly this family is in pain, and I will be contacted them to speak directly and hear them out.”
All of this must be getting to Gascon, at least a little. On Friday he reversed course and decided that enhancements for some circumstances would continue to be used in LA County:
In a memo, Gascon said that effective immediately he would now allow deputy DAs to seek sentencing enhancements for hate crimes, child abuse, elder abuse, sexual assault, sex trafficking and certain financial crimes.
I guess that’s something but these changes don’t address the parts of Gascon’s order that Deputy DA Moll is most worried about:
The new directives Moll is mostly concerned with include resentencing old cases, no DA representation at parole hearings and a charging directive that won’t allow prosecutors to introduce prior felonies or allegations.
So a lot of the changes Gascon has put in place won’t get the same attention but they are going to result in more lenient sentences and more convicted felons back on the streets more quickly.