hotair--2020-09-25--NYT: The upcoming SCOTUS confirmation hearing could be a real game-changer -- for Trump and the GOP

Tomorrow at roughly 5 ET , the nation will learn who Donald Trump will nominate to fill the opening on the Supreme Court .
At roughly 5:01 ET , if history gives us any guide , every Democrat and liberal-progressive interest group will declare that person a threat to the Republic who must be stopped by any means necessary .
That will create the kind of contentious confirmation hearing of the fever and pitch we saw in 2018 with Brett Kavanaugh , not to mention the confirmations of Neil Gorsuch , John Roberts , Samuel Alito , and so on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Republicans and conservatives wondered whether it might be better just to skip the hearing altogether .
Not so fast , the New York Times ’ Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman write today .
A Supreme Court fight might not win Trump any new voters , but it will change the conversation in a way that will only benefit him right before the election : As President Trump prepares to reveal his Supreme Court nominee on Saturday , and Senate Republicans move to hold lightning-quick confirmation hearings ahead of the election , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult political straits with less than 40 days left in the campaign .
In order to achieve a new 6-3 conservative majority on the court , Republicans are poised to defy a clear majority of voters who have indicated in polls that they want the winner of the election to pick a nominee for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat .
They are even willing to energize Democratic turnout in the short run by elevating issues like abortion , if it means achieving the long-term goal of tilting the court further to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan fight over the court offers them at least a chance to steer the debate away from political danger zones like the president ’ s handling of a virus that has claimed over 200,000 American lives and his unceasing rhetorical eruptions , most recently his indication that he would be unwilling to agree to a peaceful transition of power .
“ Either the election can be about Trump or about Covid or about the Supreme Court , ” said Senator Lamar Alexander , the long-serving Tennessee Republican who is retiring next year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ three , if it ’ s about the Supreme Court , that traditionally has helped Republicans more.
” This has two flawed assumptions , and potentially one solid assumption .
A Supreme Court fight in the same bloodthirsty , gladiatorial manner as the 2018 Kavanaugh hearings might galvanize some Democrats , but it might do more damage than any value it brings , too .
And the idea that it might not convert more than a few votes to Trump is also a bit flawed .
We ’ ll get to both in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines up the bet that Republicans are laying pretty accurately : Yes , and we already have ample evidence of that potential .
Democrats and progressives flipped out when Trump made the obvious choice to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg , and started threatening to pack the court the next time they had the power to do so .
That forced some Senate Democrats to contradict that messaging , including Dianne Feinstein , who said that neither the composition of the court nor an end to the legislative filibuster was on the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles attacking Feinstein ’ s capabilities emerged since , as the NYT notes : “ Agitating ” is a good term to use here .
The activists on which Democrats must rely in this cycle are agitating too , in favor of an all-out character assassination on whomever Trump nominates .
The group Patriotic Millionaires demanded that Chuck Schumer launch such an attack even before the announcement by claiming that anyone who accepted such a nomination is “ definitionally unfit to serve ” : You clearly lack the legislative power to stop the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from confirming a far-right ideologue to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court just days before the most divisive and consequential election in American history .
This unfortunate reality demands that you embrace the inescapable moral and constitutional obligation you have to use every power at your disposal to brand this corrupt process as the illegitimate farce it is and to discredit permanently the judicial fitness of any nominee who agrees to be a part of it .
Any nominee willing to be considered or confirmed by this sham process is definitionally unfit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
That creates a massive vise for Democrats .
If they don ’ t launch the kind of massive character-assassination campaign to delegitimize the nominee demanded by progressives , it will produce large-scale demoralization of those voters just a couple of weeks before the election .
( Or even sooner . )
If they do launch such a large-scale , personal-attack campaign , it ’ s likely to turn off voters across the rest of the political spectrum , including women and Catholics , two demos that Democrats also need to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lewis writes today that Democrats are about to remember why we got Trump in the first place : Of course , Trump won ’ t be able to absorb all the arrows headed for Amy Coney Barrett , if she is his nominee .
Barrett reminds me of the kind of nice , decent , conservative who would ( in a pre-Trump world ) be destroyed by the liberals and the media who want to otherize her and cast her as some extremist weirdo .
And it still might happen .
Some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives who show that the Republican Party isn ’ t all old white men .
… You don ’ t have to be some right-wing nut to notice the predictable onslaught—not to mention the media double standards she will face ( consider the way that Barack Obama and Ruth Bader Ginsburgh ’ s faith was positively portrayed , while Barrett ’ s is framed as weird , dangerous and “ cultish ” —the stuff of theocrats and a real-life Handmaid ’ s Tale ) These attacks won ’ t just galvanize conservatives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rationale that led so many to give Trump their sometimes grudging support .
After watching decent conservatives like John McCain and Mitt Romney lose back-to-back , while the culture seemed to drift further leftward , many Republicans reasoned that their only recourse was to quit playing nice .
To fight fire with fire .
Trump was the perfect embodiment of this ethos .
… When I look at the smears already being aimed at potential Supreme Court Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett , I ’ m left with one conclusion : This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s why the assumption that a Kavanaugh-esque spectacle won ’ t galvanize voters to back Trump is no small wager .
Trump ’ s nomination of Barrett ( or Lagoa , or another woman ) isn ’ t going to change many minds about Trump among voters already inclined to oppose him either , but a failure to go all-out in smearing the nominee may well disenchant and disincentivize them to turn out at all .
The upcoming confirmation hearing may not be entirely a win-win for the GOP , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposition for Democrats — which is why Republicans want to hold the hearing .

Tomorrow at roughly 5 ET, the nation will learn who Donald Trump will nominate to fill the opening on the Supreme Court. At roughly 5:01 ET, if history gives us any guide, every Democrat and liberal-progressive interest group will declare that person a threat to the Republic who must be stopped by any means necessary. That will create the kind of contentious confirmation hearing of the fever and pitch we saw in 2018 with Brett Kavanaugh, not to mention the confirmations of Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and so on.
With that expectation in mind, some Republicans and conservatives wondered whether it might be better just to skip the hearing altogether. Not so fast, the New York Times’ Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman write today. A Supreme Court fight might not win Trump any new voters, but it will change the conversation in a way that will only benefit him right before the election:
As President Trump prepares to reveal his Supreme Court nominee on Saturday, and Senate Republicans move to hold lightning-quick confirmation hearings ahead of the election, they are making risky calculations aimed at navigating difficult political straits with less than 40 days left in the campaign. In order to achieve a new 6-3 conservative majority on the court, Republicans are poised to defy a clear majority of voters who have indicated in polls that they want the winner of the election to pick a nominee for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat. They are even willing to energize Democratic turnout in the short run by elevating issues like abortion, if it means achieving the long-term goal of tilting the court further to the right. … They believe a partisan fight over the court offers them at least a chance to steer the debate away from political danger zones like the president’s handling of a virus that has claimed over 200,000 American lives and his unceasing rhetorical eruptions, most recently his indication that he would be unwilling to agree to a peaceful transition of power. “Either the election can be about Trump or about Covid or about the Supreme Court,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, the long-serving Tennessee Republican who is retiring next year. “And I think, of those three, if it’s about the Supreme Court, that traditionally has helped Republicans more.”
This has two flawed assumptions, and potentially one solid assumption. A Supreme Court fight in the same bloodthirsty, gladiatorial manner as the 2018 Kavanaugh hearings might galvanize some Democrats, but it might do more damage than any value it brings, too. And the idea that it might not convert more than a few votes to Trump is also a bit flawed. We’ll get to both in a moment, but this next paragraph lines up the bet that Republicans are laying pretty accurately:
If Republicans are skeptical that they can retain the presidency and the Senate in any election that is a referendum on Mr. Trump’s leadership, they are betting that Democrats will botch the confirmation process with ferocious attacks that make whichever woman he picks a sympathetic figure.
Yes, and we already have ample evidence of that potential. Democrats and progressives flipped out when Trump made the obvious choice to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg, and started threatening to pack the court the next time they had the power to do so. That forced some Senate Democrats to contradict that messaging, including Dianne Feinstein, who said that neither the composition of the court nor an end to the legislative filibuster was on the table. In response, a number of articles attacking Feinstein’s capabilities emerged since, as the NYT notes:
Senior Democrats are aware of the political hazards with Judge Barrett, and her biography in an election which the Catholic vote is crucial. That’s why some have started privately agitating, as first reported by Politico, for Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, to replace the 87-year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein as the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee with a younger, more aggressive lawmaker.
“Agitating” is a good term to use here. The activists on which Democrats must rely in this cycle are agitating too, in favor of an all-out character assassination on whomever Trump nominates. The group Patriotic Millionaires demanded that Chuck Schumer launch such an attack even before the announcement by claiming that anyone who accepted such a nomination is “definitionally unfit to serve”:
You clearly lack the legislative power to stop the morally-bankrupt Republican hypocrites in the U.S. Senate from confirming a far-right ideologue to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court just days before the most divisive and consequential election in American history. This unfortunate reality demands that you embrace the inescapable moral and constitutional obligation you have to use every power at your disposal to brand this corrupt process as the illegitimate farce it is and to discredit permanently the judicial fitness of any nominee who agrees to be a part of it. Any nominee willing to be considered or confirmed by this sham process is definitionally unfit to serve in the United States Supreme Court.
That creates a massive vise for Democrats. If they don’t launch the kind of massive character-assassination campaign to delegitimize the nominee demanded by progressives, it will produce large-scale demoralization of those voters just a couple of weeks before the election. (Or even sooner.) If they do launch such a large-scale, personal-attack campaign, it’s likely to turn off voters across the rest of the political spectrum, including women and Catholics, two demos that Democrats also need to win in less than six weeks.
Matt Lewis writes today that Democrats are about to remember why we got Trump in the first place:
Of course, Trump won’t be able to absorb all the arrows headed for Amy Coney Barrett, if she is his nominee. Barrett reminds me of the kind of nice, decent, conservative who would (in a pre-Trump world) be destroyed by the liberals and the media who want to otherize her and cast her as some extremist weirdo. And it still might happen. Some of the most vicious attacks are reserved for conservatives who show that the Republican Party isn’t all old white men. … You don’t have to be some right-wing nut to notice the predictable onslaught—not to mention the media double standards she will face (consider the way that Barack Obama and Ruth Bader Ginsburgh’s faith was positively portrayed, while Barrett’s is framed as weird, dangerous and “cultish”—the stuff of theocrats and a real-life Handmaid’s Tale) These attacks won’t just galvanize conservatives, they’ll remind us of the rationale that led so many to give Trump their sometimes grudging support. After watching decent conservatives like John McCain and Mitt Romney lose back-to-back, while the culture seemed to drift further leftward, many Republicans reasoned that their only recourse was to quit playing nice. To fight fire with fire. Trump was the perfect embodiment of this ethos. … When I look at the smears already being aimed at potential Supreme Court Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett, I’m left with one conclusion: This is how we got Donald Trump.
And that’s why the assumption that a Kavanaugh-esque spectacle won’t galvanize voters to back Trump is no small wager. Trump’s nomination of Barrett (or Lagoa, or another woman) isn’t going to change many minds about Trump among voters already inclined to oppose him either, but a failure to go all-out in smearing the nominee may well disenchant and disincentivize them to turn out at all. The upcoming confirmation hearing may not be entirely a win-win for the GOP, but it’s very clearly a lose-lose proposition for Democrats — which is why Republicans want to hold the hearing.


hotair--2020-09-25--Is Biden really going to win Ohio?

Is Biden really going to win Ohio?

I don ’ t pay much attention to Ohio polling because I remember how wide Trump ’ s margin was there four years ago and figure that it ’ s effectively off the board this time too .
It ’ ll be close for sure ; given that the polling in nearby Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania is bluer this year than it was in 2016 , it stands to reason that Ohio would be bluer too .
The difference is that Trump won nailbiters in those other three states against Hillary but won Ohio going away — an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Ohio electorate ( 51.7 percent ) than any other presidential candidate this century , Democratic or Republican .
Trump ’ s win in OH was so decisive that it was comparable to his margin in Texas , which he won by nine .
But I don ’ t know .
The last three polls taken there have had Biden ahead , albeit narrowly .
Rasmussen , one of the most Trump-friendly pollsters in America , put Biden ahead by four in Ohio a few weeks ago .
FiveThirtyEight now favors him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with a 52 percent probability of victory .
Given that Trump probably can ’ t get to 270 without Ohio even if he wins Florida and Pennsylvania , we should probably start paying more attention to this , no ?
Fox News , Trump ’ s favorite network but least-favorite pollster , dropped some new Ohio data on him last night .
Biden by five : Men back the president by 4 points , while women go for Biden by 14 .
White voters without a college degree pick Trump by 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back Biden by 7 .
And Trump is the choice among rural voters by 17 points , while suburbanites like Biden by 10 .
Biden ’ s overall advantage comes mainly from his 75-point lead among nonwhites .
Whites favor Trump by 7 .
Ohio voters think Biden is better on coronavirus ( +14 points ) and nominating the next Supreme Court justice ( +6 ) .
They think Trump is better on the economy ( +5 ) , while the two are closely matched on policing and criminal justice ( Biden +2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killer for Trump there right now : He needs to win seniors back .
Maybe the bribe he just offered them will do it .
If not and Ohio ends up flipping , something very weird would need to happen in the rest of the country for Trump to win a second term .
His problem right now is that blue battlegrounds like Nevada and Minnesota which he was eyeing as pick-ups seem to be slipping away in recent polling .
To win , he ’ s going to need to hold virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago .
The good news is that he ’ s been trending higher in southern swing states lately : Florida is a true toss-up again , Texas seems to tilting Trump , and there are even some encouraging polls out of Arizona today .
( More on that in a separate post . )
The bad news is that that ’ s not enough .
If the Rust Belt is turning blue and Trump can ’ t flip any Hillary states , he ’ s done .
And Ohio ’ s 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such that he wouldn ’ t need to flip the entire Rust Belt to win .
Trump could keep Pennsylvania ; Wisconsin , Michigan , and Ohio would be enough to give Sleepy Joe a 276-262 win .
If you ’ re thinking that we shouldn ’ t trust this year ’ s Ohio polls because the 2016 Ohio polls missed Trump ’ s surprising blowout , that ’ s only half-true .
Scroll through RCP ’ s table of Ohio polling four years ago and you ’ ll find that Trump led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes by five points or more .
Pollsters missed the magnitude of his victory but the upset potential was apparent for literally two months before the vote .
This year , by comparison , Biden ’ s led in four of the six polls published since Labor Day .
He also led most of the polls taken between June and September .
And the blue trend in Ohio matches the trends in other fairly solidly red battlegrounds from four years ago : There ’ s a strong case to be made right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white voters and relative weakness with Latinos that Ohio is a more plausible pick-up opportunity for him than Florida .
And although Florida has more electoral votes , each state has enough that losing either one puts Trump ’ s campaign on life support .
( Same goes for Georgia , really , with 16 EVs . )
The most plausible path to victory right now for Trump is that he loses Wisconsin and Michigan but holds on everywhere else he won in 2016 , including Pennsylvania .
That would leave him at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tightened in PA since the summer , when Biden enjoyed a gaudy seven-point lead amid the BLM protests .
A few weeks ago , Trump briefly cut that advantage to 3.2 points .
It now stands at 4.3 , way too close for comfort for Dems who are still traumatized by Clinton ’ s upset loss .
The GOP ’ s success in registering voters also suggests that the race will be closer than pollsters think .
But there ’ s a wrinkle : Looking at the polling average there , Biden appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Trump appears to have a ceiling of 45 percent or so .
Biden routinely hits 49-50 percent in individual surveys ; Trump hasn ’ t topped 46 percent in one since February .
Even this number isn ’ t that encouraging for him given its provenance : Trafalgar has one of the most pronounced Trump leans of any credible pollster , usually finding the president performing four or five points better in swing states than their peers .
And they have Biden ahead right now .
Fox News ’ s poll yesterday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PA , his biggest lead in weeks ; another recent result from Franklin & Marshall put Sleepy Joe up six .
All of which is to say , although Pennsylvania seems like a more plausible “ hold ” for Trump than Wisconsin or Michigan , I ’ m not sure how much more plausible it is .
Trump hasn ’ t led a single poll there since May , with FiveThirtyEight giving Biden a 76 percent chance of winning the state right now — even though it ’ s a must-win for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio and Georgia .
For all of the hype over Florida , it just doesn ’ t matter that much .
Trump also needs to hold OH , GA , and PA or it ’ s almost certainly lights-out .

I don’t pay much attention to Ohio polling because I remember how wide Trump’s margin was there four years ago and figure that it’s effectively off the board this time too. It’ll be close for sure; given that the polling in nearby Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is bluer this year than it was in 2016, it stands to reason that Ohio would be bluer too. The difference is that Trump won nailbiters in those other three states against Hillary but won Ohio going away — an eight-point victory, with a larger share of the Ohio electorate (51.7 percent) than any other presidential candidate this century, Democratic or Republican. Trump’s win in OH was so decisive that it was comparable to his margin in Texas, which he won by nine.
But I don’t know. The last three polls taken there have had Biden ahead, albeit narrowly. Rasmussen, one of the most Trump-friendly pollsters in America, put Biden ahead by four in Ohio a few weeks ago. FiveThirtyEight now favors him to win the state ever so slightly, with a 52 percent probability of victory.
Given that Trump probably can’t get to 270 without Ohio even if he wins Florida and Pennsylvania, we should probably start paying more attention to this, no?
Fox News, Trump’s favorite network but least-favorite pollster, dropped some new Ohio data on him last night. Biden by five:
Men back the president by 4 points, while women go for Biden by 14. White voters without a college degree pick Trump by 18 points, while Whites with a degree back Biden by 7. And Trump is the choice among rural voters by 17 points, while suburbanites like Biden by 10. Biden’s overall advantage comes mainly from his 75-point lead among nonwhites. Whites favor Trump by 7. Ohio voters think Biden is better on coronavirus (+14 points) and nominating the next Supreme Court justice (+6). They think Trump is better on the economy (+5), while the two are closely matched on policing and criminal justice (Biden +2).
Here’s the real killer for Trump there right now:
Among voters over 65 in Ohio… Q poll: Biden: 52
Trump: 45 Fox poll: Biden: 51
Trump: 43 2016 exits: Trump: 56
Clinton: 43 — Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) September 24, 2020
He needs to win seniors back. Maybe the bribe he just offered them will do it. If not and Ohio ends up flipping, something very weird would need to happen in the rest of the country for Trump to win a second term. His problem right now is that blue battlegrounds like Nevada and Minnesota which he was eyeing as pick-ups seem to be slipping away in recent polling. To win, he’s going to need to hold virtually all of the states he held four years ago. The good news is that he’s been trending higher in southern swing states lately: Florida is a true toss-up again, Texas seems to tilting Trump, and there are even some encouraging polls out of Arizona today. (More on that in a separate post.) The bad news is that that’s not enough. If the Rust Belt is turning blue and Trump can’t flip any Hillary states, he’s done. And Ohio’s 18 electoral votes would give Biden a cushion such that he wouldn’t need to flip the entire Rust Belt to win. Trump could keep Pennsylvania; Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio would be enough to give Sleepy Joe a 276-262 win.
If you’re thinking that we shouldn’t trust this year’s Ohio polls because the 2016 Ohio polls missed Trump’s surprising blowout, that’s only half-true. Scroll through RCP’s table of Ohio polling four years ago and you’ll find that Trump led in most surveys after Labor Day, sometimes by five points or more. Pollsters missed the magnitude of his victory but the upset potential was apparent for literally two months before the vote. This year, by comparison, Biden’s led in four of the six polls published since Labor Day. He also led most of the polls taken between June and September. And the blue trend in Ohio matches the trends in other fairly solidly red battlegrounds from four years ago:
So we have a good number of polls over the last few days suggesting Biden is either slightly ahead or slightly behind in Georgia, Iowa and Ohio. All states Trump won by 5 or more in 2016. — (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) September 24, 2020
There’s a strong case to be made right now given Biden’s relative strength with white voters and relative weakness with Latinos that Ohio is a more plausible pick-up opportunity for him than Florida. And although Florida has more electoral votes, each state has enough that losing either one puts Trump’s campaign on life support. (Same goes for Georgia, really, with 16 EVs.)
The most plausible path to victory right now for Trump is that he loses Wisconsin and Michigan but holds on everywhere else he won in 2016, including Pennsylvania. That would leave him at 280 electoral votes. The race has tightened in PA since the summer, when Biden enjoyed a gaudy seven-point lead amid the BLM protests. A few weeks ago, Trump briefly cut that advantage to 3.2 points. It now stands at 4.3, way too close for comfort for Dems who are still traumatized by Clinton’s upset loss. The GOP’s success in registering voters also suggests that the race will be closer than pollsters think. But there’s a wrinkle: Looking at the polling average there, Biden appears to have a floor of 48 percent and Trump appears to have a ceiling of 45 percent or so. Biden routinely hits 49-50 percent in individual surveys; Trump hasn’t topped 46 percent in one since February. Even this number isn’t that encouraging for him given its provenance:
Pennsylvania Poll: Biden 48% (+2)
Trump 46%
Jorgensen 1%
Hawkins 1%@TrafalgarGroup (LV, 9/18-9/21) — Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) September 25, 2020
Trafalgar has one of the most pronounced Trump leans of any credible pollster, usually finding the president performing four or five points better in swing states than their peers. And they have Biden ahead right now. Fox News’s poll yesterday had the Democrat up seven points in PA, his biggest lead in weeks; another recent result from Franklin & Marshall put Sleepy Joe up six. All of which is to say, although Pennsylvania seems like a more plausible “hold” for Trump than Wisconsin or Michigan, I’m not sure how much more plausible it is. Trump hasn’t led a single poll there since May, with FiveThirtyEight giving Biden a 76 percent chance of winning the state right now — even though it’s a must-win for Trump, especially with the heat on in Ohio and Georgia. For all of the hype over Florida, it just doesn’t matter that much. Trump also needs to hold OH, GA, and PA or it’s almost certainly lights-out.


hotair--2020-09-25--FBI agent: Mueller team had a "get Trump" attitude on case built on "supposition upon supposition"

Has John Durham gotten close to concluding his probes into Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the succeeding special-counsel probe ?
It certainly seems that the pace of revelations about the conduct of both has picked up over the last couple of days .
Late last night , a summary filed in support of the Department of Justice ’ s motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn contained a couple of new bombshells about both .
One FBI agent involved in all three probes described the case against Flynn as “ not great , ” and that Robert Mueller and his team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a case that never materialized .
Politico ’ s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein summarize the testimony of Agent William Barnett , who served at times in all of those phases : A 13-page summary of an interview with Flynn case agent William Barnett , made public in a court filing by prosecutors just before midnight Thursday , also revealed that the veteran agent harbored deep doubts and skepticism about the merits of the investigation into Flynn ’ s potential ties with Russia — at least in its early stages — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the broader probe of the Trump campaign ’ s contacts with Russians , known as Crossfire Hurricane .
Though Barnett said he repeatedly expressed those doubts to colleagues and superiors — and says he feared groupthink and a “ get Trump ” attitude was driving the investigation forward — he continued to be included in the work of Mueller ’ s attorneys during sensitive interviews .
The interview report says that while Barnett viewed the investigative steps taken as “ legally justified , ” the so-called predication — or factual basis — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not great.
” Barnett said that his view of the overall Trump-Russia probe was that it was based on “ supposition upon supposition.
” The reason for filing this information with the court is that Judge Emmet Sullivan still wants to hear arguments on the motion to dismiss .
This might not have been filed publicly at all if the DC Circuit Court of Appeals hadn ’ t overturned Judge Neomi Rao ’ s writ of mandamus ordering a dismissal in its en banc decision last month .
As it happens , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agents working the “ Operation Razor ” case against Flynn , and insisted all along that there was no case .
He wanted to conduct a straight-up interview with Flynn after the election to settle the matter and close the case , a request that Barnett says was rejected .
Then something curious happened in early January 2017 , which led to Barnett being cut out of the loop : Barnett never did conclude , even after seeing the reports from the agents who conducted the Flynn interview , that he lied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia .
At worst , Barnett thought , Flynn misled agents to protect his new job , but there was no predicate for an investigation and therefore no crime .
That ’ s a significant basis for the DoJ ’ s contention that the Flynn case should never have been brought in the first place , a key part of their motion to dismiss even with Flynn ’ s previous guilty plea .
However , the DoJ doesn ’ t stop there in its filing .
It goes on to discuss Barnett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crossfire Hurricane , especially once it became a special-counsel probe , which Barnett worked as well : And that , Barnett says , is why Flynn got prosecuted in the first place : Nor was Barnett the only FBI agent in these investigations that harbored considerable doubt about the directions in which they were going .
The Federalist highlights text exchanges in new filings by Sidney Powell in the same court case in which they vented their skepticism : “ I ’ m tellying [ sic ] man , if this thing ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be some tough questions asked , ” one agent wrote .
“ [ A ] nd a great deal of those will be related to Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic [ . ]
” “ [ REDACTED ] is one of the worst offenders of the rabbit holes and conspiracy theories , ” an agent texted .
“ This guy traveled with that guy , who put down 3rd guy as his visa sponsor .
3rd guy lives near a navy base , therefore… [ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages also show agents believed the investigation was being run by FBI officials who were in the tank for Hillary Clinton .
“ [ D ] oing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a [ C ] linton presidency , ” one agent wrote on Aug. 11 , shortly after the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation against Trump .
And then there ’ s this about Operation Razor : A better question would be why it ’ s taken this long to get this information out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sullivan may end up being sorry he asked — and so will a number of former FBI and special counsel leaders , too .
Update : Our colleague Shipwreckedcrew , a former federal prosecutor , has more at RedState on these revelations and what they mean : Jeannie Rhee was a partner of Robert Mueller at the WilmerHale law firm and came to the SCO when Mueller was named .
Barnett , being an experienced and highly regarded agent , was assigned to work on the SCO investigation .
Jeannie Rhee was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Barack Obama , and she had represented Hillary Clinton , Ben Rhodes , and the Clinton Foundation in various matters .
During an early briefing of Rhee and other SCO personnel on Razor and other aspects of Crossfire Hurricane , Barnett started to move on from Razor after only a few comments when Rhee stopped him .
She wanted to “ drill down ” on more details about Flynn and his connections to Russia .
Barnett got the strong feeling that Rhee was obsessed with Gen. Flynn and Barnett thought she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked forward to working with him , Barnett told her they would not be working together as “ he wanted nothing to do with the Razor investigation.
” The final comment is about Andrew Weissmann .
Barnett said it always seemed like someone at the SCO had a story about how some particular episode was going to be proven out and establish the collusion between Trump and the Russians , but every time the claimed episode ended up not being true or leading only to a dead end .
He recalled Weissmann claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yacht off Greece would be the key to proving the quid pro quo between Trump and the Russians , only to have the story about the yacht turn out to not be substantiated .
In my view , this interview confirms that US Attorney Jensen is investigating the conduct of the members of the Special Counsel ’ s Office .
We are now seeing only the very beginning of what might still be coming in the days and weeks ahead .

Has John Durham gotten close to concluding his probes into Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the succeeding special-counsel probe? It certainly seems that the pace of revelations about the conduct of both has picked up over the last couple of days. Late last night, a summary filed in support of the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn contained a couple of new bombshells about both. One FBI agent involved in all three probes described the case against Flynn as “not great,” and that Robert Mueller and his team had a “get Trump” attitude in a case that never materialized.
Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein summarize the testimony of Agent William Barnett, who served at times in all of those phases:
A 13-page summary of an interview with Flynn case agent William Barnett, made public in a court filing by prosecutors just before midnight Thursday, also revealed that the veteran agent harbored deep doubts and skepticism about the merits of the investigation into Flynn’s potential ties with Russia — at least in its early stages — and questioned the Mueller team’s tactics in the broader probe of the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russians, known as Crossfire Hurricane. Though Barnett said he repeatedly expressed those doubts to colleagues and superiors — and says he feared groupthink and a “get Trump” attitude was driving the investigation forward — he continued to be included in the work of Mueller’s attorneys during sensitive interviews. The interview report says that while Barnett viewed the investigative steps taken as “legally justified,” the so-called predication — or factual basis — for the probe into Flynn was “not great.” Barnett said that his view of the overall Trump-Russia probe was that it was based on “supposition upon supposition.”
The reason for filing this information with the court is that Judge Emmet Sullivan still wants to hear arguments on the motion to dismiss. This might not have been filed publicly at all if the DC Circuit Court of Appeals hadn’t overturned Judge Neomi Rao’s writ of mandamus ordering a dismissal in its en banc decision last month. As it happens, though, Barnett was one of the key agents working the “Operation Razor” case against Flynn, and insisted all along that there was no case. He wanted to conduct a straight-up interview with Flynn after the election to settle the matter and close the case, a request that Barnett says was rejected.
Then something curious happened in early January 2017, which led to Barnett being cut out of the loop:
Barnett never did conclude, even after seeing the reports from the agents who conducted the Flynn interview, that he lied to cover up any connection or collusion with Russia. At worst, Barnett thought, Flynn misled agents to protect his new job, but there was no predicate for an investigation and therefore no crime.
That’s a significant basis for the DoJ’s contention that the Flynn case should never have been brought in the first place, a key part of their motion to dismiss even with Flynn’s previous guilty plea. However, the DoJ doesn’t stop there in its filing. It goes on to discuss Barnett’s view of the overall purpose of Crossfire Hurricane, especially once it became a special-counsel probe, which Barnett worked as well:
And that, Barnett says, is why Flynn got prosecuted in the first place:
Nor was Barnett the only FBI agent in these investigations that harbored considerable doubt about the directions in which they were going. The Federalist highlights text exchanges in new filings by Sidney Powell in the same court case in which they vented their skepticism:
“I’m tellying [sic] man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked,” one agent wrote. “[A]nd a great deal of those will be related to Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic[.]” “[REDACTED] is one of the worst offenders of the rabbit holes and conspiracy theories,” an agent texted. “This guy traveled with that guy, who put down 3rd guy as his visa sponsor. 3rd guy lives near a navy base, therefore…[.]” … The explosive new text messages also show agents believed the investigation was being run by FBI officials who were in the tank for Hillary Clinton. “[D]oing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a [C]linton presidency,” one agent wrote on Aug. 11, shortly after the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation against Trump.
And then there’s this about Operation Razor:
“So razor is going to stay open???” an agent wrote on Jan. 5. “[Y]ep,” another FBI agent responded. “[C]rimes report being drafted.” “F,” the first agent wrote back. “[W]hat’s the word on how [Obama’s] briefing went?” one agent asked, referring to the Jan. 5 meeting. “Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad house,” an FBI agent responded. “[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with these people[?]?
A better question would be why it’s taken this long to get this information out to the public. At some point, Sullivan may end up being sorry he asked — and so will a number of former FBI and special counsel leaders, too.
Update: Our colleague Shipwreckedcrew, a former federal prosecutor, has more at RedState on these revelations and what they mean:
Jeannie Rhee was a partner of Robert Mueller at the WilmerHale law firm and came to the SCO when Mueller was named. Barnett, being an experienced and highly regarded agent, was assigned to work on the SCO investigation. Jeannie Rhee was a political campaign donor to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and she had represented Hillary Clinton, Ben Rhodes, and the Clinton Foundation in various matters. During an early briefing of Rhee and other SCO personnel on Razor and other aspects of Crossfire Hurricane, Barnett started to move on from Razor after only a few comments when Rhee stopped him. She wanted to “drill down” on more details about Flynn and his connections to Russia. Barnett got the strong feeling that Rhee was obsessed with Gen. Flynn and Barnett thought she had an agenda. When Rhee said she looked forward to working with him, Barnett told her they would not be working together as “he wanted nothing to do with the Razor investigation.” The final comment is about Andrew Weissmann. Barnett said it always seemed like someone at the SCO had a story about how some particular episode was going to be proven out and establish the collusion between Trump and the Russians, but every time the claimed episode ended up not being true or leading only to a dead end. He recalled Weissmann claiming that evidence about a meeting on a yacht off Greece would be the key to proving the quid pro quo between Trump and the Russians, only to have the story about the yacht turn out to not be substantiated. In my view, this interview confirms that US Attorney Jensen is investigating the conduct of the members of the Special Counsel’s Office. We are now seeing only the very beginning of what might still be coming in the days and weeks ahead.
Stay tuned.


hotair--2020-09-25--Breaking: Man arrested after knife attack near former Charlie Hebdo offices

Breaking: Man arrested after knife attack near former Charlie Hebdo offices as trial continues

Don ’ t bet on coincidences here , but also don ’ t jump to a conclusion just yet .
Parisian prosecutors have opened a terrorism investigation into a stabbing attack that wounded two employees of a video production company .
The attack took place outside the former offices of Charlie Hebdo , the satirical magazine at the heart of a trial in France over the radical-Islamist terror attack five years ago that left 11 dead .
It also followed the decision by the magazine to republish some of the same cartoons of Mohammed .
CBS News reports that police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the French capital arrested one man after a stabbing attack outside the former offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Friday .
The Paris Police later confirmed there were no other suspects being sought .
French Prime Minister Jean Castex confirmed the attack , which police said had left two people wounded .
Both victims , believed to be employees of a video production company that uses the office building , were left in serious but not life-threatening condition , according to the police .
The Paris prosecutor ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not long after the suspect was apprehended on Friday .
Just three days ago , one of the magazine ’ s executives had to be relocated to protect her from threats over the republication of the cartoons .
And of course , the trial of the accomplices of the two terrorists in 2015 — both shot and killed by police shortly afterward — was yet another source of worry over potential retaliation .
The magazine insists it will never retreat on this point , however : A trial for that attack opened in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marked the occasion by republishing some of the cartoons of the Islamic prophet .
Al Qaeda recently renewed its calls for attacks targeting the newspaper , which now operates out of a secret , heavily-guarded location .
Charlie Hebdo journalists continue to receive threats , but its defiant director Laurent “ Riss ” Sourisseau , who was among those injured in the 2015 attack , vowed in the edition published earlier this month : “ We will never give in .
And we will never give up.
” This still could be entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to immediate conclusions .
However , the timing and location of the attack strongly suggests a purposeful motive , as opposed to just random insanity .
We ’ ll update as developments warrant .

Don’t bet on coincidences here, but also don’t jump to a conclusion just yet. Parisian prosecutors have opened a terrorism investigation into a stabbing attack that wounded two employees of a video production company. The attack took place outside the former offices of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine at the heart of a trial in France over the radical-Islamist terror attack five years ago that left 11 dead. It also followed the decision by the magazine to republish some of the same cartoons of Mohammed.
CBS News reports that police have one man in custody:
Police in the French capital arrested one man after a stabbing attack outside the former offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Friday. The Paris Police later confirmed there were no other suspects being sought. French Prime Minister Jean Castex confirmed the attack, which police said had left two people wounded. Both victims, believed to be employees of a video production company that uses the office building, were left in serious but not life-threatening condition, according to the police. The Paris prosecutor’s office opened a terrorism investigation into the stabbing not long after the suspect was apprehended on Friday.
Just three days ago, one of the magazine’s executives had to be relocated to protect her from threats over the republication of the cartoons. And of course, the trial of the accomplices of the two terrorists in 2015 — both shot and killed by police shortly afterward — was yet another source of worry over potential retaliation. The magazine insists it will never retreat on this point, however:
A trial for that attack opened in Paris on September 2. The newspaper marked the occasion by republishing some of the cartoons of the Islamic prophet. Al Qaeda recently renewed its calls for attacks targeting the newspaper, which now operates out of a secret, heavily-guarded location. Charlie Hebdo journalists continue to receive threats, but its defiant director Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau, who was among those injured in the 2015 attack, vowed in the edition published earlier this month: “We will never give in. And we will never give up.”
This still could be entirely unrelated, so be careful about jumping to immediate conclusions. However, the timing and location of the attack strongly suggests a purposeful motive, as opposed to just random insanity. We’ll update as developments warrant.


hotair--2020-09-25--YGBKM: FBI knew Steele dossier subsource was suspected Russian intel asset -- and considered a nat-s

YGBKM: FBI knew Steele dossier subsource was suspected Russian intel asset -- and considered a nat-sec threat?

File this under things the FBI should have disclosed before 2017 .
Lindsey Graham certainly thinks so , but also said last night that the FBI should have disclosed it at any time since .
Instead , we are finding out only now that the primary source for the allegations in the Christopher Steele dossier came from the target of a previous FBI counter-intelligence operation — leading to the obvious conclusion that it may have been a disinformation campaign targeting the US elections : A sub-source used to compile the so-called Steele Dossier , a controversial opposition research document against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation , Attorney General William Barr disclosed in a letter released on Thursday .
The detail was previously redacted from a footnote in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz ’ s 2019 report on four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) court warrant applications .
… The declassified footnote states that the “ primary sub-source was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian counterintelligence officers.
” A two-page document compiled by the FBI and Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declassified footnote adds that the investigation was opened “ based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.
” The investigation was closed in 2011 and not reopened .
The Hill doesn ’ t explain why or under what context the probe was closed in 2011 .
CBS ’ Catherine Herridge offers a much better explanation : According to the memo , the FBI opened a preliminary investigation in 2009 after receiving information that a “ research fellow for an influential foreign policy advisor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the individual , later identified as the dossier sub-source , who allegedly inquired about their future “ access to classified information ” and if they “ wanted to “ make a little extra money.
” The memo states that the research fellow and co-worker questioned the possibility the individual might be a “ Russian spy.
” The preliminary case was converted to a full investigation after a review of FBI databases revealed the individual had contact in 2005 and 2006 with the “ Russian embassy and known Russian intelligence officers.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the FBI withdrew a surveillance warrant application to the FISA court and closed the investigation .
Significantly , the investigative team stated “ that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary sub-source returned to the United States.
” Did he ever come back to the US ?
Indeed he did , and the FBI — which by this time knew that the previous investigation considered this source a potential national-security threat — sat down with him for a three-day interrogation in January 2017 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspected attempts to penetrate the Obama administration , but only about the allegations that made up the core of Crossfire Hurricane .
That turned into a disappointing adventure , as the subsource backed away from the claims : We have already long known that the subsource disavowed the Steele dossier claims .
What we did not know — and what the FBI never informed anyone until now — was that the subsource was a known Russian-intelligence threat that had previously tried to penetrate the Obama administration , and that the FBI knew he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discard his allegations and inform Congress of those circumstances , the FBI instead chose to engage this intelligence threat in a bid to salvage Crossfire Hurricane .
Somewhere in Moscow , that must have gotten a big laugh .
Not only did the FBI keep this information from Congress , Herridge notes , they apparently never told the FISA court about it either .
Instead , they kept getting surveillance warrants targeting Carter Page on the basis of the discredited dossier .
That is why this has landed in John Durham ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an indictment over it may have just increased significantly .
Durham only recently brought this to AG William Barr ’ s attention , and this time the Department of Justice informed Congress of the issue — about three years late .
Graham released the Barr letter last night on Twitter , which notes that the FBI never reopened the 2009 probe into the subsource .
Maybe it ’ s time to do that now .
And maybe it ’ s time to ask Christopher Wray why he didn ’ t brief the relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

File this under things the FBI should have disclosed before 2017. Lindsey Graham certainly thinks so, but also said last night that the FBI should have disclosed it at any time since. Instead, we are finding out only now that the primary source for the allegations in the Christopher Steele dossier came from the target of a previous FBI counter-intelligence operation — leading to the obvious conclusion that it may have been a disinformation campaign targeting the US elections:
#Durham BREAKING: The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was deemed a possible “national security threat” + the subject of 2009 FBI counter-intel probe. According to new records, those facts were known to Crossfire Hurricane team in December 2016. @LindseyGrahamSC pic.twitter.com/I6Gp4fv98C — Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) September 24, 2020
A sub-source used to compile the so-called Steele Dossier, a controversial opposition research document against then-candidate Donald Trump, was previously the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation, Attorney General William Barr disclosed in a letter released on Thursday. The detail was previously redacted from a footnote in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report on four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant applications. … The declassified footnote states that the “primary sub-source was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian counterintelligence officers.” A two-page document compiled by the FBI and Barr and sent to Graham along with the declassified footnote adds that the investigation was opened “based on information by the FBI indicating that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security.” The investigation was closed in 2011 and not reopened.
The Hill doesn’t explain why or under what context the probe was closed in 2011. CBS’ Catherine Herridge offers a much better explanation:
According to the memo, the FBI opened a preliminary investigation in 2009 after receiving information that a “research fellow for an influential foreign policy advisor for the Obama administration” was approached by the individual, later identified as the dossier sub-source, who allegedly inquired about their future “access to classified information” and if they “wanted to “make a little extra money.” The memo states that the research fellow and co-worker questioned the possibility the individual might be a “Russian spy.” The preliminary case was converted to a full investigation after a review of FBI databases revealed the individual had contact in 2005 and 2006 with the “Russian embassy and known Russian intelligence officers.” In 2010, the individual left the US, and the FBI withdrew a surveillance warrant application to the FISA court and closed the investigation. Significantly, the investigative team stated “that consideration would be given to re-opening the investigation in the event that the Primary sub-source returned to the United States.”
Did he ever come back to the US? Indeed he did, and the FBI — which by this time knew that the previous investigation considered this source a potential national-security threat — sat down with him for a three-day interrogation in January 2017. They apparently never asked about his earlier suspected attempts to penetrate the Obama administration, but only about the allegations that made up the core of Crossfire Hurricane. That turned into a disappointing adventure, as the subsource backed away from the claims:
The dossier’s primary sub-source did return to the U.S. and was interviewed over a three-day period at the FBI’s Washington Field Office in January 2017 where he described some dossier allegations as “rumor and speculation,” and in other cases did not recognize the claims.
We have already long known that the subsource disavowed the Steele dossier claims. What we did not know — and what the FBI never informed anyone until now — was that the subsource was a known Russian-intelligence threat that had previously tried to penetrate the Obama administration, and that the FBI knew he was still considered dangerous. Rather than discard his allegations and inform Congress of those circumstances, the FBI instead chose to engage this intelligence threat in a bid to salvage Crossfire Hurricane.
Somewhere in Moscow, that must have gotten a big laugh.
Not only did the FBI keep this information from Congress, Herridge notes, they apparently never told the FISA court about it either. Instead, they kept getting surveillance warrants targeting Carter Page on the basis of the discredited dossier. That is why this has landed in John Durham’s jurisdiction, and why the possibility of an indictment over it may have just increased significantly. Durham only recently brought this to AG William Barr’s attention, and this time the Department of Justice informed Congress of the issue — about three years late.
Graham released the Barr letter last night on Twitter, which notes that the FBI never reopened the 2009 probe into the subsource. Maybe it’s time to do that now. And maybe it’s time to ask Christopher Wray why he didn’t brief the relevant committees on this issue long before now.


hotair--2020-09-26--Can Dennis Quaid and CeCe Winans help Americans defeat despair on coronavirus?

The Health and Human Services Department ( HHS ) is working on a massive advertising campaign to “ defeat despair ” about the coronavirus .
It is a $ 300 million-plus effort paid for by the American taxpayer .
President Trump ordered the campaign to address the administration ’ s handling of the virus .
It is set to start airing before Election Day , November 3 .
Michael Caputo , the health department ’ s top spokesperson , now on medical leave , said the president himself demanded he pursues the public awareness campaign .
Democrats are not happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats claim it is a political move to boost Trump ’ s standing on the coronavirus before the election .
They have not been unsuccessful in their attempt to halt the HHS contract for the project .
HHS defends the campaign as educational .
HHS has defended the campaign as proper and insisted that it will not be co-opted by political pressures .
“ There is no room for political spin in the messages and materials designed by HHS to help Americans make informed decisions about the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a career HHS public affairs official , in a statement .
Caputo delegated the project to Weber before taking medical leave .
The White House did not respond to questions about the campaign ’ s goal , referring questions to HHS .
Two officials said it was not accurate that Trump “ demanded ” that Caputo work on the project .
The money for the campaign is being taken from CDC , among other health agencies , so some officials are concerned about that due to the fact that the coronavirus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staffer noted that the CDC hasn ’ t even done an information campaign .
He inadvertently , I assume , shined a light on the general ineptness shown by the CDC in the pandemic while trying to own the Trump administration .
“ CDC hasn ’ t yet done an awareness campaign about Covid guidelines — but they are going to pay for a campaign about how to get rid of our despair ?
Run by political appointees in the press shop ?
Right before an election ?
” said Josh Peck , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration ’ s advertising campaign for HealthCare.gov .
“ It ’ s like every red flag I could dream of , ” Peck added .
That ’ s rich criticism coming from the guy who oversaw advertising for the disastrous roll-out of Obamacare .
You ’ d think he ’ d just take a seat and let this one go , right ?
The idea is that the media and Democrats are focused on bad news and not covering hopeful news as much as the not so good news .
As can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long piece about the ad campaign with an emphasis on criticism from Democrats .
The criticism includes subcontractors , specifically a longtime business partner of Caputo ’ s .
Meanwhile , Caputo ’ s team used the Food and Drug Administration to fund a separate $ 15 million contract that quickly moved forward last month while the larger $ 250 million contract was still being hammered out .
The $ 15 million contract , which has not been previously reported , was officially awarded to Atlas Research on Aug. 26 .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the contract was provided by HHS and the contract is being overseen by HHS .
As part of the contract , HHS recommended that Atlas use a subcontractor firm called DD & T , according to spokespeople for Atlas and the federal government .
HHS identified DD & T “ as a potential organization with the qualifications required by the government , ” Weber said , declining to specify who at HHS chose the subcontractor .
DD & T is also a firm run by Caputo ’ s longtime business partner , Den @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working to produce the government ’ s videos , said five people with knowledge of the arrangement .
Tolmor was Caputo ’ s client as recently as April 2020 , compensating Caputo at least $ 5,000 per year to handle his public relations , according to a copy of Caputo ’ s ethics disclosure form obtained by POLITICO .
The two men also went into business together to launch a video streaming platform and other services in 2017 and 2018. Who knew the people in the swamp did swampy things ?
Anyway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public figures to deliver public service announcements ( PSA ) .
All are considered Trump-friendly people .
In one video recorded this month , infectious-disease expert Tony Fauci was paired for a conversation with Dennis Quaid , the star of “ The Big Easy ” and the upcoming “ Reagan , ” among many other films , who had publicly praised Trump ’ s handling of coronavirus earlier this year .
Meanwhile , Surgeon General Jerome Adams last Friday was matched up with gospel singer Winans , who has dealt with several family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winans , falling ill from Covid-19 .
“ [ A ] t the request of HHS , Dr. Fauci did an interview with Dennis Quaid for a PSA campaign , ” said a spokesperson for his agency , the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
The spokesperson said the agency was not privy to further details and referred questions to HHS .
Caputo ’ s team also has considered involving well-known figures like Dr. Oz and other members of the President ’ s Council on Sports , Fitness & Nutrition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is overseen by HHS , said three individuals with knowledge of the planning .
One official said that Oz would be a particularly good fit in the campaign because of his medical credentials and previous conversations with Trump and senior appointees .
Public health experts have critiqued Oz ’ s praise for hydroxychloroquine , a malaria drug that Trump favored to fight coronavirus despite scant evidence , and some of the TV doctor ’ s other pronouncements about handling the outbreak that they say are not grounded in science .
Officials also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brooks , whose daughter tested positive for coronavirus this summer , for a potential role in the advertising campaign , said two people with knowledge of the plan .
Representatives for Brooks did not respond to request for comment .
The use of well-known figures is common in advertising .
Quaid has some experience in activism in health care .
His twins suffered life-threatening reactions to an inappropriate drug administered to them in the hospital .
He and his wife at the time founded The Quaid Foundation dedicated to helping minimize medical mistakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployed to reach specific demographics .
For example , the video with CeCe Winans and Surgeon General Adams will likely go to urban areas to address questions from black communities .
This story strikes me as a very 2020 type of story .
The year has been so horrible for most American , thanks to the coronavirus pandemic , that the government feels the need to do an ad campaign to reassure people that all hope is not lost .
We can get through this .
Perhaps this latest bit of information from @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) is working on a massive advertising campaign to “defeat despair” about the coronavirus. It is a $300 million-plus effort paid for by the American taxpayer. President Trump ordered the campaign to address the administration’s handling of the virus. It is set to start airing before Election Day, November 3.
Michael Caputo, the health department’s top spokesperson, now on medical leave, said the president himself demanded he pursues the public awareness campaign. Democrats are not happy about this development and are investigating it. Democrats claim it is a political move to boost Trump’s standing on the coronavirus before the election. They have not been unsuccessful in their attempt to halt the HHS contract for the project. HHS defends the campaign as educational.
HHS has defended the campaign as proper and insisted that it will not be co-opted by political pressures. “There is no room for political spin in the messages and materials designed by HHS to help Americans make informed decisions about the prevention and treatment of Covid-19 and flu,” said Mark Weber, a career HHS public affairs official, in a statement. Caputo delegated the project to Weber before taking medical leave. The White House did not respond to questions about the campaign’s goal, referring questions to HHS. Two officials said it was not accurate that Trump “demanded” that Caputo work on the project.
The money for the campaign is being taken from CDC, among other health agencies, so some officials are concerned about that due to the fact that the coronavirus is still with us. One former Obama staffer noted that the CDC hasn’t even done an information campaign. He inadvertently, I assume, shined a light on the general ineptness shown by the CDC in the pandemic while trying to own the Trump administration.
“CDC hasn’t yet done an awareness campaign about Covid guidelines — but they are going to pay for a campaign about how to get rid of our despair? Run by political appointees in the press shop? Right before an election?” said Josh Peck, a former HHS official who oversaw the Obama administration’s advertising campaign for HealthCare.gov. “It’s like every red flag I could dream of,” Peck added.
That’s rich criticism coming from the guy who oversaw advertising for the disastrous roll-out of Obamacare. You’d think he’d just take a seat and let this one go, right? The idea is that the media and Democrats are focused on bad news and not covering hopeful news as much as the not so good news. As can be expected, the liberal-leaning Politico published a long piece about the ad campaign with an emphasis on criticism from Democrats. The criticism includes subcontractors, specifically a longtime business partner of Caputo’s.
Meanwhile, Caputo’s team used the Food and Drug Administration to fund a separate $15 million contract that quickly moved forward last month while the larger $250 million contract was still being hammered out. The $15 million contract, which has not been previously reported, was officially awarded to Atlas Research on Aug. 26. An FDA spokesperson said that the funding for the contract was provided by HHS and the contract is being overseen by HHS. As part of the contract, HHS recommended that Atlas use a subcontractor firm called DD&T, according to spokespeople for Atlas and the federal government. HHS identified DD&T “as a potential organization with the qualifications required by the government,” Weber said, declining to specify who at HHS chose the subcontractor. DD&T is also a firm run by Caputo’s longtime business partner, Den Tolmor, who has now spent weeks working to produce the government’s videos, said five people with knowledge of the arrangement. Tolmor was Caputo’s client as recently as April 2020, compensating Caputo at least $5,000 per year to handle his public relations, according to a copy of Caputo’s ethics disclosure form obtained by POLITICO. The two men also went into business together to launch a video streaming platform and other services in 2017 and 2018.
Who knew the people in the swamp did swampy things? Anyway, the ad campaign is involving celebrities and public figures to deliver public service announcements (PSA). All are considered Trump-friendly people.
In one video recorded this month, infectious-disease expert Tony Fauci was paired for a conversation with Dennis Quaid, the star of “The Big Easy” and the upcoming “Reagan,” among many other films, who had publicly praised Trump’s handling of coronavirus earlier this year. Meanwhile, Surgeon General Jerome Adams last Friday was matched up with gospel singer Winans, who has dealt with several family members, including her well-known brother BeBe Winans, falling ill from Covid-19. “[A]t the request of HHS, Dr. Fauci did an interview with Dennis Quaid for a PSA campaign,” said a spokesperson for his agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The spokesperson said the agency was not privy to further details and referred questions to HHS. Caputo’s team also has considered involving well-known figures like Dr. Oz and other members of the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness & Nutrition, an advisory board of athletes and celebrities that is overseen by HHS, said three individuals with knowledge of the planning. One official said that Oz would be a particularly good fit in the campaign because of his medical credentials and previous conversations with Trump and senior appointees. Public health experts have critiqued Oz’s praise for hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug that Trump favored to fight coronavirus despite scant evidence, and some of the TV doctor’s other pronouncements about handling the outbreak that they say are not grounded in science. Officials also have discussed the participation of musician Garth Brooks, whose daughter tested positive for coronavirus this summer, for a potential role in the advertising campaign, said two people with knowledge of the plan. Representatives for Brooks did not respond to request for comment.
The use of well-known figures is common in advertising. Quaid has some experience in activism in health care. His twins suffered life-threatening reactions to an inappropriate drug administered to them in the hospital. He and his wife at the time founded The Quaid Foundation dedicated to helping minimize medical mistakes. The PSA videos will likely be deployed to reach specific demographics. For example, the video with CeCe Winans and Surgeon General Adams will likely go to urban areas to address questions from black communities.
A representative for Winans confirmed her involvement in the videos, praising Adams for his part in the conversation. “She volunteered her time participating in the PSA and was happy to do so because of her concerns about how Covid has and is impacting the African American community,” Chaz Corzine, a spokesperson for Winans, wrote in an email to POLITICO.
This story strikes me as a very 2020 type of story. The year has been so horrible for most American, thanks to the coronavirus pandemic, that the government feels the need to do an ad campaign to reassure people that all hope is not lost. We can get through this. Perhaps this latest bit of information from the CDC will ease some fears:


hotair--2020-09-26--Another early lid today for the Biden campaign

Five days from now , Team Joe ’ s habit of keeping him off the campaign trail will matter either not at all or a lot .
If he ’ s lively and on the attack at Tuesday night ’ s debate , no one will care the next morning that he ’ s been keeping a low profile for much of September .
They ’ ll have seen with their own eyes that he ’ s more nimble than he ’ s been cracked up to be .
The “ early lid ” stories will remain fun for righty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any reach .
If , however , he ’ s sluggish on Tuesday night , his low profile will seem even more suspicious than it does already .
Maybe Trump ’ s right , people will think .
Maybe Democrats really are trying to hide their guy for fear of what conclusions the public might draw about his capacity if they got to watch him at length .
What if Biden ’ s simply unfit for presidential work at this point ?
“ There is scant physical evidence that the former vice president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the Times noted recently about those rare cases when Biden actually is out on the trail .
“ His visits are scarcely publicized beforehand , logistical details are closely held and his event venues serve as much as video studios as places of gathering .
Barely anyone is allowed near the candidate.
” Social-distancing is virtuous , but surely his events could be hyped locally to make sure the public ’ s aware that he ’ s there even if physical attendance is limited .
Why aren ’ t they ?
Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know when he ’ s around ?
He ’ s not completely off the grid today , it should be noted .
He has two virtual events .
But live retail events in front of voters ?
Zippo .
The excuse all week has been that he ’ s probably busy with debate prep .
I think that ’ s plausible today , the final weekend before the first debate , but it ’ s hard to believe that his preparation until now has been so intensive that it ’ s required entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For what it ’ s worth , the AP claims he ’ s preparing “ aggressively.
” I believe it .
Every day of this campaign has been a referendum on Trump and it ’ s possible that every day to come until November 3 will be a referendum on Trump as well , with one exception — Tuesday night .
That ’ s when the election momentarily becomes a referendum on Biden and his fitness for office .
If he aces the test , voters will probably go back to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want four more years of this ?
” If he fails it , suddenly we have a “ choice ” election in which Biden ’ s capacity is a major issue .
I doubt that Trump can win a referendum .
But he can win if it ’ s a choice .
Biden ’ s campaign has been holding mock debate sessions featuring Bob Bauer , a senior Biden adviser and former White House general counsel , playing the role of Trump , according to a person with direct knowledge of the preparations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bauer has not actually donned a Trump costume in line with Trump stand-ins from previous years , but he is representing his style and expected strategy… “ He doesn ’ t know how to debate the facts , because he ’ s not that smart , ” Biden [ has said ] .
“ He doesn ’ t know that many facts .
He doesn ’ t know much about foreign policy .
He doesn ’ t know much about domestic policy .
He doesn ’ t know much about the detail.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether what he ’ s saying is accurate , that is not winning to Biden , ” said Jen Psaki , a former Obama aide who is close to Biden ’ s team .
“ This is an opportunity to speak directly to the American people .
His objective should be to speak directly to them , but not be pulled in by Trump .
That is hard.
” Some Democrats are worried that Trump will succeed in baiting Biden , possibly by attacking his son Hunter , and that Biden will end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not so sure that ’ d be a bad thing .
If the biggest knock on Sleepy Joe is that he ’ s too sleepy for the job , any sign of liveliness probably helps him .
Trump has told associates he wants to talk specifically about his opponent ’ s son Hunter Biden and mused that the debates are when “ people will finally realize Biden is just not there , ” according to one adviser .
The president is so eager to lay into his rival that he has called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focusing on broadsides that cast Biden as a longtime Washington insider with a limited record of accomplishment , said another adviser , who like many interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe private talks… The prospect of a cage match between a president for whom no subject is off-limits and a challenger who can be openly emotional is making some Biden advisers nervous .
They see a fine line between Biden ’ s passion and empathy , which can appeal to voters , and the raw anger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could undercut his pitch as a calming alternative to a president who thrives on chaos .
“ When you go at his family , he becomes hotter than hell , which is part of the thing I worry about , ” said John Morgan , a Florida trial lawyer and major Biden donor .
“ I think what Biden has to be careful about is not letting his Irish temper blow when that happens.
” One Democratic aide told WaPo that it ’ s hard to prepare to debate someone like Trump who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s skin : “ It ’ s like training for a knife fight and somebody is getting an Uzi.
” Trump ’ s aides are reportedly nervous too , though .
They spent months lowering the bar for Biden by accusing him of being a drooling geriatric imbecile .
Lately they ’ ve tried to undo that with a barrage of messaging about how he ’ s an expert debater after so many decades in the Senate , but the “ Sleepy Joe ” thing is too entrenched by now .
Part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lids lately are part of a strategy by Biden ’ s campaign to deepen suspicion ahead of the debate that he ’ s too frail to do the job .
The lower public expectations are , the easier it is for him to “ win ” on Tuesday by simply being basically coherent for 90 minutes .
And of course there ’ s a chance that he performs well , which may have an outsized effect on the race .
If some voters are on the fence because they ’ re worried Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a solid debate might pull them into his column .
Trump ’ s behind in the race and so he ’ s the one who needs a gamechanger to happen on Tuesday .
What if he doesn ’ t get one ?
What ’ s Plan B to close the gap after “ cross your fingers and hope Biden forgets his name ” doesn ’ t work ?
Here ’ s Pelosi yesterday doubling down on her dopey suggestion that Biden should skip the debates lest he dignify Trump by his mere attendance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a gamechanger on Tuesday , whether because he performs strongly ( doubtful ) or because Biden performs weakly ( quite possible ) , will he skip the second and third debates ?
Why give Sleepy Joe the chance to undo any damage he does to himself at the first debate ?

Five days from now, Team Joe’s habit of keeping him off the campaign trail will matter either not at all or a lot. If he’s lively and on the attack at Tuesday night’s debate, no one will care the next morning that he’s been keeping a low profile for much of September. They’ll have seen with their own eyes that he’s more nimble than he’s been cracked up to be. The “early lid” stories will remain fun for righty media but they won’t have any reach.
If, however, he’s sluggish on Tuesday night, his low profile will seem even more suspicious than it does already. Maybe Trump’s right, people will think. Maybe Democrats really are trying to hide their guy for fear of what conclusions the public might draw about his capacity if they got to watch him at length. What if Biden’s simply unfit for presidential work at this point? “There is scant physical evidence that the former vice president and Democratic nominee is in town,” the Times noted recently about those rare cases when Biden actually is out on the trail. “His visits are scarcely publicized beforehand, logistical details are closely held and his event venues serve as much as video studios as places of gathering. Barely anyone is allowed near the candidate.” Social-distancing is virtuous, but surely his events could be hyped locally to make sure the public’s aware that he’s there even if physical attendance is limited. Why aren’t they?
Do Democrats just … not want people to know when he’s around?
He’s not completely off the grid today, it should be noted. He has two virtual events. But live retail events in front of voters? Zippo.
Joe Biden called a lid on the day earlier this morning. No events, no questions. Less than 6 weeks before the election, the Democratic nominee is working at a 50% clip, calling a lid 7 of the past 14 days and 11 of the past 26 this month. Is this a preview of a Biden presidency? — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) September 26, 2020
Tracking Biden Campaign Lid Calls for the month of September. (Date, time & what the pool reporters of the day wrote) Total so far → 10 lid calls
This week alone from 9/19-9/26 → 4 pic.twitter.com/R4zBcrd5dn — Mona Salama (@MonaSalama_) September 26, 2020
The excuse all week has been that he’s probably busy with debate prep. I think that’s plausible today, the final weekend before the first debate, but it’s hard to believe that his preparation until now has been so intensive that it’s required entire days to be cleared from his schedule.
For what it’s worth, the AP claims he’s preparing “aggressively.” I believe it. Every day of this campaign has been a referendum on Trump and it’s possible that every day to come until November 3 will be a referendum on Trump as well, with one exception — Tuesday night. That’s when the election momentarily becomes a referendum on Biden and his fitness for office. If he aces the test, voters will probably go back to their baseline electoral question, “Do I want four more years of this?” If he fails it, suddenly we have a “choice” election in which Biden’s capacity is a major issue. I doubt that Trump can win a referendum. But he can win if it’s a choice.
Biden’s campaign has been holding mock debate sessions featuring Bob Bauer, a senior Biden adviser and former White House general counsel, playing the role of Trump, according to a person with direct knowledge of the preparations granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy. Bauer has not actually donned a Trump costume in line with Trump stand-ins from previous years, but he is representing his style and expected strategy… “He doesn’t know how to debate the facts, because he’s not that smart,” Biden [has said]. “He doesn’t know that many facts. He doesn’t know much about foreign policy. He doesn’t know much about domestic policy. He doesn’t know much about the detail.”… “Arguing over facts, litigating whether what he’s saying is accurate, that is not winning to Biden,” said Jen Psaki, a former Obama aide who is close to Biden’s team. “This is an opportunity to speak directly to the American people. His objective should be to speak directly to them, but not be pulled in by Trump. That is hard.”
Some Democrats are worried that Trump will succeed in baiting Biden, possibly by attacking his son Hunter, and that Biden will end up losing his temper. I’m not so sure that’d be a bad thing. If the biggest knock on Sleepy Joe is that he’s too sleepy for the job, any sign of liveliness probably helps him.
Trump has told associates he wants to talk specifically about his opponent’s son Hunter Biden and mused that the debates are when “people will finally realize Biden is just not there,” according to one adviser. The president is so eager to lay into his rival that he has called aides to test out various attacks, focusing on broadsides that cast Biden as a longtime Washington insider with a limited record of accomplishment, said another adviser, who like many interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe private talks… The prospect of a cage match between a president for whom no subject is off-limits and a challenger who can be openly emotional is making some Biden advisers nervous. They see a fine line between Biden’s passion and empathy, which can appeal to voters, and the raw anger that sometimes gets him in trouble and could undercut his pitch as a calming alternative to a president who thrives on chaos. “When you go at his family, he becomes hotter than hell, which is part of the thing I worry about,” said John Morgan, a Florida trial lawyer and major Biden donor. “I think what Biden has to be careful about is not letting his Irish temper blow when that happens.”
One Democratic aide told WaPo that it’s hard to prepare to debate someone like Trump who has a knack for getting under people’s skin: “It’s like training for a knife fight and somebody is getting an Uzi.”
Trump’s aides are reportedly nervous too, though. They spent months lowering the bar for Biden by accusing him of being a drooling geriatric imbecile. Lately they’ve tried to undo that with a barrage of messaging about how he’s an expert debater after so many decades in the Senate, but the “Sleepy Joe” thing is too entrenched by now. Part of me even wonders if the early lids lately are part of a strategy by Biden’s campaign to deepen suspicion ahead of the debate that he’s too frail to do the job. The lower public expectations are, the easier it is for him to “win” on Tuesday by simply being basically coherent for 90 minutes. And of course there’s a chance that he performs well, which may have an outsized effect on the race. If some voters are on the fence because they’re worried Biden might not be fit for office, a solid debate might pull them into his column. Trump’s behind in the race and so he’s the one who needs a gamechanger to happen on Tuesday. What if he doesn’t get one? What’s Plan B to close the gap after “cross your fingers and hope Biden forgets his name” doesn’t work?
Here’s Pelosi yesterday doubling down on her dopey suggestion that Biden should skip the debates lest he dignify Trump by his mere attendance. Exit question: If Trump *does* get a gamechanger on Tuesday, whether because he performs strongly (doubtful) or because Biden performs weakly (quite possible), will he skip the second and third debates? Why give Sleepy Joe the chance to undo any damage he does to himself at the first debate?


hotair--2020-09-26--Trump's official announcement of Amy Coney Barrett as his third Supreme Court nominee

The President is scheduled to make his argument at 5 pm .
Of course CNN broke the story yesterday that Amy Coney Barrett is his pick , so there ’ s no suspense left but with Trump there is always the possibility of a surprise of some sort .
Also we should get to hear from Barrett herself so we ’ ll see how that goes .
In the lead up to the announcement , Fox News ’ Bret Baier spoke to Kayleigh McEnany about the process leading up to this .
She made it clear she ’ s expecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition to full announcement which I have embedded below , you can also watch Ed Morrissey ’ s live stream reaction to the announcement right here : Trump praised Ginsburg as a “ legal giant ” and an inspiration to Americans .
He then introduced Judge Barrett in similarly glowing terms .
After reading through some of the praise she had received in the past , he asked Democrats to treat her with respect .
He joked that he ’ d said that before ( about Judge Kavanaugh ) .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Notre Dame wrote to Justice Scalia with a one sentence recommendation , ‘ Amy Coney is the best student I ever had.
’ That ’ s pretty good , ” Trump said .
When Barrett took the podium she also praised Justice Ginsburg and especially her long friendship with Justice Scalia , her own mentor .
Barrett then spent a good deal of time talking about her children and family , with some special praise for her husband who she said asks her what he can do for her every single day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive things about their significant others in these situations but in this case it didn ’ t feel forced at all .
There ’ s some real love at the center of this family .
And that was really it .
A brief introductory speech from Barrett and then her family and the First Lady came forward as Trump thanked a few more people in the crowd .
Moments later the band struck up and they all exited together .
Now we need to see how the reactions trend .
Already this tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some pushback .
He was responding to a tweet asking how the left would manage to call Barrett racist given that she adopted two black children from Haiti .
Here ’ s Kendi trying to leave room to do just that , i.e .
leave room to call her or people like her racist anyway .
Here ’ s the full speech .
You ’ ll need to scroll forward a bit because this was a livestream .

The President is scheduled to make his argument at 5 pm. Of course CNN broke the story yesterday that Amy Coney Barrett is his pick, so there’s no suspense left but with Trump there is always the possibility of a surprise of some sort. Also we should get to hear from Barrett herself so we’ll see how that goes.
In the lead up to the announcement, Fox News’ Bret Baier spoke to Kayleigh McEnany about the process leading up to this. She made it clear she’s expecting Democrats to be nothing sort of vicious.
In addition to full announcement which I have embedded below, you can also watch Ed Morrissey’s live stream reaction to the announcement right here:
Trump praised Ginsburg as a “legal giant” and an inspiration to Americans. He then introduced Judge Barrett in similarly glowing terms. After reading through some of the praise she had received in the past, he asked Democrats to treat her with respect. He joked that he’d said that before (about Judge Kavanaugh).
“A very highly respected law professor at Notre Dame wrote to Justice Scalia with a one sentence recommendation, ‘Amy Coney is the best student I ever had.’ That’s pretty good,” Trump said.
When Barrett took the podium she also praised Justice Ginsburg and especially her long friendship with Justice Scalia, her own mentor. Barrett then spent a good deal of time talking about her children and family, with some special praise for her husband who she said asks her what he can do for her every single day. I know spouses are expected to say positive things about their significant others in these situations but in this case it didn’t feel forced at all. There’s some real love at the center of this family.
And that was really it. A brief introductory speech from Barrett and then her family and the First Lady came forward as Trump thanked a few more people in the crowd. Moments later the band struck up and they all exited together.
Now we need to see how the reactions trend. Already this tweet by anti-racist professor Ibram Kendi is attracting some pushback. He was responding to a tweet asking how the left would manage to call Barrett racist given that she adopted two black children from Haiti. Here’s Kendi trying to leave room to do just that, i.e. leave room to call her or people like her racist anyway.
Some White colonizers "adopted" Black children. They "civilized" these "savage" children in the "superior" ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. https://t.co/XBE9rRnoqq — Ibram X. Kendi (@DrIbram) September 26, 2020
Here’s Joe Biden’s reaction:
Today, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court — a jurist with a written track record of disagreeing with the Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Vote like your health care is on the ballot — because it is. https://t.co/TDBQOVLP4K — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 26, 2020
And Schiff:
Here's why Republicans are rushing Amy Coney Barrett into a lifetime appointment: So she can strike down healthcare and overturn Roe v. Wade. Republicans also fear they’re losing the election and want her to deliver the election for Trump. No confirmation before inauguration. — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) September 26, 2020
Schumer:
A vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to eliminate health care for millions in the middle of a pandemic. Democrats are fighting for Americans' health care.https://t.co/e3pWbFWRDm — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) September 26, 2020
Here’s the full speech. You’ll need to scroll forward a bit because this was a livestream.