hotair--2020-05-07--The Ahmaud Arbery case looks even worse after reading the DA's explanation for not filing charges

One point I didn ’ t emphasize enough in yesterday ’ s post was the timeline .
The shooting didn ’ t happen last week .
It happened in February .
Cops have had the video for months .
The district attorney ’ s already weighed charges against Greg and Travis McMichael and recommended giving them a pass — until the footage of the incident leaked .
Father and son would have walked free as birds if not for the existence of the video , with the full cooperation of local authorities in Georgia .
( They ’ re still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write this . )
Whether that ’ s because Greg McMichael is an ex-cop and former investigator and therefore chummy with the DA ’ s office or because he ’ s white and Arbery wasn ’ t , decide for yourself .
It ’ s not either/or .
David French did a deeper dive into the case than I had time to do and flagged this letter from DA George Barnhill .
Barnhill has since recused himself from the case but his reasoning suggests a deep bias within law enforcement about what happened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Nothing that happened between Arbery and the McMichaels remotely resembles “ solid first hand probable cause.
” I quoted the same statute that Barnhill quotes in my post yesterday : In Georgia , to make a lawful citizen ’ s arrest , a crime needs to be committed right in front of you or within your “ immediate knowledge.
” Not only did the McMichaels not personally witness Arbery committing a crime , literally no one did .
Supposedly he resembled a man who was caught on surveillance video recently in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifics of that are unclear .
Even the 911 calls made shortly before the shooting , alerting police to Arbery ’ s presence in the area , couldn ’ t name any crime he ’ d committed .
It went on : McMichael told cops after the shooting that there had been “ several ” break-ins in the neighborhood and that Arbery was the suspect caught on surveillance video , but of course he couldn ’ t know that for sure .
And according to local media , as noted by French , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area recorded recently : That was the theft of Travis McMichael ’ s gun from his car on January 1 , more than a month before Arbery was “ identified ” and shot .
Another local man claimed he ’ d had fishing gear stolen but there ’ s no evidence that Arbery was involved .
So where was the “ solid first hand probable cause ” that supposedly justified hot pursuit under the citizen ’ s-arrest statute ?
French dug around in Georgia case law and found that the part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information in the citizen ’ s “ immediate knowledge ” does *not* include knowledge about prior crimes that the suspect may have committed .
It applies only to crimes that are in the process of being committed .
I suspect Georgia lawmakers who wrote the law were thinking of a scenario in which , for example , you ’ re in line at the bank and the person in front of you pulls a gun on the teller and demands their money .
If you find the nerve to tackle that perp and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to punish you for detaining him .
But hunting a man down in the street while brandishing weapons and demanding to question him ?
That ’ s not a citizen ’ s arrest .
That ’ s called “ false imprisonment.
” Or , if you prefer , “ attempted kidnapping.
” Oh , speaking of which — French notes that Georgia case law also says that the citizen ’ s-arrest statute doesn ’ t entitle you to question a suspect you ’ ve arrested .
Again , the law isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joe play pretend policeman , it ’ s designed to spare citizens from liability when they interrupt a crime that ’ s in progress and capture the bad guy .
And there was no crime in progress here , at least none committed by Arbery .
Literally no one has been able to say what the alleged offense was .
But the DA ’ s letter gets worse : I ’ m going to ask you to watch the video again here with two questions in mind : Who ’ s the aggressor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-defense ?
Arbery was being pursued , apparently by the car with the dashcam .
As he approaches the McMichaels ’ truck , Travis McMichael steps out out of the cab in front of him — brandishing a weapon .
It ’ s hard to tell what Greg McMichael is doing in the bed of the truck , but given how soon after he fires at Arbery , he must have his weapon out too .
Arbery looks like he ’ s about to swerve left to try to avoid the McMichaels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to confront him , he veers right to try to pass the truck on the passenger side .
Everyone ’ s momentarily out of frame , but when the camera picks them back up , Travis and Arbery both appear to be in front of the truck .
That ’ s when Arbery makes a move for Travis McMichael ’ s gun .
It looks to me like Greg McMichael takes a shot at him from the bed but I can ’ t tell for sure .
Barnhill calls this an “ attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McMichael .
If you were Arbery , what would you have done ?
One man chasing you from behind , two men with guns in front of you and demanding to speak with you .
You try to run past them and one man steps in your way .
You try to run around the other side to escape him and find him walking towards your position to try to confront you .
You ’ re not going to outrun two vehicles ; if these guys want to “ speak ” with you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
What would you have done ?
In Barnhill ’ s account , Arbery ’ s the aggressor .
Arbery grabbed McMichael ’ s gun unprovoked .
“ Arbery initiated the fight , ” he has the balls to say at one point .
These turds are engaged in a public kidnapping and Barnhill is ready to rule this lawful self-defense by the McMichaels because Arbery tried to defend himself by grabbing Travis McMichael ’ s gun .
And then , for good measure , he blames Arbery ’ s “ aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t even blame the McMichaels for brandishing weapons .
Georgia allows open carry , he notes in another part of his letter , which is true .
But I ’ m pretty sure open carry doesn ’ t entitle you to use firearms to coerce someone in the course of executing your kidnapping plot .
One of the most disgraceful whitewashes by law enforcement we ’ ll ever see .
I mean , I hope .
I don ’ t want to see what ’ s worse than this .

One point I didn’t emphasize enough in yesterday’s post was the timeline. The shooting didn’t happen last week. It happened in February.
Cops have had the video for months.
The district attorney’s already weighed charges against Greg and Travis McMichael and recommended giving them a pass — until the footage of the incident leaked.
Father and son would have walked free as birds if not for the existence of the video, with the full cooperation of local authorities in Georgia. (They’re still free and facing no charges as I write this.) Whether that’s because Greg McMichael is an ex-cop and former investigator and therefore chummy with the DA’s office or because he’s white and Arbery wasn’t, decide for yourself. It’s not either/or.
David French did a deeper dive into the case than I had time to do and flagged this letter from DA George Barnhill. Barnhill has since recused himself from the case but his reasoning suggests a deep bias within law enforcement about what happened here. First there’s this:
Nothing that happened between Arbery and the McMichaels remotely resembles “solid first hand probable cause.” I quoted the same statute that Barnhill quotes in my post yesterday: In Georgia, to make a lawful citizen’s arrest, a crime needs to be committed right in front of you or within your “immediate knowledge.” Not only did the McMichaels not personally witness Arbery committing a crime, literally no one did. Supposedly he resembled a man who was caught on surveillance video recently in the area doing … something, but the specifics of that are unclear. Even the 911 calls made shortly before the shooting, alerting police to Arbery’s presence in the area, couldn’t name any crime he’d committed.
“Arbery had been seen recently on surveillance video in the neighborhood, according to the first caller. Neither call specifies a crime Arbery might have committed. There’s a guy in the house right now; it’s under construction,” the man told the dispatcher. The man then gave her an address. “And you said someone’s breaking into it right now?” the dispatcher asked. “No,” the man replied, “it’s all open. It’s under construction … “
It went on:
“He’s running down the street,” the man said. The next sentence is garbled. “That’s fine,” the dispatcher said. “I’ll get (police) out there. I just need to know what he was doing wrong. Was he just on the premises and not supposed to be?” The next sentence is garbled. “And he’s been caught on camera a bunch at night. It’s kind of an ongoing thing. The man building the house has got heart issues. I think he’s not going to finish it.”
McMichael told cops after the shooting that there had been “several” break-ins in the neighborhood and that Arbery was the suspect caught on surveillance video, but of course he couldn’t know that for sure. And according to local media, as noted by French, there was only one burglary in the area recorded recently: That was the theft of Travis McMichael’s gun from his car on January 1, more than a month before Arbery was “identified” and shot. Another local man claimed he’d had fishing gear stolen but there’s no evidence that Arbery was involved.
So where was the “solid first hand probable cause” that supposedly justified hot pursuit under the citizen’s-arrest statute?
French dug around in Georgia case law and found that the part of the statute that authorizes an arrest based on information in the citizen’s “immediate knowledge” does *not* include knowledge about prior crimes that the suspect may have committed. It applies only to crimes that are in the process of being committed. I suspect Georgia lawmakers who wrote the law were thinking of a scenario in which, for example, you’re in line at the bank and the person in front of you pulls a gun on the teller and demands their money. If you find the nerve to tackle that perp and disarm him, obviously we don’t want to punish you for detaining him.
But hunting a man down in the street while brandishing weapons and demanding to question him? That’s not a citizen’s arrest. That’s called “false imprisonment.” Or, if you prefer, “attempted kidnapping.” Oh, speaking of which — French notes that Georgia case law also says that the citizen’s-arrest statute doesn’t entitle you to question a suspect you’ve arrested. Again, the law isn’t designed to let the average joe play pretend policeman, it’s designed to spare citizens from liability when they interrupt a crime that’s in progress and capture the bad guy.
And there was no crime in progress here, at least none committed by Arbery. Literally no one has been able to say what the alleged offense was.
But the DA’s letter gets worse:
I’m going to ask you to watch the video again here with two questions in mind: Who’s the aggressor? And who’s engaged in self-defense?
NEWS: Graphic video appears to show Ahmaud Arbery, 25 of GA., whose family says he was out for a run, confronted by 2 men who shot him dead saying they thought he was a burglar. A prosecutor wants a grand jury to decide whether the men should be charged. https://t.co/kEYYJW7UlM — David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) May 5, 2020
Arbery was being pursued, apparently by the car with the dashcam. As he approaches the McMichaels’ truck, Travis McMichael steps out out of the cab in front of him — brandishing a weapon. It’s hard to tell what Greg McMichael is doing in the bed of the truck, but given how soon after he fires at Arbery, he must have his weapon out too. Arbery looks like he’s about to swerve left to try to avoid the McMichaels, but once he sees Travis step out to confront him, he veers right to try to pass the truck on the passenger side. Everyone’s momentarily out of frame, but when the camera picks them back up, Travis and Arbery both appear to be in front of the truck. That’s when Arbery makes a move for Travis McMichael’s gun. It looks to me like Greg McMichael takes a shot at him from the bed but I can’t tell for sure.
Barnhill calls this an “attack” — by Arbery, on Travis McMichael.
If you were Arbery, what would you have done? One man chasing you from behind, two men with guns in front of you and demanding to speak with you. You try to run past them and one man steps in your way. You try to run around the other side to escape him and find him walking towards your position to try to confront you. You’re not going to outrun two vehicles; if these guys want to “speak” with you badly enough, they’re going to.
What would you have done?
In Barnhill’s account, Arbery’s the aggressor. Arbery grabbed McMichael’s gun unprovoked. “Arbery initiated the fight,” he has the balls to say at one point. These turds are engaged in a public kidnapping and Barnhill is ready to rule this lawful self-defense by the McMichaels because Arbery tried to defend himself by grabbing Travis McMichael’s gun. And then, for good measure, he blames Arbery’s “aggressive nature” on mental-health problems.
He doesn’t even blame the McMichaels for brandishing weapons. Georgia allows open carry, he notes in another part of his letter, which is true. But I’m pretty sure open carry doesn’t entitle you to use firearms to coerce someone in the course of executing your kidnapping plot.
One of the most disgraceful whitewashes by law enforcement we’ll ever see. I mean, I hope. I don’t want to see what’s worse than this.


hotair--2020-05-07--New York City was the 'primary gateway' for coronavirus outbreaks around the country

I ’ ll probably never stop being amazed at the difference between the media ’ s praise for Gov .
Cuomo ’ s response to the pandemic and Cuomo ’ s actual results .
Today the NY Times reports on new genetic research which concludes that New York City became the “ primary gateway ” which seeded coronavirus outbreaks around the United States : The findings are drawn from geneticists ’ tracking signature mutations of the virus , travel histories of infected people and models of the outbreak by infectious disease experts .
“ We now have enough data to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary gateway for the rest of the country , ” said Nathan Grubaugh , an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health… “ New York acted as the Grand Central Station for this virus , with the opportunity to move from there in so many directions , to so many places , ” said David Engelthaler , head of the infectious disease branch of the Translational Genomics Research Institute in Arizona .
Remember those stories back in March about wealthy New Yorkers fleeing the city in a panic to their second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be safer ?
Some locals became so upset with the influx that they began telling the summer people to stay home in New York .
Last month the Times published a story about that which concluded it wasn ’ t clear what the impact of those actions were but “ preliminary data and anecdotal evidence does suggest that fleeing New Yorkers may have hastened the virus ’ s spread.
” That ’ s not to say all of this is about people with second homes but that was one indication of a general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot and people traveling from the city were going to spread the virus .
That ’ s exactly what happened .
There ’ s a graph in this story which compares the degree to which outbreaks in cities around the U.S. were seeded by New York City relative to the initial outbreak which took place in Washington state .
As you can see , Washington is the only state where the majority of the outbreak had a west coast origin : The Times argues this proves efforts to curb the spread in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The central role of New York ’ s outbreak shows that decisions made by state and federal officials — including waiting to impose distancing measures and to limit international flights — helped shape the trajectory of the outbreak and allowed it to grow in the rest of the country .
During crucial weeks in March , New York ’ s political leaders waited to take aggressive action , even after identifying hundreds of cases , giving the virus a head start .
And by mid-March , when President Trump restricted travel from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the data suggest , as the disease was already spreading widely within the country .
That link above goes to a story I wrote about here .
As the national media remained intensely focused on the failures of the federal government and President Trump in particular , that NY Times piece pointed out that the real problems in New York stemmed first from overconfidence followed by delays and infighting between Gov .
Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio .
“ Excuse our arrogance as New Yorkers — I speak for the mayor also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the best health care system on the planet right here in New York , ” Mr. Cuomo said on March 2 .
“ So , when you ’ re saying , what happened in other countries versus what happened here , we don ’ t even think it ’ s going to be as bad as it was in other countries.
” … “ We can really keep this thing contained , ” Mr. de Blasio said at a news conference about virus preparations in late February .
That tone continued even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 1 .
“ Everybody is doing exactly what we need to do , ” said Mr. Cuomo , seated with Mr. de Blasio , at a news conference on March 2 .
“ We have been ahead of this from Day 1.
” As things started to get bad in New York , leadership tried to blame the feds for the failures but as the Times pointed out , efforts to slow the spread were always in the hands of New York officials : Looking back , it ’ s pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local level impacted not just New York but the whole country .
And yet , there are still people hoping that Gov .
Cuomo might somehow replace Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee , as if his response to the outbreak is proof of his outstanding leadership .
There is a vast gulf between his mostly glowing press and his actual achievements which could best be summed up with that graph above .

I’ll probably never stop being amazed at the difference between the media’s praise for Gov. Cuomo’s response to the pandemic and Cuomo’s actual results. Today the NY Times reports on new genetic research which concludes that New York City became the “primary gateway” which seeded coronavirus outbreaks around the United States:
The findings are drawn from geneticists’ tracking signature mutations of the virus, travel histories of infected people and models of the outbreak by infectious disease experts. “We now have enough data to feel pretty confident that New York was the primary gateway for the rest of the country,” said Nathan Grubaugh, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health… “New York acted as the Grand Central Station for this virus, with the opportunity to move from there in so many directions, to so many places,” said David Engelthaler, head of the infectious disease branch of the Translational Genomics Research Institute in Arizona.
Remember those stories back in March about wealthy New Yorkers fleeing the city in a panic to their second homes where they thought they’d be safer? Some locals became so upset with the influx that they began telling the summer people to stay home in New York. Last month the Times published a story about that which concluded it wasn’t clear what the impact of those actions were but “preliminary data and anecdotal evidence does suggest that fleeing New Yorkers may have hastened the virus’s spread.” That’s not to say all of this is about people with second homes but that was one indication of a general sense that New York was a hot spot and people traveling from the city were going to spread the virus. That’s exactly what happened.
There’s a graph in this story which compares the degree to which outbreaks in cities around the U.S. were seeded by New York City relative to the initial outbreak which took place in Washington state. As you can see, Washington is the only state where the majority of the outbreak had a west coast origin:
The Times argues this proves efforts to curb the spread in New York were too little, too late:
The central role of New York’s outbreak shows that decisions made by state and federal officials — including waiting to impose distancing measures and to limit international flights — helped shape the trajectory of the outbreak and allowed it to grow in the rest of the country. During crucial weeks in March, New York’s political leaders waited to take aggressive action, even after identifying hundreds of cases, giving the virus a head start. And by mid-March, when President Trump restricted travel from Europe, the restrictions were essentially pointless, the data suggest, as the disease was already spreading widely within the country.
That link above goes to a story I wrote about here. As the national media remained intensely focused on the failures of the federal government and President Trump in particular, that NY Times piece pointed out that the real problems in New York stemmed first from overconfidence followed by delays and infighting between Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio.
“Excuse our arrogance as New Yorkers — I speak for the mayor also on this one — we think we have the best health care system on the planet right here in New York,” Mr. Cuomo said on March 2. “So, when you’re saying, what happened in other countries versus what happened here, we don’t even think it’s going to be as bad as it was in other countries.”… “We can really keep this thing contained,” Mr. de Blasio said at a news conference about virus preparations in late February. That tone continued even after the first positive case was announced on March 1. “Everybody is doing exactly what we need to do,” said Mr. Cuomo, seated with Mr. de Blasio, at a news conference on March 2. “We have been ahead of this from Day 1.”
As things started to get bad in New York, leadership tried to blame the feds for the failures but as the Times pointed out, efforts to slow the spread were always in the hands of New York officials:
They blamed the spread in New York on the federal government, which they say dragged its feet on testing. For weeks, Mr. Trump brushed aside concerns that the outbreak would damage the country… But local officials did have control over closing schools and businesses. While they waited on making a decision, other major cities were moving toward shutdowns.
Looking back, it’s pretty clear that those failures at the state and local level impacted not just New York but the whole country. And yet, there are still people hoping that Gov. Cuomo might somehow replace Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee, as if his response to the outbreak is proof of his outstanding leadership. There is a vast gulf between his mostly glowing press and his actual achievements which could best be summed up with that graph above.


hotair--2020-05-07--SCOTUS prepares to hear faithless electors cases

The Supreme Court is preparing to hear two important cases next week that could have a significant impact on all future presidential elections .
( Well , that ’ s assuming that Sonia Sotomayor can figure out how to unmute her microphone . )
Both Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca deal with the issue of faithless electors that popped up after the 2016 election .
At stake is the question of whether or not states have the right to force members of the electoral college to cast their votes in accordance with the outcome of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are free to vote as their own conscience dictates .
At Vox , Ian Millhiser imagines a dire situation where Joe Biden narrowly carries enough states to give him the electoral college total he needs but is then robbed of victory by a handful of faithless electors .
The author goes on from there to consider the constitutional realities underlying these cases and how the justices might rule .
Imagine that , when the votes are finally counted in the 2020 election , former Vice President Joe Biden squeezes out a narrow victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , weeks later , the nation is shocked to learn that President Donald Trump will receive a second term because a few previously unknown members of the Electoral College refused to vote for Biden .
A pair of cases the Supreme Court will hear next week , Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca , will decide if this scenario is even possible .
Both cases involve “ faithless electors ” — members of the Electoral College who go rogue and refuse to vote for the candidate who won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases turns upon a narrow distinction between a state ’ s power to appoint presidential electors , and its power to compel those electors to behave in a certain way after they are appointed .
Particularly given the fact that this article is from Vox , it ’ s easy to see that Millhiser isn ’ t a fan of the electoral college to begin with , describing it as insufficiently democratic .
I find myself wondering if he would be quite as upset if it were Trump who narrowly carried the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Biden by faithless electors , but that ’ s really not the issue at hand .
The Supreme Court hasn ’ t had a lot to say about this issue over the years .
They did issue one ruling in the 1950s saying that electors could be made to swear an oath saying that they would support their party ’ s nominee before being seated .
What they didn ’ t tell us was what , if any options were open to the state if the elector turned around and violated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Washington fined three faithless electors $ 1,000 each .
In Baca , one elector attempted to vote for John Kasich despite Hillary Clinton having carried the state .
Colorado removed him and replaced him with someone willing to cast their vote for Hillary .
All of the electors have appealed those actions , leading us to where we are today .
This has always been an uncomfortable issue for me , as I imagine it is for many conservatives .
On the surface , I would imagine that most of us bristle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will of the people as expressed at the polls and substituting their own preference instead .
Our votes are supposed to matter .
Surely this can ’ t be what the Founders intended !
But therein lies the problem .
It actually was what at least some of the Founders intended .
They debated it when the Constitution was being developed and it ’ s fairly obvious which side won .
In Federalist 68 , Hamilton specifically argued that the riffraff out in the streets might be unable to elect a man of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation , saying that only “ men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station ” should be entrusted with such momentous decisions .
And Hamilton was talking about a society where pretty much only white , male landowners were going to end up voting .
Imagine what ’ s he ’ d be saying about the hoi polloi we have running around today .
The Founders decided to go with the electoral college over the popular vote .
If they had wanted to put a limit on the free will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chosen to do so .
But they did not .
So if you consider yourself a faithful constitutional originalist who respects the directives and vision of the Founding Fathers , you probably support their decision to create the electoral college instead of just going with a national popular vote .
( That certainly worked out in our favor in 2016 . )
But if that ’ s the case , it would be rather hypocritical of us to turn around and say that their vision of how the electors conduct themselves is flawed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t like it any more than I ’ m sure many of you do .
But when faithless electors pop up , what we ’ re really seeing is the system functioning as designed .
This isn ’ t a bug .
It ’ s a feature .
If the state parties don ’ t like the way this has been working out , there ’ s a better solution available than seeking some sort of mandate from the Supreme Court .
Stop handing out electoral college seats like candy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people seeking this honor .
Ensure they are long-time party loyalists .
Check their social media feeds and other published work to see if they truly support the party ’ s nominee .
( This should be particularly true for Republicans these days . )
If you don ’ t want to deal with faithless electors , pick people who are the least likely to go rogue on you .

The Supreme Court is preparing to hear two important cases next week that could have a significant impact on all future presidential elections. (Well, that’s assuming that Sonia Sotomayor can figure out how to unmute her microphone.) Both Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca deal with the issue of faithless electors that popped up after the 2016 election. At stake is the question of whether or not states have the right to force members of the electoral college to cast their votes in accordance with the outcome of the statewide election or if the electors are free to vote as their own conscience dictates.
At Vox, Ian Millhiser imagines a dire situation where Joe Biden narrowly carries enough states to give him the electoral college total he needs but is then robbed of victory by a handful of faithless electors. The author goes on from there to consider the constitutional realities underlying these cases and how the justices might rule.
Imagine that, when the votes are finally counted in the 2020 election, former Vice President Joe Biden squeezes out a narrow victory in the Electoral College. Then imagine that, weeks later, the nation is shocked to learn that President Donald Trump will receive a second term because a few previously unknown members of the Electoral College refused to vote for Biden. A pair of cases the Supreme Court will hear next week, Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, will decide if this scenario is even possible. Both cases involve “faithless electors” — members of the Electoral College who go rogue and refuse to vote for the candidate who won their state… The legal dispute in both cases turns upon a narrow distinction between a state’s power to appoint presidential electors, and its power to compel those electors to behave in a certain way after they are appointed.
Particularly given the fact that this article is from Vox, it’s easy to see that Millhiser isn’t a fan of the electoral college to begin with, describing it as insufficiently democratic. I find myself wondering if he would be quite as upset if it were Trump who narrowly carried the day, only to see the office given to Biden by faithless electors, but that’s really not the issue at hand.
The Supreme Court hasn’t had a lot to say about this issue over the years. They did issue one ruling in the 1950s saying that electors could be made to swear an oath saying that they would support their party’s nominee before being seated. What they didn’t tell us was what, if any options were open to the state if the elector turned around and violated that oath.
In Chiafalo, the state of Washington fined three faithless electors $1,000 each. In Baca, one elector attempted to vote for John Kasich despite Hillary Clinton having carried the state. Colorado removed him and replaced him with someone willing to cast their vote for Hillary. All of the electors have appealed those actions, leading us to where we are today.
This has always been an uncomfortable issue for me, as I imagine it is for many conservatives. On the surface, I would imagine that most of us bristle at the idea of someone overriding the will of the people as expressed at the polls and substituting their own preference instead. Our votes are supposed to matter. Surely this can’t be what the Founders intended!
But therein lies the problem. It actually was what at least some of the Founders intended. They debated it when the Constitution was being developed and it’s fairly obvious which side won. In Federalist 68, Hamilton specifically argued that the riffraff out in the streets might be unable to elect a man of sufficient virtue and ability to lead the nation, saying that only “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station” should be entrusted with such momentous decisions. And Hamilton was talking about a society where pretty much only white, male landowners were going to end up voting. Imagine what’s he’d be saying about the hoi polloi we have running around today.
The Founders decided to go with the electoral college over the popular vote. If they had wanted to put a limit on the free will of the electors, they could have chosen to do so. But they did not.
So if you consider yourself a faithful constitutional originalist who respects the directives and vision of the Founding Fathers, you probably support their decision to create the electoral college instead of just going with a national popular vote. (That certainly worked out in our favor in 2016.) But if that’s the case, it would be rather hypocritical of us to turn around and say that their vision of how the electors conduct themselves is flawed, wouldn’t it?
I don’t like it any more than I’m sure many of you do. But when faithless electors pop up, what we’re really seeing is the system functioning as designed. This isn’t a bug. It’s a feature. If the state parties don’t like the way this has been working out, there’s a better solution available than seeking some sort of mandate from the Supreme Court. Stop handing out electoral college seats like candy and do a better job of vetting the people seeking this honor. Ensure they are long-time party loyalists. Check their social media feeds and other published work to see if they truly support the party’s nominee. (This should be particularly true for Republicans these days.) If you don’t want to deal with faithless electors, pick people who are the least likely to go rogue on you.


hotair--2020-05-07--Biden: I'll change Title IX sexual harassment, assault rules back to forcing the accused to prove th

Biden: I'll change Title IX sexual harassment, assault rules back to forcing the accused to prove their innocence

At this point , you ’ d think that Joe Biden would appreciate a little due process when it came to claims to sexual assault .
Biden himself has backed a long way from his previous , Kavanaugh-era standard of “ Believe All Women ” with Tara Reade to a new “ take my word for it , it never happened ” standard , and expects everyone to fall in line .
Shouldn ’ t he appreciate , then , the work that Betsy DeVos has put into making sure due process applies to all Americans in similar circumstances ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault rules that bolster the rights of the accused , Secretary Betsy DeVos announced on Wednesday .
The new policy also reduces legal liabilities for schools and colleges , and narrows the scope of cases schools will be required to investigate .
… DeVos ’ policy adds new measures intended to make sure students accused of sexual misconduct are judged fairly in campus disciplinary hearings .
Students on both sides must be given equal access to evidence gathered in the school ’ s investigation and be allowed to bring an adviser , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings .
Chief among the changes is a policy requiring colleges to allow students on both sides of a case to question one another during live campus hearings .
The questioning would be done through representatives to avoid direct confrontation , but opponents have said it ’ s a cruel policy that forces victims to relive the trauma of sexual violence .
The previous Obama-era rules placed heavy financial incentives on colleges and universities to set up systems that shifted the burden of proof from accuser to the accused .
Barack Obama and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Title IX complaints about harassment and assault for their own political benefit , putting that far above considerations of law and justice .
Hundreds if not thousands of college students had their reputations ruined in kangaroo courts without any benefit of due process , or in many cases even an ability to present evidence on their own behalf or question witnesses .
It ’ s a system more similar to the witch trials in Salem than traditional American jurisprudence , and it continues to generate all sorts of abuses and malicious conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ d think he would have a renewed appreciation for the traditional model .
Instead , Biden reacted to DeVos ’ finalized rule by saying he ’ d bring back the prove-your-innocence-or-else standard that he clearly doesn ’ t want anyone to apply to him : Former Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that if he ’ s elected president , he will reverse a rule issued by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos aimed at bolstering protections for students who are accused of sexual assault on university campuses .
In a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effort by the Trump administration to “ shame and silence ” survivors of sexual assault .
“ It ’ s wrong , ” Biden said .
“ And , it will be put to a quick end in January 2021 , because as president , I ’ ll be right where I always have been throughout my career — on the side of survivors , who deserve to have their voices heard , their claims taken seriously and investigated , and their rights upheld.
” Due process is only for Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s par for the course for Biden — but not just him .
The Democrats standing behind Biden in the Reade allegation insist that Biden ’ s denial is all that ’ s necessary to dispense with Reade ’ s allegations .
That wouldn ’ t be sufficient even under Betsy DeVos ’ new Title IX parameters ; under the Obama/Biden standard , it would be tantamount to a guilty plea .
Will those Democrats — like Elizabeth Warren , Gretchen Whitmer , Kamala Harris , and others — embrace DeVos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconcile their defense of Biden ?
Don ’ t hold your breath .
Last night , Tucker Carlson followed up on his previous segment about Reade ’ s allegation , reminding viewers that he remains highly skeptical of her veracity .
( And for some good reasons , too . )
However , Tucker uses that as a springboard to make the obvious point that , by Biden ’ s Title IX standard , he should be tarred , feathered , and run out of town on a rail .
And maybe so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matter .

At this point, you’d think that Joe Biden would appreciate a little due process when it came to claims to sexual assault. Biden himself has backed a long way from his previous, Kavanaugh-era standard of “Believe All Women” with Tara Reade to a new “take my word for it, it never happened” standard, and expects everyone to fall in line.
Shouldn’t he appreciate, then, the work that Betsy DeVos has put into making sure due process applies to all Americans in similar circumstances?
The U.S. Education Department finalized campus sexual assault rules that bolster the rights of the accused, Secretary Betsy DeVos announced on Wednesday. The new policy also reduces legal liabilities for schools and colleges, and narrows the scope of cases schools will be required to investigate. … DeVos’ policy adds new measures intended to make sure students accused of sexual misconduct are judged fairly in campus disciplinary hearings. Students on both sides must be given equal access to evidence gathered in the school’s investigation and be allowed to bring an adviser, which can be a lawyer, to the proceedings. Chief among the changes is a policy requiring colleges to allow students on both sides of a case to question one another during live campus hearings. The questioning would be done through representatives to avoid direct confrontation, but opponents have said it’s a cruel policy that forces victims to relive the trauma of sexual violence.
The previous Obama-era rules placed heavy financial incentives on colleges and universities to set up systems that shifted the burden of proof from accuser to the accused. Barack Obama and Joe Biden both wanted to see results from Title IX complaints about harassment and assault for their own political benefit, putting that far above considerations of law and justice. Hundreds if not thousands of college students had their reputations ruined in kangaroo courts without any benefit of due process, or in many cases even an ability to present evidence on their own behalf or question witnesses. It’s a system more similar to the witch trials in Salem than traditional American jurisprudence, and it continues to generate all sorts of abuses and malicious conduct.
Given Biden’s present circumstances, you’d think he would have a renewed appreciation for the traditional model. Instead, Biden reacted to DeVos’ finalized rule by saying he’d bring back the prove-your-innocence-or-else standard that he clearly doesn’t want anyone to apply to him:
Former Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that if he’s elected president, he will reverse a rule issued by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos aimed at bolstering protections for students who are accused of sexual assault on university campuses. In a statement, Biden said the new rule was an effort by the Trump administration to “shame and silence” survivors of sexual assault. “It’s wrong,” Biden said. “And, it will be put to a quick end in January 2021, because as president, I’ll be right where I always have been throughout my career — on the side of survivors, who deserve to have their voices heard, their claims taken seriously and investigated, and their rights upheld.”
Due process is only for Democrats, I guess. Breathtakingly hypocritical, but that’s par for the course for Biden — but not just him. The Democrats standing behind Biden in the Reade allegation insist that Biden’s denial is all that’s necessary to dispense with Reade’s allegations. That wouldn’t be sufficient even under Betsy DeVos’ new Title IX parameters; under the Obama/Biden standard, it would be tantamount to a guilty plea. Will those Democrats — like Elizabeth Warren, Gretchen Whitmer, Kamala Harris, and others — embrace DeVos’ move back to due process to reconcile their defense of Biden? Don’t hold your breath.
Last night, Tucker Carlson followed up on his previous segment about Reade’s allegation, reminding viewers that he remains highly skeptical of her veracity. (And for some good reasons, too.) However, Tucker uses that as a springboard to make the obvious point that, by Biden’s Title IX standard, he should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. And maybe so should some of his defenders, for that matter.


hotair--2020-05-07--Report: White House shelves detailed new CDC guidance for businesses on reopening

I ’ m telling myself that there has to be more to this than meets the eye , because what meets the eye is that they ’ re now actively suppressing advice from scientists on how to reduce the risk of infection as parts of the country reopen for business .
“ Confronted with America ’ s worst public health crisis in generations , President Trump declared himself a wartime president , ” said the Times today of Trump ’ s “ back to work ” push .
“ Now he has begun doing what past commanders have done when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and go home.
” Are the new CDC guidelines part of that ?
America does have a habit of suppressing information when a war starts going badly .
My proposed compromise between the “ reopen now ” and “ be patient ” contingents last night was straightforward .
Let ’ s lift the lockdowns , but let ’ s also make sure the public has accurate , up-to-date daily information from public health experts about the extent of the threat .
People can make their own decisions about whether to start shopping again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into unemployment by shuttering their businesses and we shouldn ’ t deceive consumers into believing that conditions are safer than they really are .
One element of providing accurate , up-to-date daily information is … not shelving guidance from the country ’ s main disease-prevention agency .
The Trump administration has shelved a document created by the nation ’ s top disease investigators with step-by-step advice to local authorities on how and when to reopen restaurants and other public places during the still-raging coronavirus outbreak .
The 17-page report by a Centers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Guidance for Implementing the Opening Up America Again Framework , ” was researched and written to help faith leaders , business owners , educators and state and local officials as they begin to reopen .
It was supposed to be published last Friday , but agency scientists were told the guidance “ would never see the light of day , ” according to a CDC official… A person close to the White House ’ s coronavirus task force said the CDC documents were never cleared by CDC leadership for public release .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have refrained from offering detailed guidance for how specific sectors should reopen because the virus is affecting various parts of the country differently .
Right , the virus is affecting various parts of the country differently , but that didn ’ t stop Trump and the White House from issuing its own broad national guidelines — which are now being mostly ignored , including by Trump himself — a few weeks ago .
The CDC guidelines have leaked and can be read here , which I encourage you to do .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tied to the three “ phases ” described in Trump ’ s own guidelines , which should account for any regional difference .
There are particular procedures for churches , schools , restaurants , etc , in communities that are still in “ phase one ” of the epidemic and there are different procedures for communities that are in “ phase three.
” Regional differences are already priced into the “ phases ” of the federal scheme .
There ’ s no reason why they should justify keeping the CDC document from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ span of four days that secret information generated by the CDC about the extent of the threat has leaked to the media .
It also closely follows an abortive attempt by the White House to wind down the coronavirus task force , which Trump reversed on after a media uproar .
The unmistakable impression is that the administration is trying to suppress information about the extent of the risk to the public from reopening soon because it might discourage states from doing so and that opponents inside the administration are trying to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The White House has already taken a beating in the press for ignoring the fact that many states don ’ t yet qualify to reopen under Trump ’ s own federal guidelines , so their solution to the political problem posed by the more detailed CDC guidelines seems to be simply to not issue them at all .
Let businesses and consumers fly blind in assessing whether a particular retail environment is safe or not .
Which is why I ’ m telling myself there has to be more to this .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be so freakishly callous as to suppress public health guidance because people might put their own health above Trump ’ s electoral interest in seeing an economic revival before November .
Does this explain the White House ’ s thinking here ?
“ The CDC , the White House task force and White House principles were in disagreement on how strongly a public health response should still be in place , ” said the official .
According to the CDC official , the agency was told by US Department of Labor officials – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process – that under the agency ’ s proposed guidelines , some of the restrictions that would have to be placed on entities like churches , and businesses were too stringent , and businesses would be left vulnerable to legal liability if a worker contracts or dies from Covid-19 on the job .
“ In the absence of law , it ’ s regulation , and in the absence of regulation , it ’ s recommendations .
They think it ’ s left too much open to be interpreted by the courts if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t matter if OSHA is playing ball or not , ” the CDC source said .
Is it a liability thing ?
I.e .
if the CDC issues guidelines , courts will use those guidelines as yardsticks in tort cases to measure whether a business took reasonable precautions against infection or not .
Congress could address that problem in the next round of coronavirus relief , though .
It ’ s on Republicans ’ radar .
A source told WaPo last week that “ The big problem with the restaurant section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go bankrupt ” by forcing them to spend money on extra safety measures .
Immunizing restaurants from liability if they don ’ t install those measures would solve that .
But it ’ s no excuse to suppress the CDC ’ s belief that restaurants that lack those measures are more dangerous than ones that have them .
Once again , we ’ re perilously close here to the White House trying to keep Americans deliberately ignorant about their personal risk under certain conditions as retail opens back up .
If some businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whether because they don ’ t want to spend the money to provide it or because they can ’ t afford to , it ’ s immoral not to let consumers know that their health might be at risk from it .
Another source complained to WaPo that churches don ’ t like to be told how to operate , specifically , “ Churches aren ’ t going to want to give up hymnals or choirs or normal services.
” So the CDC guidelines had to be put in a drawer because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic hygiene precautions during a pandemic ?
A source tells Axios that the CDC guidelines aren ’ t being shelved , just revised to “ address concerns that it works for all Americans from rural areas to urban areas.
” As I said , they already did that by tying their recommendations to “ phases.
” The rural/urban emphasis feels like code for encouraging the agency to back off its considered judgment on what constitutes best practices , at least in red states .
One more quote for you .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ s effectively done prioritizing public health after eight weeks of an historic global pandemic because it ’ s time to focus on the economy instead : Bad enough to ignore scientific advice , but to dissolve scientific advisory bodies because there ’ s supposedly no more use for them — when we ’ ll be living with the epidemic for a year or more ?
That feels less like suppression than denialism .
I think we ’ re past the stage now where the “ reopen now ” crowd yells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are you willing to sacrifice ?
” and the “ be patient ” crowd yells back “ How many lives are you willing to sacrifice ?
” The new stage is how much scientific information we ’ re willing to suppress or outright deny in order to mislead people into thinking it ’ s safe to shop again .
How many lies should we tell to get the Dow up ?

I’m telling myself that there has to be more to this than meets the eye, because what meets the eye is that they’re now actively suppressing advice from scientists on how to reduce the risk of infection as parts of the country reopen for business.
“Confronted with America’s worst public health crisis in generations, President Trump declared himself a wartime president,” said the Times today of Trump’s “back to work” push. “Now he has begun doing what past commanders have done when a war goes badly: Declare victory and go home.” Are the new CDC guidelines part of that? America does have a habit of suppressing information when a war starts going badly.
My proposed compromise between the “reopen now” and “be patient” contingents last night was straightforward. Let’s lift the lockdowns, but let’s also make sure the public has accurate, up-to-date daily information from public health experts about the extent of the threat. People can make their own decisions about whether to start shopping again. We shouldn’t force workers into unemployment by shuttering their businesses and we shouldn’t deceive consumers into believing that conditions are safer than they really are.
One element of providing accurate, up-to-date daily information is … not shelving guidance from the country’s main disease-prevention agency.
The Trump administration has shelved a document created by the nation’s top disease investigators with step-by-step advice to local authorities on how and when to reopen restaurants and other public places during the still-raging coronavirus outbreak. The 17-page report by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention team, titled “Guidance for Implementing the Opening Up America Again Framework,” was researched and written to help faith leaders, business owners, educators and state and local officials as they begin to reopen. It was supposed to be published last Friday, but agency scientists were told the guidance “would never see the light of day,” according to a CDC official… A person close to the White House’s coronavirus task force said the CDC documents were never cleared by CDC leadership for public release. The person said that White House officials have refrained from offering detailed guidance for how specific sectors should reopen because the virus is affecting various parts of the country differently.
Right, the virus is affecting various parts of the country differently, but that didn’t stop Trump and the White House from issuing its own broad national guidelines — which are now being mostly ignored, including by Trump himself — a few weeks ago. The CDC guidelines have leaked and can be read here, which I encourage you to do. They’re specific, and they’re tied to the three “phases” described in Trump’s own guidelines, which should account for any regional difference. There are particular procedures for churches, schools, restaurants, etc, in communities that are still in “phase one” of the epidemic and there are different procedures for communities that are in “phase three.” Regional differences are already priced into the “phases” of the federal scheme. There’s no reason why they should justify keeping the CDC document from the public.
This makes twice in the span of four days that secret information generated by the CDC about the extent of the threat has leaked to the media. It also closely follows an abortive attempt by the White House to wind down the coronavirus task force, which Trump reversed on after a media uproar. The unmistakable impression is that the administration is trying to suppress information about the extent of the risk to the public from reopening soon because it might discourage states from doing so and that opponents inside the administration are trying to get that information to the public anyway. The White House has already taken a beating in the press for ignoring the fact that many states don’t yet qualify to reopen under Trump’s own federal guidelines, so their solution to the political problem posed by the more detailed CDC guidelines seems to be simply to not issue them at all. Let businesses and consumers fly blind in assessing whether a particular retail environment is safe or not.
Which is why I’m telling myself there has to be more to this. Even the Trump White House wouldn’t be so freakishly callous as to suppress public health guidance because people might put their own health above Trump’s electoral interest in seeing an economic revival before November.
Does this explain the White House’s thinking here?
“The CDC, the White House task force and White House principles were in disagreement on how strongly a public health response should still be in place,” said the official. According to the CDC official, the agency was told by US Department of Labor officials – who are all part of the government process – that under the agency’s proposed guidelines, some of the restrictions that would have to be placed on entities like churches, and businesses were too stringent, and businesses would be left vulnerable to legal liability if a worker contracts or dies from Covid-19 on the job. “In the absence of law, it’s regulation, and in the absence of regulation, it’s recommendations. They think it’s left too much open to be interpreted by the courts if something happens on the job. It doesn’t matter if OSHA is playing ball or not,” the CDC source said.
Is it a liability thing? I.e. if the CDC issues guidelines, courts will use those guidelines as yardsticks in tort cases to measure whether a business took reasonable precautions against infection or not. Congress could address that problem in the next round of coronavirus relief, though. It’s on Republicans’ radar. A source told WaPo last week that “The big problem with the restaurant section is it could cause many restaurants to go bankrupt” by forcing them to spend money on extra safety measures. Immunizing restaurants from liability if they don’t install those measures would solve that.
But it’s no excuse to suppress the CDC’s belief that restaurants that lack those measures are more dangerous than ones that have them. Once again, we’re perilously close here to the White House trying to keep Americans deliberately ignorant about their personal risk under certain conditions as retail opens back up. If some businesses are going to cut corners on safety, whether because they don’t want to spend the money to provide it or because they can’t afford to, it’s immoral not to let consumers know that their health might be at risk from it.
Another source complained to WaPo that churches don’t like to be told how to operate, specifically, “Churches aren’t going to want to give up hymnals or choirs or normal services.” So the CDC guidelines had to be put in a drawer because some churches … resent having to take basic hygiene precautions during a pandemic?
A source tells Axios that the CDC guidelines aren’t being shelved, just revised to “address concerns that it works for all Americans from rural areas to urban areas.” As I said, they already did that by tying their recommendations to “phases.” The rural/urban emphasis feels like code for encouraging the agency to back off its considered judgment on what constitutes best practices, at least in red states.
One more quote for you. It’s not just Trump who’s decided that he’s effectively done prioritizing public health after eight weeks of an historic global pandemic because it’s time to focus on the economy instead:
On Monday, the same day that Arizona’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey, announced he was lifting some coronavirus restrictions on businesses, and the day before he met with President Trump on a visit to the state, his administration disbanded a panel of university scientists who had warned that taking the step now would be dangerous… The model the scientists had developed showed that reopening the state before the end of May would likely result in a spike in coronavirus cases. “I can say, scientifically, no, it’s not safe to reopen unless you’re planning on, you know, shutting down again after a couple of weeks,” Tim Lant, a mathematical epidemiologist at ASU, told the Republic prior to Ducey’s decision to go against the team’s modeling.
Bad enough to ignore scientific advice, but to dissolve scientific advisory bodies because there’s supposedly no more use for them — when we’ll be living with the epidemic for a year or more? That feels less like suppression than denialism. I think we’re past the stage now where the “reopen now” crowd yells at its critics “How many jobs are you willing to sacrifice?” and the “be patient” crowd yells back “How many lives are you willing to sacrifice?” The new stage is how much scientific information we’re willing to suppress or outright deny in order to mislead people into thinking it’s safe to shop again. How many lies should we tell to get the Dow up?


hotair--2020-05-07--It's time: Tyson reopens meat processing plant in Iowa

Here is some good news – Tyson Foods is reopening its largest pork processing plant in Iowa today .
After a two-week shutdown due to the coronavirus pandemic outbreak in the plant , it ’ s now time to open the plant and get it running again .
The processing plant employs 3,000 people .
The plant in Waterloo , Iowa closed after Mayor Quentin Hart called upon the company to do so .
By April 21 , 182 of the county ’ s Covid-19 cases originated by workers in that plant .
On April 22 , the plant shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean the facility , along with putting new procedures into place .
A statement released by Tyson Foods announced the entire plant has been resanitized and installed “ enhanced safety precautions and protective social distancing measures ” that meet or exceed standards recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) and World Health Organization ( W.H.O . )
, as well as Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) guidance .
Wellness health screening of all team members each time they arrive at the facility , checking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breath in addition to continuing use of the infrared thermometers to check temperature .
The supply of protective facial coverings to every team member and requiring they are worn .
The required use of face shields for team members where workstation barriers can not physically be implemented .
Additional dedicated social distance monitors stationed throughout the facility during all shifts to help ensure team members adhere to safety protocols and social distancing requirements .
The company has doubled its “ thank you ” bonus for its frontline workers .
Team members who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or childcare issues related to COVID-19 will continue to qualify .
Tyson Foods has also increased short-term disability coverage to 90 % of normal pay until June 30 to encourage team members to stay home when they are sick .
That all sounds reasonable , right ?
The company invited community and business leaders , as well as plant workers , to tour the plant Wednesday to check it out .
Mayor Hart and the Black Hawk County health department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the plant ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toured its revamped Waterloo plant along with Black Hawk county sheriff Tony Thompson , local United Food and Commercial Workers union president Bob Waters and other community business leaders .
“ I am pleased that Tyson is working on protecting its employees and partnering with the community leaders for the good of all , ” Mayor Hart said in a written statement provided by Tyson .
UFCW union president Bob Waters also gave the plant ’ s new safety measures his stamp of approval .
“ Tyson has gone above and beyond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reopening of the facility , ” Waters said .
I ’ ve written several posts about meat processing plant closures during the coronavirus pandemic , mostly because the stories catch my attention as the food purchaser in our house .
As a shopper , it is easy to notice shortages , whether it is toilet paper or cleaning supplies or shortages of fresh meat in some markets .
Some stores have begun to limit the number of fresh meat purchases in order to prevent panic shopping as the plants continue to close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrupted and it is silly to deny it .
It ’ s not a reason to panic but it is worth keeping an eye on the progress being made as food processors proceed to take the steps to reopen .
Some areas in the country aren ’ t experiencing any problems at all , and that ’ s good .
Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds visited the White House yesterday and met with President Trump , Vice-President Pence , Dr. Birx , and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue , among others .
Secretary Perdue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at full capacity within ten days .
Governor Reynolds noted that most of the processing plants are able to remain up and running .
“ One of the great stories of the coronavirus outbreak has been that our food supply has continued to work every day , from the field to the fork , from the grocers to the meat processors , ” Pence said .
At the White House , Reynolds noted the meatpacking plants in Iowa had outbreaks of the virus , which shut down production .
The Reynolds administration announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four Iowa meat packing plants had tested positive for the coronavirus .
Those figures included more than 730 positive cases at a Tyson pork processing plant in Perry .
But the governor said at the White House the Perry plant was still operating at 60 % capacity .
“ We ’ ll have most of our facilities up and going .
And so as we continue to keep them up and processing , we ’ re going to hopefully prevent a really sorry situation where we were euthanizing some of our protein supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just across the country but throughout the world , and so this is critical infrastructure is an essential workforce , ” Reynolds said .
Iowa is a state that is slowly reopening , as the governor mentioned .
The state is ramping up testing , especially in meat processing plants and nursing homes .
The flip side is that the more testing that is done , the more cases of the coronavirus are found .
In the meantime , taking additional precautions and reopening businesses is a step in the right direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are keeping workers safe and keeping “ the country fed .
”

Here is some good news – Tyson Foods is reopening its largest pork processing plant in Iowa today. After a two-week shutdown due to the coronavirus pandemic outbreak in the plant, it’s now time to open the plant and get it running again. The processing plant employs 3,000 people.
The plant in Waterloo, Iowa closed after Mayor Quentin Hart called upon the company to do so. By April 21, 182 of the county’s Covid-19 cases originated by workers in that plant. On April 22, the plant shut down operations in order to sanitize and clean the facility, along with putting new procedures into place. A statement released by Tyson Foods announced the entire plant has been resanitized and installed “enhanced safety precautions and protective social distancing measures” that meet or exceed standards recommended by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and World Health Organization (W.H.O.), as well as Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidance.
Wellness health screening of all team members each time they arrive at the facility, checking for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath in addition to continuing use of the infrared thermometers to check temperature. The supply of protective facial coverings to every team member and requiring they are worn. The required use of face shields for team members where workstation barriers cannot physically be implemented. Additional dedicated social distance monitors stationed throughout the facility during all shifts to help ensure team members adhere to safety protocols and social distancing requirements. The company has doubled its “thank you” bonus for its frontline workers. Team members who cannot come to work because of illness or childcare issues related to COVID-19 will continue to qualify. Tyson Foods has also increased short-term disability coverage to 90% of normal pay until June 30 to encourage team members to stay home when they are sick.
That all sounds reasonable, right? The company invited community and business leaders, as well as plant workers, to tour the plant Wednesday to check it out.
Mayor Hart and the Black Hawk County health department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the plant’s reopening. Tyson said the mayor recently toured its revamped Waterloo plant along with Black Hawk county sheriff Tony Thompson, local United Food and Commercial Workers union president Bob Waters and other community business leaders. “I am pleased that Tyson is working on protecting its employees and partnering with the community leaders for the good of all,” Mayor Hart said in a written statement provided by Tyson. UFCW union president Bob Waters also gave the plant’s new safety measures his stamp of approval. “Tyson has gone above and beyond to keep their employees safe and I support the reopening of the facility,” Waters said.
I’ve written several posts about meat processing plant closures during the coronavirus pandemic, mostly because the stories catch my attention as the food purchaser in our house. As a shopper, it is easy to notice shortages, whether it is toilet paper or cleaning supplies or shortages of fresh meat in some markets. Some stores have begun to limit the number of fresh meat purchases in order to prevent panic shopping as the plants continue to close. The food supply chain has been disrupted and it is silly to deny it. It’s not a reason to panic but it is worth keeping an eye on the progress being made as food processors proceed to take the steps to reopen. Some areas in the country aren’t experiencing any problems at all, and that’s good.
Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds visited the White House yesterday and met with President Trump, Vice-President Pence, Dr. Birx, and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, among others. Secretary Perdue predicts the food supply will be back at full capacity within ten days. Governor Reynolds noted that most of the processing plants are able to remain up and running.
“One of the great stories of the coronavirus outbreak has been that our food supply has continued to work every day, from the field to the fork, from the grocers to the meat processors,” Pence said. At the White House, Reynolds noted the meatpacking plants in Iowa had outbreaks of the virus, which shut down production. The Reynolds administration announced Tuesday that more than 1,600 workers at four Iowa meat packing plants had tested positive for the coronavirus. Those figures included more than 730 positive cases at a Tyson pork processing plant in Perry. But the governor said at the White House the Perry plant was still operating at 60% capacity. “We’ll have most of our facilities up and going. And so as we continue to keep them up and processing, we’re going to hopefully prevent a really sorry situation where we were euthanizing some of our protein supply and really impacting the food supply, not just across the country but throughout the world, and so this is critical infrastructure is an essential workforce,” Reynolds said.
Iowa is a state that is slowly reopening, as the governor mentioned. The state is ramping up testing, especially in meat processing plants and nursing homes. The flip side is that the more testing that is done, the more cases of the coronavirus are found. In the meantime, taking additional precautions and reopening businesses is a step in the right direction. Governor Reynolds said the top priorities are keeping workers safe and keeping “the country fed.”


hotair--2020-05-07--Clever inmate escapes from jail with a surgical mask

Out in Chicago , some people seem to be taking this whole “ empty the jails ” movement a bit too far .
And in this case , I ’ m not talking about elected officials .
A 21-year-old man by the name of Jahquez Scott was in the Cook County Jail on charges of assaulting a police officer and illegal possession of a firearm with a hefty bond required before he could be released .
It so happens that a judge had recently ordered the jail to provide facemasks to all of the inmates to help stop the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , that only mugshot the cops had of Scott showed him wearing a mask .
This gave the felon an idea , apparently .
He went to another inmate who was scheduled to be released on a much lower bond and promised him some cash to swap IDs with him .
With his new ID in hand and nobody able to see his face , Scott simply filled out the other prisoner ’ s paperwork , checked himself out of the jail and disappeared back out onto the streets of Chicago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jail inmate switched identities with another inmate and was wrongfully released while wearing a face mask this past weekend , the Sheriff ’ s office said .
On Saturday , Quintin Henderson , 28 , was scheduled to be released from custody on an I-bond for a drug charge , when he gave his identity to another inmate , Jahquez Scott , for a promise of $ 1,000 , the Sheriff ’ s office said .
Scott , 21 , was wearing a mask when he used Henderson ’ s full name and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jail on the I-bond , the Sheriff ’ s office said .
Quintin Henderson didn ’ t make a very good deal for himself .
Scott promised him $ 1,000 in exchange for his ID , but now , instead of being released on bail , he ’ s being held in the jail and faces additional charges of abetting the escape of another inmate .
The police were still searching for Scott as of yesterday .
If nothing else , this episode should serve as a cautionary tale for the courts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we want to keep our criminal justice system from going totally off the rails , law enforcement officers have to be able to identify the suspects and convicts they deal with on a daily basis .
Surely there is a way to have suspects briefly and safely remove a mask for a mug shot as well as when they are being processed for release .
This was always one of the known risks of changing our society to one where everyone is forced to wear masks .
We ’ ve already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers and running away while masked .
One popular meme that ’ s been making the rounds on social media lately , while humorous , conveys a rather alarming bit of truth .
“ I never imagined that one day I would be walking into a bank wearing a mask and telling the bank teller to give me some money.
” If governors , mayors and other elected executive officials can ’ t think of any better way to suppress the spread of the novel coronavirus than forcing everyone to wear masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solving the new problems they are creating .
A masked society renders most facial identification software useless .
Even eyewitness reports become virtually useless beyond providing a general description of a suspect ’ s build and the clothes they were wearing .
Jail populations all over the country are currently well below normal levels .
As much as possible , we should be putting prisoners in cells by themselves .
And you don ’ t need a mask if you ’ re the only one in the cell .
Safe meal deliveries by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the inmate is instructed to stand at the back of the cell while the tray is slipped inside .
Seriously… we ’ re not talking about figuring out quantum mechanics here .
These are all challenges that we can and must overcome by doing a bit more thinking in advance before rushing into to make sweeping changes to how we function as a society .

Out in Chicago, some people seem to be taking this whole “empty the jails” movement a bit too far. And in this case, I’m not talking about elected officials. A 21-year-old man by the name of Jahquez Scott was in the Cook County Jail on charges of assaulting a police officer and illegal possession of a firearm with a hefty bond required before he could be released. It so happens that a judge had recently ordered the jail to provide facemasks to all of the inmates to help stop the spread of COVID-19 in the facility. In fact, that only mugshot the cops had of Scott showed him wearing a mask.
This gave the felon an idea, apparently. He went to another inmate who was scheduled to be released on a much lower bond and promised him some cash to swap IDs with him. With his new ID in hand and nobody able to see his face, Scott simply filled out the other prisoner’s paperwork, checked himself out of the jail and disappeared back out onto the streets of Chicago. (CBS Chicago)
A Cook County Jail inmate switched identities with another inmate and was wrongfully released while wearing a face mask this past weekend, the Sheriff’s office said. On Saturday, Quintin Henderson, 28, was scheduled to be released from custody on an I-bond for a drug charge, when he gave his identity to another inmate, Jahquez Scott, for a promise of $1,000, the Sheriff’s office said. Scott, 21, was wearing a mask when he used Henderson’s full name and personal information pose as Henderson and leave jail on the I-bond, the Sheriff’s office said.
Quintin Henderson didn’t make a very good deal for himself. Scott promised him $1,000 in exchange for his ID, but now, instead of being released on bail, he’s being held in the jail and faces additional charges of abetting the escape of another inmate. The police were still searching for Scott as of yesterday.
If nothing else, this episode should serve as a cautionary tale for the courts and the law enforcement officials implementing their decrees. If we want to keep our criminal justice system from going totally off the rails, law enforcement officers have to be able to identify the suspects and convicts they deal with on a daily basis. Surely there is a way to have suspects briefly and safely remove a mask for a mug shot as well as when they are being processed for release.
This was always one of the known risks of changing our society to one where everyone is forced to wear masks. We’ve already seen stories of criminals randomly attacking police officers and running away while masked. One popular meme that’s been making the rounds on social media lately, while humorous, conveys a rather alarming bit of truth. “I never imagined that one day I would be walking into a bank wearing a mask and telling the bank teller to give me some money.”
If governors, mayors and other elected executive officials can’t think of any better way to suppress the spread of the novel coronavirus than forcing everyone to wear masks, they should be held responsible for also solving the new problems they are creating. A masked society renders most facial identification software useless. Even eyewitness reports become virtually useless beyond providing a general description of a suspect’s build and the clothes they were wearing.
Jail populations all over the country are currently well below normal levels. As much as possible, we should be putting prisoners in cells by themselves. And you don’t need a mask if you’re the only one in the cell. Safe meal deliveries by a masked guard should be easily doable if the inmate is instructed to stand at the back of the cell while the tray is slipped inside. Seriously… we’re not talking about figuring out quantum mechanics here. These are all challenges that we can and must overcome by doing a bit more thinking in advance before rushing into to make sweeping changes to how we function as a society.


hotair--2020-05-07--Living in the past: McEnany upbraids White House reporters over double standards

Give new White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany high marks for preparation on this tiresome strategy , but that ’ s only part of the issue in these briefings .
Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked the approximate 437,289th White House press corps question about what she or other administration officials said about COVID-19 in January or February .
McEnany simply held the media to the same standard as they apply to others in a mic-drop moment yesterday afternoon ( transcript from the Daily Wire ) : MASON : In a previous life , before you were press secretary , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a comment , I believe on Fox , in which you said President Trump will not allow the coronavirus to come to this country .
Given what has happened since then , obviously , would you like to take that back ?
MCENANY : Well , first let me note , I was asked a question on Fox Business about the president ’ s travel restrictions .
I noted what was the intent behind those travel restrictions , which is we will not see the coronavirus come here , we will not see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier set of travel restrictions .
I guess I would turn the question back on the media and ask similar questions .
Does Vox want to take back that they proclaimed that the coronavirus would not be a deadly pandemic ?
Does The Washington Post want to take back that they told Americans to get a grip , the flu is bigger than the coronavirus ?
Does The Washington Post likewise want to take back that our brains are causing us to exaggerate the threat of the coronavirus ?
Does The New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the virus maybe spreading faster of than the virus itself ?
Does NPR want to take back that the flu was a much bigger threat than the coronavirus ?
And finally once again The Washington Post , would they like to take back that the government should not respond aggressively to the coronavirus ?
I ’ ll leave you with those questions and maybe you ’ ll have some answers in a few days .
I ’ m not normally a big fan of mic-drop moments by public officials , but this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It highlights an ongoing failing of the media in this pandemic , which is their obsessive campaigning against Donald Trump rather than covering the news — especially in the White House briefing room .
Let ’ s just stipulate that lots of people said really dumb things about COVID-19 in January and February , before the true nature of the pandemic became known .
Officials said dumb things , the media said and wrote dumb things ; even this “ gotcha ” from Mason arose from media pushback against Trump ’ s travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time was characterized as an overreaction at best and an attempt to distract from impeachment at worst .
That ’ s not news .
Neither is the constant march of “ But in February , you said … ” questions coming in these briefings , or the litany of such arguments coming from otherwise good reporters on their Twitter streams .
Have they looked at a calendar lately ?
It ’ s THE MONTH OF MAY , for the love of God .
Why aren ’ t they reporting on May ?
Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was said in February .
They want to know what ’ s happening today , what will happen tomorrow , and what federal and state governments are doing to get them back to work next week .
If journalists want to know why their credibility is circling the drain with the public , perhaps it ’ s because their readers and viewers are seeing very clearly in this episode that journalists seem to care a lot more about their own hobby horses than the issues that matter to everyone else .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all groups , won ’ t focus on actual news , then what good are they ?
McEnany ’ s dunk on the media is amusing , to be sure .
Will they learn from it ?
I guess we ’ ll have some answers in a few days , but don ’ t get your hopes up .
Maybe we should just pray that their reporting focus will move up to March , and that by Labor Day we ’ ll find out what happened in May .

Give new White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany high marks for preparation on this tiresome strategy, but that’s only part of the issue in these briefings. Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked the approximate 437,289th White House press corps question about what she or other administration officials said about COVID-19 in January or February. McEnany simply held the media to the same standard as they apply to others in a mic-drop moment yesterday afternoon (transcript from the Daily Wire):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cFY0cABKsE
MASON: In a previous life, before you were press secretary, you worked for the campaign and you made a comment, I believe on Fox, in which you said President Trump will not allow the coronavirus to come to this country. Given what has happened since then, obviously, would you like to take that back? MCENANY: Well, first let me note, I was asked a question on Fox Business about the president’s travel restrictions. I noted what was the intent behind those travel restrictions, which is we will not see the coronavirus come here, we will not see terrorism come here, referring to an earlier set of travel restrictions. I guess I would turn the question back on the media and ask similar questions. Does Vox want to take back that they proclaimed that the coronavirus would not be a deadly pandemic? Does The Washington Post want to take back that they told Americans to get a grip, the flu is bigger than the coronavirus? Does The Washington Post likewise want to take back that our brains are causing us to exaggerate the threat of the coronavirus? Does The New York Times want to take back that fear of the virus maybe spreading faster of than the virus itself? Does NPR want to take back that the flu was a much bigger threat than the coronavirus? And finally once again The Washington Post, would they like to take back that the government should not respond aggressively to the coronavirus? I’ll leave you with those questions and maybe you’ll have some answers in a few days.
I’m not normally a big fan of mic-drop moments by public officials, but this one was well delivered and overdue. It highlights an ongoing failing of the media in this pandemic, which is their obsessive campaigning against Donald Trump rather than covering the news — especially in the White House briefing room.
Let’s just stipulate that lots of people said really dumb things about COVID-19 in January and February, before the true nature of the pandemic became known. Officials said dumb things, the media said and wrote dumb things; even this “gotcha” from Mason arose from media pushback against Trump’s travel restriction on China, which at the time was characterized as an overreaction at best and an attempt to distract from impeachment at worst.
That’s not news. Neither is the constant march of “But in February, you said …” questions coming in these briefings, or the litany of such arguments coming from otherwise good reporters on their Twitter streams. Have they looked at a calendar lately? It’s THE MONTH OF MAY, for the love of God. Why aren’t they reporting on May?
Americans don’t give a damn about what was said in February. They want to know what’s happening today, what will happen tomorrow, and what federal and state governments are doing to get them back to work next week. If journalists want to know why their credibility is circling the drain with the public, perhaps it’s because their readers and viewers are seeing very clearly in this episode that journalists seem to care a lot more about their own hobby horses than the issues that matter to everyone else. If the White House press corps, of all groups, won’t focus on actual news, then what good are they?
McEnany’s dunk on the media is amusing, to be sure. Will they learn from it? I guess we’ll have some answers in a few days, but don’t get your hopes up. Maybe we should just pray that their reporting focus will move up to March, and that by Labor Day we’ll find out what happened in May.


hotair--2020-05-07--Texas AG wants the "immediate release" of jailed salon owner

Yesterday we looked at the case of North Dallas hair salon owner Shelley Luther , who was sent to jail for keeping her business open in defiance of a court order to remain shut down .
While the judge ’ s decision was technically legal under the current state and local executive shutdown orders in Texas , the optics of it were terrible and the court certainly could have shown a bit more compassion given Luther ’ s circumstances .
Now the state ’ s Attorney General , Ken Paxton , has weighed in on the situation , saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jail “ immediately.
” ( CBS Dallas-Fort Worth ) Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has called for the “ immediate release ” of a Dallas salon owner who was arrested and sent to jail for opening her business in defiance of Gov .
Greg Abbott ’ s stay-at-home orders .
Shelley Luther , owner of Salon A La Mode , was sentenced to seven days in jail Tuesday after Dallas judge Eric Moye said she violated those orders as the coronavirus pandemic continues .
Paxton said he believes the judge is abusing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ political stunt.
” “ I find it outrageous and out of touch that during this national pandemic , a judge , in a county that actually released hardened criminals for fear of contracting COVID-19 , would jail a mother for operating her hair salon in an attempt to put food on her family ’ s table .
The trial judge did not need to lock up Shelley Luther .
His order is a shameful abuse of judicial discretion , which seems like another political stunt in Dallas .
He should release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be an uncomfortable choice for the AG to make because he ’ s basically arguing in favor of undermining an executive order issued by his boss , Governor Greg Abbott .
But it appears that the two men coordinated their response because the Governor almost immediately released his own statement concurring with Paxton .
He described the judge ’ s actions as “ excessive ” and stated that jailing Texans for violating executive orders should only be “ the last available option.
” Sadly , at least in this particular case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s case for him .
As much as I ’ ve been sympathetic to Ms. Luther ’ s cause and believe that the judge was being unreasonable , even I have to admit that the court had indeed reached the “ last available option.
” Luther had been given a court order to close back down which she proceeded to tear up during a protest and ignore .
Unless the court wanted to turn Abbott ’ s executive order into a paper tiger , what options were left aside from sending state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salon ’ s doorway blocking access to customers ?
And I ’ m fairly sure the police have better things to occupy their time these days .
There ’ s still one good option left for the judge here , at least in my opinion .
He issued his order to enforce the executive order and he ’ s sent Luther to jail to make his point .
Tomorrow is the day when hair salons are allowed to reopen if they institute the same health precautions that the salon owner had already put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this evening and order Luther ’ s early release in time to legally open for business tomorrow morning , including a stern warning about not flaunting the law in the future .
That really seems like the best available course of action , not to mention the more compassionate one .

Yesterday we looked at the case of North Dallas hair salon owner Shelley Luther, who was sent to jail for keeping her business open in defiance of a court order to remain shut down. While the judge’s decision was technically legal under the current state and local executive shutdown orders in Texas, the optics of it were terrible and the court certainly could have shown a bit more compassion given Luther’s circumstances. Now the state’s Attorney General, Ken Paxton, has weighed in on the situation, saying that he wants to see Luther released from jail “immediately.” (CBS Dallas-Fort Worth)
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has called for the “immediate release” of a Dallas salon owner who was arrested and sent to jail for opening her business in defiance of Gov. Greg Abbott’s stay-at-home orders. Shelley Luther, owner of Salon A La Mode, was sentenced to seven days in jail Tuesday after Dallas judge Eric Moye said she violated those orders as the coronavirus pandemic continues. Paxton said he believes the judge is abusing his authority and that her arrest seems like a “political stunt.”
Here’s the full text of Paxton’s statement.
“I find it outrageous and out of touch that during this national pandemic, a judge, in a county that actually released hardened criminals for fear of contracting COVID-19, would jail a mother for operating her hair salon in an attempt to put food on her family’s table. The trial judge did not need to lock up Shelley Luther. His order is a shameful abuse of judicial discretion, which seems like another political stunt in Dallas. He should release Ms. Luther immediately.”
Normally, this would be an uncomfortable choice for the AG to make because he’s basically arguing in favor of undermining an executive order issued by his boss, Governor Greg Abbott. But it appears that the two men coordinated their response because the Governor almost immediately released his own statement concurring with Paxton. He described the judge’s actions as “excessive” and stated that jailing Texans for violating executive orders should only be “the last available option.”
Sadly, at least in this particular case, the Governor is almost making the judge’s case for him. As much as I’ve been sympathetic to Ms. Luther’s cause and believe that the judge was being unreasonable, even I have to admit that the court had indeed reached the “last available option.” Luther had been given a court order to close back down which she proceeded to tear up during a protest and ignore. Unless the court wanted to turn Abbott’s executive order into a paper tiger, what options were left aside from sending state troopers to stand in front of the salon’s doorway blocking access to customers? And I’m fairly sure the police have better things to occupy their time these days.
There’s still one good option left for the judge here, at least in my opinion. He issued his order to enforce the executive order and he’s sent Luther to jail to make his point. Tomorrow is the day when hair salons are allowed to reopen if they institute the same health precautions that the salon owner had already put in place. He could turn around this evening and order Luther’s early release in time to legally open for business tomorrow morning, including a stern warning about not flaunting the law in the future. That really seems like the best available course of action, not to mention the more compassionate one.