hotair--2020-02-11--Hardball: Prosecutors release phony student profile to rebut Loughlin discovery complaint

Two months ago , Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli accused prosecutors of misconduct in the Operation Varsity Blues college admission scandal , alleging that they had violated discovery rules to cover up evidence of their innocence .
Today , prosecutors fired back by unveiling evidence in a public filing rebutting the defense claim .
The release of Olivia Jade ’ s phony student profile in the case suggests that prosecutors might call their daughter to the stand , NBC reports — or perhaps develop a case against her : The two-page document , titled Student Profile , states that Olivia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influencer , participated in a number of crew competitions dating back to 2014 and is a “ highly talented ” coxswain who “ has been successful in both men ’ s and women ’ s boats.
” It lists several awards she received including two gold medals at the San Diego Crew Classic , and says she also competed at the Head of the Charles in Boston and the Fault Line Faceoff , and finished in the top three multiple times at the Marin Crew Festival .
But , prosecutors said the listed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participated in crew competitively , and they suggested that someone in the school ’ s athletic department created the document to help Olivia Jade gain admission to the university .
… Loughlin and Giannulli pleaded not guilty to fraud , bribery and money laundering conspiracy charges .
They have claimed in court documents that prosecutors are concealing exculpatory evidence in the case that appears to show that they believed their payments to Singer would be used for legitimate purposes .
The court documents that include Olivia Jade ’ s fake student profile were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims .
Apparently , prosecutors don ’ t like being accused of misconduct .
Who knew ?
Note well the tone in their court filing , highlighted by NBC ’ s Gabe Gutierrez in his report above , in which they strike a rather indignant tone ( emphases in original ) : The government has not withheld any such evidence based on its disagreement about the merits of the defendants ’ requests .
( Gov ’ t Br .
at 3-4 ) In addition , the government has , in a demonstration of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of witness interviews to the Court , together with related disclosures , for in camera review .
These disclosures make clear that the government is not withholding exculpatory evidence .
While the defendants may , understandably , be upset about the lack of exculpatory evidence , the absence of such evidence is a result of their criminal conduct , not any government disclosure violations .
… This case presents no basis to depart from well-established procedures that govern every criminal case , notwithstanding the defense ’ s histrionic briefs that appear to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
Ouch .
The attachment of the student profile to this document is a clear shot across the PR bow to the defense .
If they want to argue this case in public , prosecutors are warning , they ’ re prepared to have that fight too .
Business Insider has the government ’ s filing available in full , but it boils down to sequencing in discovery and a claim from the defense that prosecutors know of exculpatory evidence in their possession .
Defense attorneys want full access to all FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Varsity Blues case , which the DoJ says that they are not entitled to access .
Those 302s that are relevant to the charges against Loughlin and Giuannulli have already been produced to the court , and prosecutors say nothing relevant to the case exists in others .
Could they be lying ?
Sure .
That strategy presents a couple of problems for the defense , not the least of which is proving it .
Do they have evidence of discovery violations , or are they asking the court to go on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can ’ t find any evidence of it , the judge is going to take a dim view of further requests down the line .
Finally , this student profile and the prepared resumé suggests that someone intended to defraud USC with this application .
What kind of exculpatory information would prosecutors have — and that the defense wouldn ’ t have themselves — that would provide an innocent explanation for this ?
Along with the two $ 50,000 cashier ’ s checks to USC Women ’ s Athletics that apparently accompanied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last time , one has to wonder just what Loughlin and Giannulli are thinking .
They should have settled this case long ago when they could have gotten away with a month at Club Fed .
The first rule of holes is to stop digging , isn ’ t it ?

Two months ago, Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli accused prosecutors of misconduct in the Operation Varsity Blues college admission scandal, alleging that they had violated discovery rules to cover up evidence of their innocence. Today, prosecutors fired back by unveiling evidence in a public filing rebutting the defense claim. The release of Olivia Jade’s phony student profile in the case suggests that prosecutors might call their daughter to the stand, NBC reports — or perhaps develop a case against her:
New court documents reveal what prosecutors say is a phony student profile for Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade that was created to help her get into the University of Southern California, @gabegutierrez reports. pic.twitter.com/K5KGqbFQUT — TODAY (@TODAYshow) February 11, 2020
The two-page document, titled Student Profile, states that Olivia Jade, a now 20-year-old social media influencer, participated in a number of crew competitions dating back to 2014 and is a “highly talented” coxswain who “has been successful in both men’s and women’s boats.” It lists several awards she received including two gold medals at the San Diego Crew Classic, and says she also competed at the Head of the Charles in Boston and the Fault Line Faceoff, and finished in the top three multiple times at the Marin Crew Festival. But, prosecutors said the listed accomplishments are false as Olivia Jade never participated in crew competitively, and they suggested that someone in the school’s athletic department created the document to help Olivia Jade gain admission to the university. … Loughlin and Giannulli pleaded not guilty to fraud, bribery and money laundering conspiracy charges. They have claimed in court documents that prosecutors are concealing exculpatory evidence in the case that appears to show that they believed their payments to Singer would be used for legitimate purposes. The court documents that include Olivia Jade’s fake student profile were released in response to her parents’ claims.
Apparently, prosecutors don’t like being accused of misconduct. Who knew? Note well the tone in their court filing, highlighted by NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez in his report above, in which they strike a rather indignant tone (emphases in original):
The government has not withheld any such evidence based on its disagreement about the merits of the defendants’ requests. (Gov’t Br. at 3-4) In addition, the government has, in a demonstration of its good faith, provided FBI-302 reports of witness interviews to the Court, together with related disclosures, for in camera review. These disclosures make clear that the government is not withholding exculpatory evidence. While the defendants may, understandably, be upset about the lack of exculpatory evidence, the absence of such evidence is a result of their criminal conduct, not any government disclosure violations. … This case presents no basis to depart from well-established procedures that govern every criminal case, notwithstanding the defense’s histrionic briefs that appear to be written for an audience other than the Court.
Ouch. The attachment of the student profile to this document is a clear shot across the PR bow to the defense. If they want to argue this case in public, prosecutors are warning, they’re prepared to have that fight too.
Business Insider has the government’s filing available in full, but it boils down to sequencing in discovery and a claim from the defense that prosecutors know of exculpatory evidence in their possession. Defense attorneys want full access to all FBI interviews of subjects in the entire Operation Varsity Blues case, which the DoJ says that they are not entitled to access. Those 302s that are relevant to the charges against Loughlin and Giuannulli have already been produced to the court, and prosecutors say nothing relevant to the case exists in others.
Could they be lying? Sure. That strategy presents a couple of problems for the defense, not the least of which is proving it. Do they have evidence of discovery violations, or are they asking the court to go on a fishing expedition? If the court does and can’t find any evidence of it, the judge is going to take a dim view of further requests down the line.
Finally, this student profile and the prepared resumé suggests that someone intended to defraud USC with this application. What kind of exculpatory information would prosecutors have — and that the defense wouldn’t have themselves — that would provide an innocent explanation for this? Along with the two $50,000 cashier’s checks to USC Women’s Athletics that apparently accompanied it?
Not for the first or last time, one has to wonder just what Loughlin and Giannulli are thinking. They should have settled this case long ago when they could have gotten away with a month at Club Fed. The first rule of holes is to stop digging, isn’t it?


hotair--2020-02-11--New Hampshire voter to MSNBC: I voted for Bernie because MSNBC is so unfair to him

A trifle to enjoy while we wait for results tonight .
There ’ s something so familiar about cable-news-watching populists choosing a burn-it-all-down outsider candidate partly in the name of spiting the media .
I can ’ t put my finger on it , but it ’ ll come to me .
What ’ s novel in this clip is that it ’ s the left ’ s network of choice , MSNBC , that she ’ s aiming to spite , not Fox News .
I never watch it so I can ’ t vouch for her point but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-known host on the network is vocally anti-Bernie .
It wouldn ’ t surprise me if his support within the network is lukewarm at best — not among the harder ideologues like Maddow and Chris Hayes , who will surely feel the Bern if he ’ s the nominee ( assuming they ’ re not already ) but among the majority of their anchor stable .
They ’ re all lefties , but they ’ re also all well paid .
And they ’ re elites whether they want to admit it or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wine set .
The “ progressive but not grubby about it like those DSA types ” set .
The sort who get a gleam in their eyes while watching precocious technocratic manchild Pete Buttigieg before concluding that he ’ s too young and slick .
The type who like Amy Klobuchar and want to be supportive of a woman but find her … unpredictable when push comes to shove .
In their hearts they ’ re Warren voters .
It stands to reason that they ’ d resent Bernie .
Gon na @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A rough month , really .

A trifle to enjoy while we wait for results tonight.
There’s something so familiar about cable-news-watching populists choosing a burn-it-all-down outsider candidate partly in the name of spiting the media.
I can’t put my finger on it, but it’ll come to me.
What’s novel in this clip is that it’s the left’s network of choice, MSNBC, that she’s aiming to spite, not Fox News. I never watch it so I can’t vouch for her point but it’s certainly true that one well-known host on the network is vocally anti-Bernie. It wouldn’t surprise me if his support within the network is lukewarm at best — not among the harder ideologues like Maddow and Chris Hayes, who will surely feel the Bern if he’s the nominee (assuming they’re not already) but among the majority of their anchor stable. They’re all lefties, but they’re also all well paid. And they’re elites whether they want to admit it or not.
Those are Warren voters, the wine set. The “progressive but not grubby about it like those DSA types” set. The sort who get a gleam in their eyes while watching precocious technocratic manchild Pete Buttigieg before concluding that he’s too young and slick. The type who like Amy Klobuchar and want to be supportive of a woman but find her … unpredictable when push comes to shove. In their hearts they’re Warren voters. It stands to reason that they’d resent Bernie.
Gonna be a rough night for them. A rough month, really.


hotair--2020-02-12--Carlos Maza complains about YouTube's political bias...in the NY Times

After leaving his job at Vox , Carlos Maza is launching his own independent YouTube channel on a site he hates .
According to Maza , YouTube should be destroyed because it is overrun with arch conservatives .
But since even socialists have to eat , he is going to try to make a living on the site while he destroys it .
And fortunately , he has help launching his new YouTube channel from an insignificant , completely neutral newspaper called the NY Times : Rather than swearing off YouTube , Mr. Maza , who is a New York-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his own video production .
“ I ’ m going to use the master ’ s tools to destroy the master ’ s house , ” he said in an interview .
“ I want to build up an audience and use every chance I get to explain how destructive YouTube is.
” … YouTube can be harsh terrain for a professional leftist .
The site is nominally open to all views , but in practice is dominated by a strain of reactionary politics that is marked by extreme skepticism of mainstream @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice warriors ” and a tunnel-vision fixation on political correctness .
In recent years , some progressive YouTubers have tried to counter this trend by making punchy , opinionated videos aimed at left-wing viewers .
BreadTube , a loose crew of socialist creators who named themselves after a 19th-century anarchist book , “ The Conquest of Bread , ” has made modest stars out of leftists like Natalie Wynn , a YouTube personality known as ContraPoints , and Oliver Thorn , a British commentator known as PhilosophyTube .
I ’ ve written about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Her show is well produced and interesting .
Even if you don ’ t ultimately agree with everything she ’ s saying , she appears to be making an honest effort to see things from various sides .
That ’ s very different from what Carlos Maza was doing at Vox .
Speaking of Wynn , the other thing the author of this Times ’ piece doesn ’ t mention is that Natalie Wynn was in the process of being canceled last month over a spat with trans critics she had offended in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit of current events didn ’ t fit the narrative of this piece , i.e .
left-wing creators being targeted by the right .
In any case , Maza seems ready to do his best to profit from the system he hates .
In his first video on the new channel he says he hates YouTube , adding “ It ’ s a sh**ty company that exploits its creators and doesn ’ t deserve to exist , but while it does I might as well flood its airwaves with leftist propaganda.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to preach to an exclusively left-wing audience and doesn ’ t want anyone like Steven Crowder to be able to disagree with him on the same platform using the same tools and freedoms .
As I wrote during his attempt to have Steven Crowder banned from the site : I can see why Maza didn ’ t find Crowder ’ s jokes about his sexuality funny ( ‘ He ’ s gay ’ isn ’ t a great punchline given that this is an immutable personal characteristic ) .
But ultimately Maza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was clearly intended as biting humor .
Also , the jabs at Maza only represented a small portion of Crowder ’ s content .
Far more of Crowder ’ s time in his response videos was spent critiquing the actual content Maza was offering .
No doubt Maza didn ’ t like having a personal gadfly critiquing everything he produced but that ’ s how free speech works .
Maza tried to whip up a mob to punish a critic .
That effort failed when YouTube determined that Crowder ’ s criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t see any reason to think Maza has changed much since then but maybe the very end of his first clip on the new channel does show he ’ s at least trying to be a little less sure of himself and a little more open to criticism this time around .
If he really wants to succeed , he should try actually talking with other creators including those who don ’ t completely agree with him instead of treating everyone to the right of Mao as someone who must @ @ @

After leaving his job at Vox, Carlos Maza is launching his own independent YouTube channel on a site he hates. According to Maza, YouTube should be destroyed because it is overrun with arch conservatives. But since even socialists have to eat, he is going to try to make a living on the site while he destroys it. And fortunately, he has help launching his new YouTube channel from an insignificant, completely neutral newspaper called the NY Times:
Rather than swearing off YouTube, Mr. Maza, who is a New York-based socialist, decided to seize the means of his own video production. “I’m going to use the master’s tools to destroy the master’s house,” he said in an interview. “I want to build up an audience and use every chance I get to explain how destructive YouTube is.”… YouTube can be harsh terrain for a professional leftist. The site is nominally open to all views, but in practice is dominated by a strain of reactionary politics that is marked by extreme skepticism of mainstream media, disdain for left-wing “social justice warriors” and a tunnel-vision fixation on political correctness. In recent years, some progressive YouTubers have tried to counter this trend by making punchy, opinionated videos aimed at left-wing viewers. BreadTube, a loose crew of socialist creators who named themselves after a 19th-century anarchist book, “The Conquest of Bread,” has made modest stars out of leftists like Natalie Wynn, a YouTube personality known as ContraPoints, and Oliver Thorn, a British commentator known as PhilosophyTube.
I’ve written about Natalie Wynn a couple of times. Her show is well produced and interesting. Even if you don’t ultimately agree with everything she’s saying, she appears to be making an honest effort to see things from various sides. That’s very different from what Carlos Maza was doing at Vox.
Speaking of Wynn, the other thing the author of this Times’ piece doesn’t mention is that Natalie Wynn was in the process of being canceled last month over a spat with trans critics she had offended in a previous video. I guess that little bit of current events didn’t fit the narrative of this piece, i.e. left-wing creators being targeted by the right.
In any case, Maza seems ready to do his best to profit from the system he hates. In his first video on the new channel he says he hates YouTube, adding “It’s a sh**ty company that exploits its creators and doesn’t deserve to exist, but while it does I might as well flood its airwaves with leftist propaganda.”
Maza’s problem is that he wants to preach to an exclusively left-wing audience and doesn’t want anyone like Steven Crowder to be able to disagree with him on the same platform using the same tools and freedoms. As I wrote during his attempt to have Steven Crowder banned from the site:
I can see why Maza didn’t find Crowder’s jokes about his sexuality funny (‘He’s gay’ isn’t a great punchline given that this is an immutable personal characteristic). But ultimately Maza was trying to silence Crowder based on what was clearly intended as biting humor. Also, the jabs at Maza only represented a small portion of Crowder’s content. Far more of Crowder’s time in his response videos was spent critiquing the actual content Maza was offering. No doubt Maza didn’t like having a personal gadfly critiquing everything he produced but that’s how free speech works.
Maza tried to whip up a mob to punish a critic. That effort failed when YouTube determined that Crowder’s criticism was more substance than personal attack. I don’t see any reason to think Maza has changed much since then but maybe the very end of his first clip on the new channel does show he’s at least trying to be a little less sure of himself and a little more open to criticism this time around. If he really wants to succeed, he should try actually talking with other creators including those who don’t completely agree with him instead of treating everyone to the right of Mao as someone who must be destroyed.


hotair--2020-02-12--Let's face it, none of these Dem Avengers will beat Thanos

Let's face it, none of these Dem Avengers will beat Thanos -- er Trump, says ...

This is an obvious point , but it ’ s at least entertainingly delivered .
As the results of the New Hampshire primary rolled in at CNN , Gloria Borger commended the Democratic presidential field for its “ history making candidates , ” but then noted that none of them seem terribly “ transformational.
” Van Jones expanded on those thoughts by using a Marvel Comics Universe analogy .
You can guess who Trump is in Jones ’ set-up , but it fits his larger point that none of these Democrats look like they can wrest even one Infinity Stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can I just speak to your point , which is there a lot of maybe history making candidates , but it seems to me that in talking to voters there ’ s no one they see this time as a transformational candidate or they would coalesce around a transformational candidate .
Maybe it takes time to build someone who looks like a transformational candidate .
I mean , you would know a lot about that , David .
But I think that in talking to people , they ’ re sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t anybody that they say , oh , my goodness , this is the person .
JONES : Or if they feel that way , it ’ s not sustained .
So they feel like , everybody ’ s like having all this kind of like crushes , you know , it ’ s like back to junior high school and then — but nobody actually — JONES : — gets engaged .
The other thing is it just feels like everybody is partially able to take on Trump but not really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ve got the Avengers against Thanos , right ?
So , you know , if you get , Thor is this and you had a Hulk is that , and you had Amy is this , if you had Pete ’ s that , but there is no one candidate yet that feels that everybody feels like can actually go up against Thanos and beat him .
After this clip , Nia-Malika Henderson thinks Bernie Sanders has the organization to take on Trump , but that ’ s a bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes .
And in the meantime , you ’ ve got Sanders coming in .
He ’ s obviously somebody who has run before , won I think 23 states before .
And if you look at a candidate who might be able to eke this thing out , it could be him .
Given that he ’ s got organizational structure in a lot of these states , clearly the ones he run in before .
He ’ s got some standing there .
He ’ s got an ability how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest don ’ t seem to have the kind of organizational skill that he has .
So you know , listen , you shouldn ’ t have ignored him , but I think he ’ s certainly one to watch .
And he ’ s got this idea of change , right ?
A lot of the voters who went to the polls in New Hampshire and Iowa , that ’ s what they want to see .
That ’ s what propelled a Donald Trump last go round and that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these voters .
Organizational does not mean transformational , though .
Barack Obama was both ; Sanders might be organizational , but that ’ s it .
He ’ s not transforming the Democratic Party , at least not yet .
If he does transform it into the Democratic Socialist Party , though , his transformational quality might ensure that the party remains in the minority for the next few cycles .
Be careful what you wish for , in the words of an ancient Tony Stark saying .
After her surprise surge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considering Amy Klobuchar a potentially game-changing candidate .
Not so fast , I argue in my column for The Week .
Her brand of Minnesota Nice might be a change of pace , but most voters will want to stay the course in this economy : Like most politicians in Minnesota and the upper Midwest in general , Klobuchar succeeds by projecting an image of calm affability .
Based on a couple of personal interactions with her , I ’ d argue that it ’ s a fairly genuine image rather than an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast on the stump between her version of Moderate Minnesota Nice and Trump ’ s Outer Borough Tough Guy , which might have provided Democrats an advantage if Trump was running for his first term in office .
That , however , is not the case .
Trump will likely run mainly on two themes in arguing for a second term .
First , he needs more time to “ drain the swamp , ” i.e.
, reduce the influence of longtime Beltway figures like Klobuchar , Biden , or Sanders .
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changing horses in midstream makes no sense , especially when the alternative is the socialist or socialist-lite agenda being pushed by whomever Democrats nominate .
… Klobuchar ’ s appeal in a campaign against Trump would be a return to status quo ante normalcy .
If voters become anxiety-ridden about the present state of affairs , they won ’ t want a revolution in the Bernie Sanders sense , but a nostalgic turn toward a pre-Trump technocracy to rescue the country from chaos .
Under those circumstances , Trump ’ s chaos-agent qualities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be well advised to nominate an establishment figure who can soothe panic .
That only works if the status quo ante is far more appealing than the status quo , however .
The polling from Gallup this month shows record optimism about the economy and people ’ s personal prospects in the coming year .
Under those circumstances , voters will want anything but “ transformational ” in November .
That doesn ’ t mean Trump can ’ t lose , but it will probably take an economic shock to make him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t benefit Klobuchar , who ’ s never run anything other than a prosecutor ’ s office .

This is an obvious point, but it’s at least entertainingly delivered. As the results of the New Hampshire primary rolled in at CNN, Gloria Borger commended the Democratic presidential field for its “history making candidates,” but then noted that none of them seem terribly “transformational.” Van Jones expanded on those thoughts by using a Marvel Comics Universe analogy.
You can guess who Trump is in Jones’ set-up, but it fits his larger point that none of these Democrats look like they can wrest even one Infinity Stone from his grasp:
CNN’s Van Jones: feels like no Democrat candidate can go up against President Trump pic.twitter.com/sLZYIH7JCW — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) February 12, 2020
BORGER: Yes. Can I just speak to your point, which is there a lot of maybe history making candidates, but it seems to me that in talking to voters there’s no one they see this time as a transformational candidate or they would coalesce around a transformational candidate. Maybe it takes time to build someone who looks like a transformational candidate. I mean, you would know a lot about that, David. But I think that in talking to people, they’re sort of trying to figure out that there isn’t anybody that they say, oh, my goodness, this is the person. JONES: Or if they feel that way, it’s not sustained. So they feel like, everybody’s like having all this kind of like crushes, you know, it’s like back to junior high school and then — but nobody actually — BORGER: Right. JONES: — gets engaged. The other thing is it just feels like everybody is partially able to take on Trump but not really. So it’s like, you’ve got the Avengers against Thanos, right? So, you know, if you get, Thor is this and you had a Hulk is that, and you had Amy is this, if you had Pete’s that, but there is no one candidate yet that feels that everybody feels like can actually go up against Thanos and beat him.
After this clip, Nia-Malika Henderson thinks Bernie Sanders has the organization to take on Trump, but that’s a bit of a change of subject:
HENDERSON: Yes. And in the meantime, you’ve got Sanders coming in. He’s obviously somebody who has run before, won I think 23 states before. And if you look at a candidate who might be able to eke this thing out, it could be him. Given that he’s got organizational structure in a lot of these states, clearly the ones he run in before. He’s got some standing there. He’s got an ability how to raise money, passionate supporters. The rest don’t seem to have the kind of organizational skill that he has. So you know, listen, you shouldn’t have ignored him, but I think he’s certainly one to watch. And he’s got this idea of change, right? A lot of the voters who went to the polls in New Hampshire and Iowa, that’s what they want to see. That’s what propelled a Donald Trump last go round and that’s what he embodies for a lot of these voters.
Organizational does not mean transformational, though. Barack Obama was both; Sanders might be organizational, but that’s it. He’s not transforming the Democratic Party, at least not yet. If he does transform it into the Democratic Socialist Party, though, his transformational quality might ensure that the party remains in the minority for the next few cycles. Be careful what you wish for, in the words of an ancient Tony Stark saying.
After her surprise surge to third last night, some are considering Amy Klobuchar a potentially game-changing candidate. Not so fast, I argue in my column for The Week. Her brand of Minnesota Nice might be a change of pace, but most voters will want to stay the course in this economy:
Like most politicians in Minnesota and the upper Midwest in general, Klobuchar succeeds by projecting an image of calm affability. Based on a couple of personal interactions with her, I’d argue that it’s a fairly genuine image rather than an affectation. That would create a strong contrast on the stump between her version of Moderate Minnesota Nice and Trump’s Outer Borough Tough Guy, which might have provided Democrats an advantage if Trump was running for his first term in office. That, however, is not the case. Trump will likely run mainly on two themes in arguing for a second term. First, he needs more time to “drain the swamp,” i.e., reduce the influence of longtime Beltway figures like Klobuchar, Biden, or Sanders. Second, the economy is so strong that changing horses in midstream makes no sense, especially when the alternative is the socialist or socialist-lite agenda being pushed by whomever Democrats nominate. … Klobuchar’s appeal in a campaign against Trump would be a return to status quo ante normalcy. If voters become anxiety-ridden about the present state of affairs, they won’t want a revolution in the Bernie Sanders sense, but a nostalgic turn toward a pre-Trump technocracy to rescue the country from chaos. Under those circumstances, Trump’s chaos-agent qualities would play against him, and Democrats would be well advised to nominate an establishment figure who can soothe panic. That only works if the status quo ante is far more appealing than the status quo, however.
The polling from Gallup this month shows record optimism about the economy and people’s personal prospects in the coming year. Under those circumstances, voters will want anything but “transformational” in November. That doesn’t mean Trump can’t lose, but it will probably take an economic shock to make him vulnerable. And even then, that won’t benefit Klobuchar, who’s never run anything other than a prosecutor’s office.


hotair--2020-02-12--Warren: Bill Barr should either resign or face impeachment over the Roger Stone mess

Resign ?
He ’ s not going to resign .
He ’ s not going to be impeached .
That was the point of Ed ’ s post earlier : Having gained little politically from the Ukraine saga , House Democrats are done focusing on Trump scandals before the election unless their hands are forced .
Impeachment was a one-shot deal .
You can impeach him for Ukraine or you can impeach him for emoluments or you can impeach him for the Stormy Daniels thing or you can impeach him for the corrupt pardons he ’ ll issue soon enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him for half a dozen other things that ’ ll happen between now and the election , but you have to choose .
Democrats chose .
A second impeachment , even of a different official , will look farcical to Americans who were never better than 50/50 on the Ukraine matter , no matter how strong the grounds may be this time .
“ Is this all Democrats do anymore ?
Impeach people ?
” But just because they can ’ t impeach Barr doesn ’ t mean they shouldn ’ t investigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendation for Roger Stone .
What happened yesterday stinks on ice , and lord knows the Trump glee club in the Senate isn ’ t going to look into it .
Why would they investigation allegations of corruption by the president and his AG when the evidence might reveal corruption by the president and his AG ?
So , as usual , it ’ s a House probe or nothing — the sooner the better , since no doubt “ absolute immunity ” will once again be asserted as a reason not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be resolved without a long court fight .
She also went on to say this : “ Elect me and I ’ ll sic the DOJ on Trump ” ?
Not an obvious position for someone who professes to be troubled by politicization of the Justice Department .
Anyway , there was some mystery late yesterday as to who among the DOJ leadership had insisted on reducing the Department ’ s sentencing recommendation for Stone .
There ’ s less mystery about it today : Prosecutors on the case reportedly wanted a stiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had threatened witness Randy Credico before Credico testified against him .
Supervisors at the DOJ wanted something lighter , seemingly because it was unclear if Stone really meant Credico harm or if he was just shooting off his mouth .
Even Credico said he didn ’ t take Stone ’ s threats seriously .
How that dispute was resolved and even whether it was resolved before the initial sentencing recommendation was filed in court is uncertain at this point ; a DOJ source told Fox News that higher-ups at the Department were actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ d seek a lighter sentence than they ended up seeking , but that ’ s hard to believe .
( The prosecutors reportedly found out about the revised sentence recommendation via Fox News , not from their own bosses , a leak that makes this smell even more political . )
What outside lawyers who are watching this play out seem to agree on is this : ( 1 ) The seven-to-nine-year sentence that was initially sought really was surprisingly high given that Stone ’ s threats seemed like mere bluster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s reeeeeeeeeally unusual for the DOJ to step in and demand that front-line prosecutors change their recommendation after it ’ s been filed .
Harry Litman , a former U.S. Attorney , was amazed : Another former U.S. Attorney told NBC , “ I ’ ve never seen this happen , ever… I ’ d be shocked if the judge didn ’ t order the U.S. attorney to come into court to explain it.
” Typically prosecutors leave it to the defense and the judge to justify leniency for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in its sentencing recommendation and expects something more reasonable from the court .
Not this time .
For some reason , in a case that just happened to involve a presidential crony whose recommended sentence had upset the president publicly , the DOJ decided to submit a de facto defense filing by alleging that its initial recommendation had been excessive .
That smells like a special political favor done for a well-connected — and already convicted — defendant .
Swampy as hell .
It ’ s not the only time the DOJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials at the Justice Department also intervened last month to help change the government ’ s sentencing recommendation for Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn , who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI .
While the prosecutors had once recommended up to six months in jail , their latest filing now says they believe probation would be appropriate… On Jan. 7 , after Flynn moved to withdraw his guilty plea , prosecutors in the case recommended a sentence that included possible jail time .
Their original recommendation was probation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller ’ s Russia investigation .
But , people familiar with the matter said , senior Justice Department officials pressured prosecutors to reverse course .
On Jan. 29 , the government filed a new document with the court saying a sentence of probation was “ reasonable.
” That makes two presidential cronies who ’ ve received an unusual , and unusually favorable , revised sentence recommendation courtesy of Bill Barr ’ s DOJ .
I ’ m curious to know how many defendants in the federal system not personally connected to the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lately from a Department headed by a guy who ’ s not otherwise known to be soft on crime .
But there ’ s more .
The U.S. Attorney ’ s office in D.C. that prosecuted Flynn and Stone used to be headed by Jessie Liu .
Liu was recently nominated by Trump to be an undersecretary at the Treasury Department .
Her confirmation hearing before a Senate committee was scheduled for tomorrow .
Last night , for no apparent reason , it was announced that Trump was pulling the nomination .
Could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ d overseen the Flynn and Stone cases was suddenly being hushed up before Senate Dems had a chance to grill her about the shenanigans in the Stone matter ?
Nope , according to CNN : That sounds a lot like “ she didn ’ t intervene to make sure the president ’ s cronies got sweetheart deals.
” Axios reported yesterday that Liu was expected initially to remain as U.S. Attorney in D.C. until she was confirmed for the Treasury job , but she was unexpectedly yanked from her position by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interim basis by one of Barr ’ s close advisors , Timothy Shea .
As chance would have it , the new recommendation for a more lenient sentence for Mike Flynn was filed on January 29 , the same day that Liu was removed from her position .
In other words , to all appearances , Barr wanted leniency for Trump ’ s cronies and recognized that Liu might be a political obstacle to that .
So he pushed her out while her confirmation was pending , installed a loyalist , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work on sentencing that front-line prosecutors in both the Flynn and Stone cases had done .
And then , with Liu about to open her mouth under oath before the Senate and answer questions about political pressures from above on the D.C. U.S. Attorney ’ s office , Trump hushed her up by withdrawing her nomination .
Presumably , if Congress wants to talk to her now , they ’ ll have to litigate past an “ absolute immunity ” claim too .
No time like the present to get started .
Issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Barr is tentatively scheduled to testify before the House — seven weeks from now .
Can they wait that long to hear from him ?
Stay tuned .
Exit quotation from Susan Collins , who ’ ll be answering for stuff like this until the polls close day on Election Day :

Resign? He’s not going to resign.
He’s not going to be impeached. That was the point of Ed’s post earlier: Having gained little politically from the Ukraine saga, House Democrats are done focusing on Trump scandals before the election unless their hands are forced. Impeachment was a one-shot deal. You can impeach him for Ukraine or you can impeach him for emoluments or you can impeach him for the Stormy Daniels thing or you can impeach him for the corrupt pardons he’ll issue soon enough to his cronies or you can impeach him for half a dozen other things that’ll happen between now and the election, but you have to choose. Democrats chose. A second impeachment, even of a different official, will look farcical to Americans who were never better than 50/50 on the Ukraine matter, no matter how strong the grounds may be this time. “Is this all Democrats do anymore? Impeach people?”
But just because they can’t impeach Barr doesn’t mean they shouldn’t investigate the curious case of the revised sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. What happened yesterday stinks on ice, and lord knows the Trump glee club in the Senate isn’t going to look into it. Why would they investigation allegations of corruption by the president and his AG when the evidence might reveal corruption by the president and his AG? So, as usual, it’s a House probe or nothing — the sooner the better, since no doubt “absolute immunity” will once again be asserted as a reason not to produce evidence and that won’t be resolved without a long court fight.
Congress must act immediately to rein in our lawless Attorney General. Barr should resign or face impeachment. And Congress should use spending power to defund the AG’s authority to interfere with anything that affects Trump, his friends, or his elections. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 12, 2020
She also went on to say this:
I am the only candidate to propose an independent DOJ task force to investigate crimes by Trump administration officials. Every Democratic candidate must commit to it—so Trump officials know they will be held accountable by career prosecutors once he is out of office. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 12, 2020
“Elect me and I’ll sic the DOJ on Trump”? Not an obvious position for someone who professes to be troubled by politicization of the Justice Department.
Anyway, there was some mystery late yesterday as to who among the DOJ leadership had insisted on reducing the Department’s sentencing recommendation for Stone. There’s less mystery about it today:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227561237782855680
Prosecutors on the case reportedly wanted a stiff sentence due to the fact that Stone had threatened witness Randy Credico before Credico testified against him. Supervisors at the DOJ wanted something lighter, seemingly because it was unclear if Stone really meant Credico harm or if he was just shooting off his mouth. Even Credico said he didn’t take Stone’s threats seriously. How that dispute was resolved and even whether it was resolved before the initial sentencing recommendation was filed in court is uncertain at this point; a DOJ source told Fox News that higher-ups at the Department were actively misled by the prosecutors into believing that they’d seek a lighter sentence than they ended up seeking, but that’s hard to believe. (The prosecutors reportedly found out about the revised sentence recommendation via Fox News, not from their own bosses, a leak that makes this smell even more political.) What outside lawyers who are watching this play out seem to agree on is this: (1) The seven-to-nine-year sentence that was initially sought really was surprisingly high given that Stone’s threats seemed like mere bluster, but (2) even so, it’s reeeeeeeeeally unusual for the DOJ to step in and demand that front-line prosecutors change their recommendation after it’s been filed. Harry Litman, a former U.S. Attorney, was amazed:
I have never experienced or even heard of a situation in which a career prosecutor had been ordered to withdraw a sentencing memorandum within the guidelines’ range. The original filing in the Stone case came from two career federal prosecutors and two special assistant U.S. attorneys. This rebuke has to be maddening for them.
Another former U.S. Attorney told NBC, “I’ve never seen this happen, ever… I’d be shocked if the judge didn’t order the U.S. attorney to come into court to explain it.” Typically prosecutors leave it to the defense and the judge to justify leniency for the defendant: The state asks for hard time in its sentencing recommendation and expects something more reasonable from the court. Not this time. For some reason, in a case that just happened to involve a presidential crony whose recommended sentence had upset the president publicly, the DOJ decided to submit a de facto defense filing by alleging that its initial recommendation had been excessive. That smells like a special political favor done for a well-connected — and already convicted — defendant. Swampy as hell.
It’s not the only time the DOJ has done it lately either:
Senior officials at the Justice Department also intervened last month to help change the government’s sentencing recommendation for Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. While the prosecutors had once recommended up to six months in jail, their latest filing now says they believe probation would be appropriate… On Jan. 7, after Flynn moved to withdraw his guilty plea, prosecutors in the case recommended a sentence that included possible jail time. Their original recommendation was probation, given that Flynn had cooperated in Mueller’s Russia investigation. But, people familiar with the matter said, senior Justice Department officials pressured prosecutors to reverse course. On Jan. 29, the government filed a new document with the court saying a sentence of probation was “reasonable.”
That makes two presidential cronies who’ve received an unusual, and unusually favorable, revised sentence recommendation courtesy of Bill Barr’s DOJ. I’m curious to know how many defendants in the federal system not personally connected to the president have received the same sort of compassion lately from a Department headed by a guy who’s not otherwise known to be soft on crime.
But there’s more. The U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C. that prosecuted Flynn and Stone used to be headed by Jessie Liu. Liu was recently nominated by Trump to be an undersecretary at the Treasury Department. Her confirmation hearing before a Senate committee was scheduled for tomorrow. Last night, for no apparent reason, it was announced that Trump was pulling the nomination. Could it be a coincidence that the lawyer who’d overseen the Flynn and Stone cases was suddenly being hushed up before Senate Dems had a chance to grill her about the shenanigans in the Stone matter? Nope, according to CNN:
While head of the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, Liu inherited many of the major ongoing cases from Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation and was also handling the politically charged case of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, a frequent target of Trump’s ire who is also a CNN contributor. As Trump and administration officials weighed pulling Liu’s nomination to serve as the Treasury Department’s under secretary for terrorism and financial crimes, a central factor in the talks was how she had run the US Attorney’s Office. The problem wasn’t that she necessarily did anything wrong, one person familiar with the thinking said, but that she didn’t do more to get involved in those cases.
That sounds a lot like “she didn’t intervene to make sure the president’s cronies got sweetheart deals.” Axios reported yesterday that Liu was expected initially to remain as U.S. Attorney in D.C. until she was confirmed for the Treasury job, but she was unexpectedly yanked from her position by Barr two weeks ago and replaced on an interim basis by one of Barr’s close advisors, Timothy Shea. As chance would have it, the new recommendation for a more lenient sentence for Mike Flynn was filed on January 29, the same day that Liu was removed from her position.
In other words, to all appearances, Barr wanted leniency for Trump’s cronies and recognized that Liu might be a political obstacle to that. So he pushed her out while her confirmation was pending, installed a loyalist, and then set about undoing the months of work on sentencing that front-line prosecutors in both the Flynn and Stone cases had done. And then, with Liu about to open her mouth under oath before the Senate and answer questions about political pressures from above on the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office, Trump hushed her up by withdrawing her nomination. Presumably, if Congress wants to talk to her now, they’ll have to litigate past an “absolute immunity” claim too.
No time like the present to get started. Issue that subpoena today. In the meantime, Barr is tentatively scheduled to testify before the House — seven weeks from now. Can they wait that long to hear from him? Stay tuned. Exit quotation from Susan Collins, who’ll be answering for stuff like this until the polls close day on Election Day:


hotair--2020-02-12--Affair Mila: A French 16-year-old criticized Islam and set off a national debate about free speech

An opinionated 16-year-old girl has created a national debate in France over the line between freedom of speech and incitement against a religion .
Her statements about Islam on social media prompted outrage , death threats , and eventually forced her to move schools .
It all started with an Instagram livestream on January 18th in which the girl , known only as Mila because of her age , was showing how she does her make-up : Recounting the events to the host of the popular chatshow Le Quotidien on Monday , Mila said : “ A guy was hitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling me ‘ you ’ re beautiful , you ’ re hot , what age are you ?
” .
She duly informed those watching that she was lesbian and that “ blacks and Arabs ” were not her type .
Cue a stream of insults and threats , followed by her now infamous response , spoken directly to camera .
“ The Koran is a religion of hatred , there is only hatred in it .
Islam is shit , your religion is shit , ” she said , describing in lewd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your god ” .
The Guardian report is more specific saying that after Mila announced she was a lesbian , someone who identified themselves as a Muslim called her a “ dirty lesbian ” and a “ dirty whore.
” She responded with the statement about Islam and that set off a firestorm of death and rape threats against her .
Her home address was published online and she was kept out of school for two weeks for her own safety : The video was widely shared on social media , where it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and rape .
Fearing for the girl ’ s safety , the regional education board told Mila to stay home from school , where she remains two weeks later .
“ You reap what you sow ” , a senior member of the French Council of the Muslim Faith ( CFCM ) , Abdallah Zekri , told French radio , arguing that the youngster had “ asked for it ” ( the threats ) .
In her one television interview earlier this month , Mila argued that criticizing Islam is not the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marine Le Pen praised Mila saying , “ This young girl is braver than the whole political class in power over the past 30 years.
” But some government figures suggested Mila had gone too far with her criticism : French justice minister Nicole Belloubet also waded into the controversy , saying that death threats against the teenager were “ unacceptable ” .
However , Ms Belloubet herself was criticised after arguing that an attack on religion was “ an attack on freedom of conscience ” .
French Senator Laurence Rossignol gave Ms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying that in France “ it is forbidden to insult the followers of a religion but one can insult a religion , its figures , its symbols ” .
Ms Belloubet later said her comments had been “ clumsy ” .
Earlier this week , it was announced that Mila would be moving to a new school .
And today , French President Macron weighed in on Mila ’ s side saying blasphemy was no crime : “ In this debate we have lost sight of the fact that Mila is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school , in her daily life , in her movements , ” Macron said in an interview with Le Dauphiné Libéré newspaper .
The president added that in finding a new school for Mila , “ the state has fulfilled its responsibilities ” and that children needed to be “ better protected ” against “ new forms of hatred and harassment online that can be destructive ” .
“ That necessity is separate from the criticism of religion .
The law is clear : we have the right to blaspheme , to criticise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order is not a moral order … what is outlawed is to incite hatred and attack dignity , ” Macron added .
When all of this started in France , people quickly made a connection to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack which took place just over five years ago .
In that case , two brothers killed 12 people because they were angry over the paper ’ s publication of cartoons of Muhammad .
Back then the hashtag # JuSuisCharlie was trending in support of the magazine .
This month the hashtag # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FRANCE 24 ’ s recent look back on the Charlie Hebdo attack five years ago .
Finally , if you want to see Mila ’ s appearance on French TV , here it is .
If your French isn ’ t very good you can turn on the closed captioning and have Google auto-translate it to English .
The translation isn ’ t great but it ’ s enough that you can follow the discussion .
This is queued up to the actual interview .
If you want to see a video presentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the interview just scroll back :

An opinionated 16-year-old girl has created a national debate in France over the line between freedom of speech and incitement against a religion. Her statements about Islam on social media prompted outrage, death threats, and eventually forced her to move schools. It all started with an Instagram livestream on January 18th in which the girl, known only as Mila because of her age, was showing how she does her make-up:
Recounting the events to the host of the popular chatshow Le Quotidien on Monday, Mila said: “A guy was hitting on me heavily during the live, telling me ‘you’re beautiful, you’re hot, what age are you?”. She duly informed those watching that she was lesbian and that “blacks and Arabs” were not her type. Cue a stream of insults and threats, followed by her now infamous response, spoken directly to camera. “The Koran is a religion of hatred, there is only hatred in it. Islam is shit, your religion is shit,” she said, describing in lewd terms what she would do to “your god”.
The Guardian report is more specific saying that after Mila announced she was a lesbian, someone who identified themselves as a Muslim called her a “dirty lesbian” and a “dirty whore.” She responded with the statement about Islam and that set off a firestorm of death and rape threats against her. Her home address was published online and she was kept out of school for two weeks for her own safety:
The video was widely shared on social media, where it elicited more threats, including of death and rape. Fearing for the girl’s safety, the regional education board told Mila to stay home from school, where she remains two weeks later. “You reap what you sow”, a senior member of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Abdallah Zekri, told French radio, arguing that the youngster had “asked for it” (the threats).
In her one television interview earlier this month, Mila argued that criticizing Islam is not the same as criticizing a race of people:
“I am not racist. You cannot be racist towards a religion. I said what I thought, you’re not going to make me regret it.”
Marine Le Pen praised Mila saying, “This young girl is braver than the whole political class in power over the past 30 years.” But some government figures suggested Mila had gone too far with her criticism:
French justice minister Nicole Belloubet also waded into the controversy, saying that death threats against the teenager were “unacceptable”. However, Ms Belloubet herself was criticised after arguing that an attack on religion was “an attack on freedom of conscience”. French Senator Laurence Rossignol gave Ms Belloubet “0/20 in constitutional law”, saying that in France “it is forbidden to insult the followers of a religion but one can insult a religion, its figures, its symbols”. Ms Belloubet later said her comments had been “clumsy”.
Earlier this week, it was announced that Mila would be moving to a new school. And today, French President Macron weighed in on Mila’s side saying blasphemy was no crime:
“In this debate we have lost sight of the fact that Mila is an adolescent. We owe her protection at school, in her daily life, in her movements,” Macron said in an interview with Le Dauphiné Libéré newspaper. The president added that in finding a new school for Mila, “the state has fulfilled its responsibilities” and that children needed to be “better protected” against “new forms of hatred and harassment online that can be destructive”. “That necessity is separate from the criticism of religion. The law is clear: we have the right to blaspheme, to criticise, to caricature religions. The republican order is not a moral order … what is outlawed is to incite hatred and attack dignity,” Macron added.
When all of this started in France, people quickly made a connection to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack which took place just over five years ago. In that case, two brothers killed 12 people because they were angry over the paper’s publication of cartoons of Muhammad. Back then the hashtag #JuSuisCharlie was trending in support of the magazine. This month the hashtag #JeSuisMila began trending. Here’s FRANCE 24’s recent look back on the Charlie Hebdo attack five years ago.
It's been five years since the #CharlieHebdo attacks in 🇫🇷 #France. Today, the country remembers the victims. How has the assault impacted the country? ⤵#JeSuisCharlie #Paris pic.twitter.com/fcmASCoDqU — FRANCE 24 English (@France24_en) January 7, 2020
Finally, if you want to see Mila’s appearance on French TV, here it is. If your French isn’t very good you can turn on the closed captioning and have Google auto-translate it to English. The translation isn’t great but it’s enough that you can follow the discussion. This is cued up to the actual interview. If you want to see a video presentation of the ongoing debate that led up to the interview just scroll back:
https://youtu.be/frMlGkOas6I?t=607


hotair--2020-02-12--Philly residents still angry over rising crime rates

Last month , we learned that many residents of Philadelphia had shown up at a meeting with local police officials demanding answers as to why crime rates are rising .
Citizens complained that they were afraid to leave their homes , particularly at night , because the streets were no longer safe .
The police responded by saying that plans were in place to improve the situation and that they needed the public ’ s cooperation in fighting crime .
Apparently those answers weren ’ t good enough for everyone and the problems haven ’ t abated .
This weekend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public parks despite heavy rains , determined to take action for themselves .
Local elected officials attended the event as well .
“ The crime is running rampant and nobody wants to stand up and combat that , ” Anthony Giordano said .
Like many in Philadelphia , Giordano is fed up with the violence in the City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection .
That ’ s why he started this grassroots movement to put an end to gun violence .
“ We need to reach out to the African American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Latinos and the Asians because if we all stand together and unite we ’ ll have a voice in a city that will be heard , ” Giordano said .
This brief video report from CBS captures some of the action from the rally and provides background on recent criminal violence .
The organizer of the rally is named Anthony Giordano .
Frankly , I ’ m a little surprised that the PC police haven ’ t come to cancel Anthony yet .
If you watched the video , you probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And at least from the angle the cameras took , it looks like pretty much everyone at the rally was white and the people they interviewed all had names that end in vowels .
South Philly has a big Italian neighborhood , so that ’ s not surprising .
But when Anthony says they need to “ reach out to the African American community ” ( as well as Latinos and Asians ) , it sounds like what he ’ s really saying is they need to reach out to the gangs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described this campaign as an effort to end gun violence .
But he ’ s not dealing with a gun violence problem .
Well… okay .
He actually is .
But more specifically , he ’ s dealing with a gang violence problem .
It ’ s just not politically correct to say that I guess .
This is generally not the type of problem that citizens are expected or even allowed to deal with on their own .
At least , not unless you ’ re talking about vigilanteism , which ushers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While I find it hard to believe that I ’ m about to say this , perhaps Philadelphia ’ s police should look to Baltimore for some suggestions .
I realize that they haven ’ t made a dent in the gang violence there yet , but they are trying some innovative things this year .
They have surveillance planes monitoring the streets of the city 24/7 .
They ’ ve also reached out to the federal government and brought in agents from Washington to form task forces specifically trained to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as I wrote last month , they need to either demand better from both their mayor and the new District Attorney or replace them .
They ’ ve spent far too much energy in apologizing to criminals and putting handcuffs on their own police .
And now they are reaping what ’ s been sown .
Philadelphia is dealing with a murder rate that hasn ’ t been seen in a generation and it shouldn ’ t be up to Mr. Giordano and his neighbors to fix the problem .

Last month, we learned that many residents of Philadelphia had shown up at a meeting with local police officials demanding answers as to why crime rates are rising. Citizens complained that they were afraid to leave their homes, particularly at night, because the streets were no longer safe. The police responded by saying that plans were in place to improve the situation and that they needed the public’s cooperation in fighting crime.
Apparently those answers weren’t good enough for everyone and the problems haven’t abated. This weekend, hundreds of people packed one of the public parks despite heavy rains, determined to take action for themselves. Local elected officials attended the event as well.
“The crime is running rampant and nobody wants to stand up and combat that,” Anthony Giordano said. Like many in Philadelphia, Giordano is fed up with the violence in the City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection. That’s why he started this grassroots movement to put an end to gun violence. “We need to reach out to the African American community and I need to reach out to the Latinos and the Asians because if we all stand together and unite we’ll have a voice in a city that will be heard,” Giordano said.
This brief video report from CBS captures some of the action from the rally and provides background on recent criminal violence.
The organizer of the rally is named Anthony Giordano. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that the PC police haven’t come to cancel Anthony yet. If you watched the video, you probably noticed that Anthony is a white guy. And at least from the angle the cameras took, it looks like pretty much everyone at the rally was white and the people they interviewed all had names that end in vowels. South Philly has a big Italian neighborhood, so that’s not surprising.
But when Anthony says they need to “reach out to the African American community” (as well as Latinos and Asians), it sounds like what he’s really saying is they need to reach out to the gangs. You see, Mr. Giordano has described this campaign as an effort to end gun violence. But he’s not dealing with a gun violence problem. Well… okay. He actually is. But more specifically, he’s dealing with a gang violence problem. It’s just not politically correct to say that I guess.
This is generally not the type of problem that citizens are expected or even allowed to deal with on their own. At least, not unless you’re talking about vigilanteism, which ushers in new problems of its own. While I find it hard to believe that I’m about to say this, perhaps Philadelphia’s police should look to Baltimore for some suggestions. I realize that they haven’t made a dent in the gang violence there yet, but they are trying some innovative things this year. They have surveillance planes monitoring the streets of the city 24/7. They’ve also reached out to the federal government and brought in agents from Washington to form task forces specifically trained to deal with gang problems.
But most of all, as I wrote last month, they need to either demand better from both their mayor and the new District Attorney or replace them. They’ve spent far too much energy in apologizing to criminals and putting handcuffs on their own police. And now they are reaping what’s been sown. Philadelphia is dealing with a murder rate that hasn’t been seen in a generation and it shouldn’t be up to Mr. Giordano and his neighbors to fix the problem.


hotair--2020-02-12--In Canada, rail lines shut down because of protests against pipeline construction

Protests against the Coastal GasLink pipeline in western Canada have been escalating for several weeks .
Now the company which operates passengers and freight traffic on Canada ’ s rail system says travel is being disrupted for tens of thousands of people : Via Rail , the crown corporation that operates much of Canada ’ s commuter rail service , announced on Wednesday that trains on the Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa routes would be halted until at least Friday .
More than 150 passenger trains have been cancelled since the blockade began , forcing an estimated 24,000 people to find alternate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which owns the tracks , warned it “ will be forced to shut down significant parts ” of its vast Canadian network , which moves oil , grain and forestry products to markets in Asia and the United States , unless a resolution is reached .
The rail protest looks like it only consists of a handful of people .
Here ’ s a report from Monday : A local police chief pleaded with the protesters to stop on behalf of regular people who are losing their jobs : The week-long rail protester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main protest against a pipeline which crosses the territory of an indigenous group called the Wet ’ suwet ’ en .
The company building the 400 mile gas pipeline has spent years getting approval from Wet ’ suwet ’ en elected leaders but the group ’ s hereditary chiefs deny that they ever ceded any land to the federal government and have set up a checkpoint to prevent construction workers from getting to the pipeline construction site .
Last December a court ruled that the protesters had to allow construction worker access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Royal Canadian Mounted Police ( RCMP ) .
The protesters refused to back down and earlier this week the police arrived in force : Indigenous protesters in Canada have called a growing police presence near their makeshift checkpoint “ an act of war ” , as tensions mount over a stalled pipeline project in northern British Columbia .
In defiance of a court order , dozens of protesters have gathered on a logging road nearly 700km ( 430 miles ) north-west of Vancouver , to block the construction of a natural gas pipeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wet ’ suwet ’ en territory , ” Chief Madeek , a hereditary leader , told reporters at the gates of the checkpoint , where temperatures have dipped to -15C ( 5F ) .
There were a handful of arrests : Removing the RCMP from the protest area has become a new rallying point for protesters : The protesters also blocked the entrance to the British Columbia legislature , attempting to prevent legislators from entering : The Vancouver Sun published an unsympathetic opinion piece on the situation : The angry mob that surrounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plan to “ shut down the government ” as a way to show their displeasure with the Coastal GasLink pipeline .
They did not succeed , although they did manage to rough a few people up , spit on at least one legislature staffer , temporarily block the media from doing their jobs , and generally annoy and inconvenience everyone they confronted… As I watched the protesters verbally abuse people just trying to go to work on Monday , I wondered whether any of them would have the guts to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way out of poverty .
The 20 First Nations backing the pipeline represent 13,000 Indigenous British Columbians , many of them working on the project .
He makes an important point .
The protesters represent a fringe .
Many of the Wet ’ suwet ’ en people do not support the protests : The real goal of the protesters , as always , is to “ keep it in the ground.
” But as the company building the pipeline points out , much of this natural gas flowing through the pipeline is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are currently powered by coal-fired electricity – a significant source of greenhouse gases.
” Obviously the protesters don ’ t want to hear it .
The want to put a stop to gas production even if the result is more coal being burned elsewhere .

Protests against the Coastal GasLink pipeline in western Canada have been escalating for several weeks. Now the company which operates passengers and freight traffic on Canada’s rail system says travel is being disrupted for tens of thousands of people:
Via Rail, the crown corporation that operates much of Canada’s commuter rail service, announced on Wednesday that trains on the Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa routes would be halted until at least Friday. More than 150 passenger trains have been cancelled since the blockade began, forcing an estimated 24,000 people to find alternate travel routes. Canadian National Railway, which owns the tracks, warned it “will be forced to shut down significant parts” of its vast Canadian network, which moves oil, grain and forestry products to markets in Asia and the United States, unless a resolution is reached.
The rail protest looks like it only consists of a handful of people. Here’s a report from Monday:
The longest standing disruption of Canadian rail traffic connected to the Wet’suwet’en protest is taking place in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory near Belleville Ontario. pic.twitter.com/vgLDSP3EnI — APTN News (@APTNNews) February 11, 2020
A local police chief pleaded with the protesters to stop on behalf of regular people who are losing their jobs:
Tyendinaga Mohawk Police Chief Jason Brant issues personal plea to demonstrators to end demonstration in support of Wet'suwet'en that has shut down one of Canada's busiest rail corridors for seven days. pic.twitter.com/VoA2uwPBws — Jorge Barrera (@JorgeBarrera) February 12, 2020
The week-long rail protester is an act of solidarity with the main protest against a pipeline which crosses the territory of an indigenous group called the Wet’suwet’en. The company building the 400 mile gas pipeline has spent years getting approval from Wet’suwet’en elected leaders but the group’s hereditary chiefs deny that they ever ceded any land to the federal government and have set up a checkpoint to prevent construction workers from getting to the pipeline construction site.
Last December a court ruled that the protesters had to allow construction worker access to the site or face removal by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The protesters refused to back down and earlier this week the police arrived in force:
Indigenous protesters in Canada have called a growing police presence near their makeshift checkpoint “an act of war”, as tensions mount over a stalled pipeline project in northern British Columbia. In defiance of a court order, dozens of protesters have gathered on a logging road nearly 700km (430 miles) north-west of Vancouver, to block the construction of a natural gas pipeline. “We want them right off Wet’suwet’en territory,” Chief Madeek, a hereditary leader, told reporters at the gates of the checkpoint, where temperatures have dipped to -15C (5F).
There were a handful of arrests:
Arrests by the RCMP in #Wetsuweten territory in northern B.C., have triggered protests across the country in support of the First Nation's fight against the Coastal GasLink pipeline. https://t.co/AiWd4JqNWW pic.twitter.com/ByfDUwje0p — CBC Indigenous (@CBCIndigenous) February 11, 2020
Removing the RCMP from the protest area has become a new rallying point for protesters:
Youth have just walked out of meeting with Bennett after she failed to offer anything but the same colonial and capitalist agenda, refusing to remove RCMP from Wet’suwet’en Territory. She draws blinds to her office as youth yell “RCMP: Racist Corporate Money Protectors!” pic.twitter.com/7E30cqTFyR — Climate Justice Toronto (@CJusticeTO) February 11, 2020
The protesters also blocked the entrance to the British Columbia legislature, attempting to prevent legislators from entering:
The President of the British Columbia legislature press gallery, Global’s Richard Zussman, tries to enter the BC Legislature as protestors opposing RCMP presence in Wet’suwet’en block all doors of the building. pic.twitter.com/0KAfLcyKT9 — Sean Craig (@sdbcraig) February 11, 2020
YOUR PIPE DREAM IS A NIGHTMARE ~ MLAs at the British Columbia Legislature had to be escorted by security through hundreds of people blocking all entrances shouting "Shame" & "Stand With Us"#ShutDownCanada #StopCoastalGasLink #LandBack #yyj #WetsuwetenStrong #FutureIsGreen pic.twitter.com/KUO3W4QtKr — allan crawshaw (@allan_crawshaw) February 12, 2020
The Vancouver Sun published an unsympathetic opinion piece on the situation:
The angry mob that surrounded the B.C. legislature on Tuesday had a plan to “shut down the government” as a way to show their displeasure with the Coastal GasLink pipeline. They did not succeed, although they did manage to rough a few people up, spit on at least one legislature staffer, temporarily block the media from doing their jobs, and generally annoy and inconvenience everyone they confronted… As I watched the protesters verbally abuse people just trying to go to work on Monday, I wondered whether any of them would have the guts to do the same thing to impoverished Indigenous people seeking a way out of poverty. The 20 First Nations backing the pipeline represent 13,000 Indigenous British Columbians, many of them working on the project.
He makes an important point. The protesters represent a fringe. Many of the Wet’suwet’en people do not support the protests:
Wet’suwet’en Nation member Shirley Wilson supports #CoastalGasLink “I don’t agree with the protests at all because it’s all one sided. The protestors that are there a lot come from out of area like Eastern Canada or even the USA.”#WetsuwetenStrong #WetsuwetenSolidarity pic.twitter.com/y44fd8FX6H — Canada Action (@CanadaAction) February 9, 2020
The real goal of the protesters, as always, is to “keep it in the ground.” But as the company building the pipeline points out, much of this natural gas flowing through the pipeline is headed to markets in Asia “that are currently powered by coal-fired electricity – a significant source of greenhouse gases.” Obviously the protesters don’t want to hear it. The want to put a stop to gas production even if the result is more coal being burned elsewhere.


hotair--2020-02-12--Uh oh: Black voters about to walk away from Biden?

If what Politico reports comes to pass , Joe Biden might well and truly be finished — if .
As a second straight disaster loomed in New Hampshire , Biden fled for the friendlier confines of South Carolina , presumably to reassure African-American voters that he plans to stick with them .
However , they have a message for Biden — they may not return the favor : “ There ’ s blood in the water , ” said Quentin James , executive director of The Collective , a political action committee that backs African American candidates .
“ Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
… A big reason lots of black voters were with Biden is they thought he was the best person to beat Trump .
And they thought one reason for that is that he had the support of white voters .
Now they see he has done so poorly with white voters and he no longer looks like the electability candidate.
” The size and scope of the loss — he failed to crack double digits or win any sizable city or town — challenged the wisdom of Biden ’ s strategy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden had downplayed expectations of doing well here , claiming New Hampshire favored politicians from neighboring states , like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
But two politicians from the Midwest , Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg , finished ahead of Biden , undercutting his talking point .
“ This is horrendous .
We ’ re all scared , ” said a Biden adviser , speaking anonymously because the comments conflict with the brave public face the campaign is trying to broadcast .
“ I think we ’ re going to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re supposed to say we ’ re going to and we ’ re going to win .
But I just don ’ t know.
” This may not be a new issue , either .
Even before the Iowa caucus debacle showed Biden ’ s competitive edge might be more myth than reality , black voters had begun to drain away from Biden in South Carolina .
A Post & Courier/Change Research poll at the end of last month showed that Biden had lost twenty points among African-Americans over the course of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bernie Sanders chipping away at Biden ’ s base of support : The vice president to the country ’ s first African American president received 30 percent backing from S.C. black voters in the latest Post and Courier-Change Research poll .
Biden was receiving support from half of the state ’ s black voters over the summer .
Steyer ’ s work to make in-roads with South Carolina ’ s African American community , including visiting areas with large black populations and hiring black staffers , appear to be paying off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ black voters .
Sanders follows at 16 percent with Warren at 10 percent .
This in its own way tends to refute the idea that Biden ’ s support among African-Americans is entirely based on electability , though .
Do they really think that Tom Steyer is more electable ?
Even with his poor performance , Biden got more than twice as many votes in New Hampshire than Steyer did .
In comparison , Sanders has only grown his share of black voters in this polling series from ~5 % in June 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s not a sea-change momentum swing either .
The decline for Biden here is likely due to Steyer ’ s decision to focus almost exclusively on retail politicking in South Carolina , and that ’ s likely why Biden decided on an early return , too .
He needs to make up ground lost while campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire , and so far there ’ s no real indication that a massive walkout of African-American voters is in the offing .
Biden ’ s still got high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means he can still woo voters back to his team .
A strong performance in South Carolina likely will do Biden more good than attempting to rescue himself in Nevada , and he can ’ t afford to leave the field to Steyer alone for another ten days .
( Karen Townsend will have more on Steyer ’ s plans later this evening , so stay tuned . )
It ’ s still a big bet , though , and Biden has to win it .
If he doesn ’ t get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a strong showing among African-American voters in the state , Biden ’ s electability argument will completely fall apart .
And if he does win in South Carolina , it sets up a long and painful fight all the way to the convention floor for Democrats , for which they can eventually thank Steyer .

If what Politico reports comes to pass, Joe Biden might well and truly be finished — if. As a second straight disaster loomed in New Hampshire, Biden fled for the friendlier confines of South Carolina, presumably to reassure African-American voters that he plans to stick with them. However, they have a message for Biden — they may not return the favor:
“There’s blood in the water,” said Quentin James, executive director of The Collective, a political action committee that backs African American candidates. “Black voters are starting to leave him now. … A big reason lots of black voters were with Biden is they thought he was the best person to beat Trump. And they thought one reason for that is that he had the support of white voters. Now they see he has done so poorly with white voters and he no longer looks like the electability candidate.” The size and scope of the loss — he failed to crack double digits or win any sizable city or town — challenged the wisdom of Biden’s strategy of not competing hard in New Hampshire. Biden had downplayed expectations of doing well here, claiming New Hampshire favored politicians from neighboring states, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. But two politicians from the Midwest, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg, finished ahead of Biden, undercutting his talking point. “This is horrendous. We’re all scared,” said a Biden adviser, speaking anonymously because the comments conflict with the brave public face the campaign is trying to broadcast. “I think we’re going to make it to South Carolina. I know we’re supposed to say we’re going to and we’re going to win. But I just don’t know.”
This may not be a new issue, either. Even before the Iowa caucus debacle showed Biden’s competitive edge might be more myth than reality, black voters had begun to drain away from Biden in South Carolina. A Post & Courier/Change Research poll at the end of last month showed that Biden had lost twenty points among African-Americans over the course of the primary campaign, with Tom Steyer and Bernie Sanders chipping away at Biden’s base of support:
The vice president to the country’s first African American president received 30 percent backing from S.C. black voters in the latest Post and Courier-Change Research poll. Biden was receiving support from half of the state’s black voters over the summer. Steyer’s work to make in-roads with South Carolina’s African American community, including visiting areas with large black populations and hiring black staffers, appear to be paying off. He received backing from 24 percent of black voters. Sanders follows at 16 percent with Warren at 10 percent.
This in its own way tends to refute the idea that Biden’s support among African-Americans is entirely based on electability, though. Do they really think that Tom Steyer is more electable? Even with his poor performance, Biden got more than twice as many votes in New Hampshire than Steyer did. In comparison, Sanders has only grown his share of black voters in this polling series from ~5% in June 2019 to 16% now — not bad, but it’s not a sea-change momentum swing either.
The decline for Biden here is likely due to Steyer’s decision to focus almost exclusively on retail politicking in South Carolina, and that’s likely why Biden decided on an early return, too. He needs to make up ground lost while campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, and so far there’s no real indication that a massive walkout of African-American voters is in the offing. Biden’s still got high favorables in this demographic, and that means he can still woo voters back to his team. A strong performance in South Carolina likely will do Biden more good than attempting to rescue himself in Nevada, and he can’t afford to leave the field to Steyer alone for another ten days. (Karen Townsend will have more on Steyer’s plans later this evening, so stay tuned.)
It’s still a big bet, though, and Biden has to win it. If he doesn’t get a clear win in South Carolina, backed by a strong showing among African-American voters in the state, Biden’s electability argument will completely fall apart. And if he does win in South Carolina, it sets up a long and painful fight all the way to the convention floor for Democrats, for which they can eventually thank Steyer.