Friday, February 21, 2020

Bernie Sanders Received Briefing On Russian Attempts To Help Him In 2020 Election And Sow Further Discord Among U.S. Voters

 SANTA ANA, CA - FEBRUARY 21: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) holds a Get Out the Early Vote rally on February 21, 2020 in Santa Ana, California. Sanders is campaigning ahead of the 2020 California Democratic primary on March 3. California moved its Democratic primary from June to ahead of Super Tuesday to have much greater political influence as an early primary state. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)
Article by Christian Datoc in "The Daily Caller":

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was briefed on Russian attempts to help him win the 2020 primary election, a new report from Washington Post claims.

U.S. officials reportedly sat down with Sanders’ campaign to explain the attempt to undermine the eventual results of the election, though the specific methods Russia deployed have not yet been made public. President Donald Trump and U.S. senators and congressmen also received the same briefing. 


“All of us remember 2016. And what we meant — what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our election,” he explained. “And divide us up. I’m not saying that’s happening. But it would not shock me.”

Sanders distanced himself from Trump in his statement responding to the Post’s report.

“Unlike Donald Trump, I do not consider Vladimir Putin a good friend. He is an autocratic thug who is attempting to destroy democracy and crush dissent in Russia,” he wrote. “I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.”

.@BernieSanders camp just released a statement in response

 Image
 
Fiona Hill, former senior director for European and Russian Affairs on Trump’s National Security Council,  testified during a House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry that Russia would attempt to mimic its 2016 election actions in 2020.
 
“The Russians’ interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency,” Hill stated. “So one issue that I do want to raise, and I think this would resonate with our colleagues on the committee from the Republican Party, is that the goal of the Russians was really to put whoever became the president, by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale, under a cloud.”

“Perceived misinformation, perceived doubt, they have everybody questioning the legitimacy of a presidential candidate,” she continued. “They would pit one side of our electorate against the other. They would pit one party against the other, and that’s why I wanted to make such a strong point at the very beginning.”

Hill further emphasized the “need to be very careful as we discuss all of these issues not to give them more fodder that they can use against us in 2020.”

 The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller’s request for comment.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom Tweets Out Bizarre Suggestion to Curb Homelessness Prompting Internet Hilarity


 Gavin Newsom
Article by Brandon Morse in "RedState":

California, once the picture of glamour, beauty, and prosperity, has become the state version of Detroit. Major cities are falling into disarray as drugs and homelessness take it over. You’re more likely to find human feces and used needles in places like San Francisco than you are anything else.

It’s become a trash heap, and sitting atop the throne on this heap of trash is Gavin Newsom, California’s ultra-leftist Governor.

Newsom isn’t exactly known for his intelligent style of governing, and everything that comes out of his mouth seems more ridiculous than the last. This also counts for his tweets.

On Friday, Newsom tweeted out a very odd statement about prescriptions and housing.

“Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics,” tweeted Newsom.

I’m sure that made more sense in his head, but he continues.

“We need to start targeting social determinants of health. We need to start treating brain health like we do physical health. What’s more fundamental to a person’s well being than a roof over their head?” he tweeted.



Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.
We need to start targeting social determinants of health. We need to start treating brain health like we do physical health. What’s more fundamental to a person’s well being than a roof over their head?
 
Gavin Newsom
Replying to
10 million Californians—1 in 4—suffer from some type of behavioral health condition. It’s not a narrow issue. It’s not a new issue. Physical health and brain health are inextricably linked. And our healthcare system has been designed to treat only one of those.
Let’s be clear: Massive failures in our mental health system and disinvestment in our social safety net—exacerbated by widening income inequality and our housing shortage— has led us to where we are today: too many Californians left to live on our streets.
 
 
Replying to
People need to be able to work in order to keep a roof over our head. In an economy where many of us need to cobble a few jobs together to make ends meet, AB5 is creating some serious financial hardship. You are creating more homeless people.
 
Replying to
YEs, My doctor believes I need a new GT500 for my mental health. I'll ask him for a perscription
 
Replying to
Yeah - doctors used to do that to people who were perpetually homeless and indigent. It was called institutionalizing.
 
Doctors should be able to write prescriptions for housing the same way they do for insulin or antibiotics.
This is a clown post, yes?
What overpaid advisor told you this was a good idea?
Someone give this man his coloring book back.
Governors should be able to run a state, but here we are
I need a prescription for an ocean front condo Memorial Day weekend, should I go to my provider, or do I need to see a specialist?
Can someone call a doctor and get Gavin a prescription for his insanity?
"Hi this is Karen from CVS. I'm calling to verify a prescription for a three-bedroom two-bath ranch style home."

 Imagine filling out a prescription for a home to a drug addict who will now still have a drug addiction, but now have a taxpayer-funded home to live in where his or her drug addiction will continue. What kind of crimes and filth will this home become host to? Taxpayer-funded meth labs, prostitution, and more will likely be a part of this home’s daily routine.

Now apply that to thousands of drug addicts all around California.

I can’t stress how bad of an idea this is, but more than that, I can’t stress how bad of a governor Gavin Newsom is.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/02/21/california-gov.-gavin-newsom-tweets-out-bizarre-statement-prompting-internet-hilarity 
 
 
 
 

Dem Lawyer: Stone Judge’s Political Remarks May Have Compromised Case, Made It About Trump

 Dem Lawyer: Stone Judge's Political Remarks May Have Compromised Case, Made It About Trump
Article by Nick Arama in "RedState":

On Thursday, after the controversy over the DOJ sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, Judge Amy Berman Jackson ended up giving Stone a 40 month sentence. 

The sentence was a much more reasonable one in light of the case and vindicated Attorney General Barr and DOJ higher-ups pulling back the excessive sentence originally recommended by the four prosecutors on the case. 

But the Obama-appointed judge couldn’t leave it alone and made remarks which some, like lawyer David Schoen, who has been a trial counsel for the Democratic Party in the past, are saying may have compromised the case.
Schoen called out some of her remarks while speaking to Fox’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, who asked if Schoen saw any animosity toward Stone in her remarks.

From Fox News: 

“I was shocked with some of the things she said,” claimed Schoen. “She was very angry. She’s very smart and she knows how to make her record. But she kept on making political statements while disclaiming that this case is not at all about politics.”
Schoen, a civil rights and criminal defense attorney, said that after listening to Jackson’s remarks at the sentencing, he believes that she may have provided the defense with even more justification to have Stone’s conviction thrown out on appeal.
“She made this very much yesterday about President Trump,” Schoen continued. “She said that Roger Stone volunteered to testify before Congress because he was afraid the president wouldn’t want him taking the fifth. And that he testified to cover up for the president. It was a very political talk. I was very disappointed.”
“He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the President,” said Jackson during Thursday’s sentencing. “He was prosecuted for covering up for the President.”

Stone was not prosecuted or convicted of “covering up for the president,” he was convicted for lying about his contacts with Wikileaks. There has been absolutely no finding that there was any Russia collusion by anyone on the Trump team, indeed that was disproven by the Mueller report. So this is literally accusing him of something he was not found guilty and also attacking the president. You essentially have the judge being a Russia collusion truther. That’s not only wrong, that can lend fuel, as Schoen notes, to the case for a new trial.

Add that to the questions already extant on which Jackson is supposed to rule on with regard to bias on the jury, especially the concerns raised regarding Tomeka Hart, who not only ran for Congress as a Democrat, but also had social media posts saying she believed Trump supporters were racist and tweeting a quote calling Trump the “KKK” president. She also retweeted a tweet mocking concerns about the excessive use of force in Stone’s arrest.

“Is the bias of the judge of such gravity that you would recommend to whoever takes the appeal that it be an appellate issue?” pressed the judge, suggesting that Stone’s defense team may point to Jackson’s remarks as evidence of potential bias against their client.
“I would recommend that, especially for this reason, yesterday, she made the comment that the jurors, in this case, showed great integrity and came back with thoughtful questions. … [while] they have a motion pending before her now about the integrity of the jury process,” said Schoen. [….]
“This juror misconduct… is a very serious issue,” explained Schoen. “The integrity of the system depends on candid answers by jurors, lack of bias or prejudice by jurors and being forthright and really being impartial. Not just saying you can be fair because you want to sit on the jury and stick it to the defendant.”
“If this case is thrown out, as you and I and many, many commentators think it should be,” concluded the judge, “what are the odds the DOJ does not retry Stone?”
“I’d be shocked,” said Schoen. “It would be the wrong thing to do to retry this case.”

Pretty sure, based upon her remarks, that she doesn’t intend to grant the defense motion for a new trial based on juror bias. But then the defense will have to make a decision as to whether they appeal and they clearly have a few avenues to argue. 

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/02/21/dem-lawyer-stone-judges-political-remarks-may-have-compromised-case-made-it-about-trump/

Unions Are Clearly in the Wrong...

Unions Are Clearly in the Wrong about Freedom of Association

If freedom of association is a right, then unions are in the wrong and pushing further in the wrong direction.

Unions have long justified themselves as exemplars of the right of freedom of association. Brenda Smith of the American Federation of Teachers said:
Exclusivity for a union with majority support…is democracy…It allows them to amplify their voice through collective action under our constitutionally protected right to freedom of association.

However, unions deprive many of their freedom of association. As the Supreme Court found in Janus, unions inflict a “significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts.”

Freedom of Association Violated

This glaring inconsistency is highlighted by the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act that Democrats have recently introduced and are expected to pass in the House. It is, as Eric Boehm described it, a “veritable grab bag of policies that labor unions have been pushing Congress to pass for years.” And that grab bag would further advantage unions at the expense of others’ freedom of association.

It would require employers to provide private employee information (including cell phone numbers, email addresses, and work schedules) to union organizers, violating the associational rights of those who don’t want to join or be approached by unions. It would allow unions to initiate snap elections in non-union workplaces more rapidly, limiting opponents’ ability to present opposing positions. And it would codify “card check” elections, eliminating the protections against coercion provided by a secret ballot.

Freedom of association is applied only as a special privilege for unions and denied to others.
Such violations of others’ freedoms of association in the name of union rights highlight the need to recognize that cognitive dissonance.

Union “rights” delete workers’ freedom to associate with a different union, to choose alternative forms of group representation, such as voluntary unions, and to represent themselves in negotiations with employers. They delete workers’ freedom to associate with non-union employers or to resolve workplace issues directly with employers, forcing arrangements exclusively through unions.

They delete employers’ freedom to not associate with unions or to solely employ workers who have no union involvement. In heavily unionized industries, they undermine consumers’ freedom to associate with lower cost, non-union producers and force taxpayers to face higher cost government services as a result of government employee unions. In each of these ways, freedom of association is applied only as a special privilege for unions and denied to others.

Outdated Representation

Further, it must be recognized that unions violate the most basic freedom of association of many current union members. Many have never been given the right to vote on unionization, and those who might try are often knee-capped.

As James Sherk has documented, not a single current worker in many unions ever voted to select that union, and vanishingly few current workers voted for them in other instances. That destroys any claim that the union advances their current workers’ freedom of association.

Labor law requires only a majority of those who voted (not a majority of the workers) in a single certification election to allow unions to impose exclusive union representation on all workers.

  Unions have managed to hamstring both options, revealing that workers’ freedom of association was an intended victim, not their intended motive.No further elections need ever be held. So new workers need never be given a vote on the union, and anyone who changes their mind need never be given a new chance.

That means that in workplaces unionized long ago, virtually no one who now works there voted to certify the union. Which current workers voted for UAW unionization of GM’s Michigan plants in 1937? Which current government union workers voted to certify their unions in the 1960s and 70s? Current union members have therefore often had no effective input on who represents them. They have been denied the only freedom of association plausibly consistent with unions’ freedom of association claims.

Some of the restrictions on workers’ freedom of association due to unionization could be addressed by having regular union certification elections. Decertification elections are also possible. But unions have managed to hamstring both options, revealing that workers’ freedom of association was an intended victim, not their intended motive.

Re-Certification and Decertification

Union members can try to change their union representatives in internal elections if they are unhappy with the current leadership. But even if they successfully oust their leadership, since the local is subordinate to the national union, the national one can neutralize it by putting the local one under its trusteeship and leadership. So even when unhappy workers “win,” they can lose.

Unions never offer regularly occurring union certification elections, either, despite being supported by more than four out of five union households. And when such elections have been forced on them, as when Wisconsin required government unions to face re-certification elections, union members often said “no.” Many unions did not even file for re-election, revealing how badly they had served members. In other cases, membership fell dramatically, or dues had to be cut to hold onto those who would otherwise defect.

Not only do unions deny others’ freedom of association, they straightjacket their own members’ most essential guarantee of freedom of association
Decertification is also strewn with restrictions. It requires signatures from 30 percent of all employees in a unit (versus 50 percent of votes cast for certification, which can be a far lower hurdle), within a one-month time frame that is only open once every three years, and those signatures cannot be gathered while employees are being paid or in work areas. Further, union members who support decertification are commonly expelled from the union (but not relieved of paying for their “representation services”), giving them still less freedom of association. Such restrictions make decertification a faulty escape valve for poorly represented workers.

In sum, not only do unions deny others’ freedom of association, they straightjacket their own members’ most essential guarantee of freedom of association and have made it all but impossible to undo the abuse. If freedom of association is a right we all have, as unions’ self-justifications claim, then current unions are clearly in the wrong and pushing further in the wrong direction.

Weekend Open Thread - Plus Ultra Normal Edition






Another week, another open thread. This week we're going to play a little game of tag. It's easy enough to do, and we've never done it here. This used to be popular on the channels. It works like this. You tag three people in a comment. They show up, reply to you and they tag three people, rinse repeat. Let's see who can get the longest thread of tags in a row. Whoever wins will get exclusive access to this weird picture below, that anyone else can download and also claim as their own, in all of its low resolution and purposefully bad photoshopped glory. I know, it's such a great prize. I don't think I'd be able to handle the responsibility of such a large cache of winning.






When I haven't seen any hot memes or done a lot of memeing to reference in the Next Segment portion of the blog post, a recipe always works. Here's my dude, Sam the Cooking Guy.







\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


//////////////////////


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



y'all know what's up
memes, gifs, music, pics, random thoughts ...
post 'em if you got 'em


and don't forget to recommend
and invite someone new to join in

New York Times Tries to Jump Start Another Russia Interference Hoax

They’ve got the fever and the only cure is more Russia Hoax.


Unbelievable. It is only February and already the New York Times is trying to gin up yet another the-Russians-helped-elect-Trump hoax.



Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.
The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security. Some intelligence officials viewed the briefing as a tactical error, saying that had the official who delivered the conclusion spoken less pointedly or left it out, they would have avoided angering the Republicans.
That intelligence official, Shelby Pierson, is an aide to Mr. Maguire who has a reputation of delivering intelligence in somewhat blunt terms. The president announced on Wednesday that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and long an aggressively vocal Trump supporter.

Here are some notable features of the story.

1. There is no mention from any of the Democrat leakers about what this information is. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that this Shelby Pierson person didn’t have any specifics:
Both Republicans and Democrats asked the intelligence agencies to hand over the underlying material that prompted their conclusion that Russia again is favoring Mr. Trump’s election.
In fact, this is the way the Washington Post describes it:
Other people familiar with the briefing described it as a contentious re-litigating of a previous intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump. Republican members asked why the Russians would want to help Trump when he has levied punishing sanctions on their country, and they challenged Pierson to back up her claim with evidence. It is unclear how she responded.

How in the name of all that’s Holy could anyone know what was said to this Pierson person and not know how she responded?

2. The only sources on the Russian actions are House Democrats who are out to build another bullsh** Russian interference narrative. Most of the article is devoted to a primal fear that Richard Grenell is about to shut off the leaks that the Intelligence Community has been using to damage Trump for four years.

3. There are at least five sources leaking classified information in this story…crickets.

4. At no point do we have any indication what level of confidence the agencies who have sniffed out this alleged assistance to Trump from Russia have in their assessments, nor do we know how strong the IC consensus is.

Since Truth has been ritually buggered to death at the New York Times, it is not surprising that they’ve now set out to administer death by boho to Irony.
After asking about the briefing that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and other agencies gave to the House, Mr. Trump complained that Mr. Schiff would “weaponize” the intelligence about Russia’s support for him, according to a person familiar with the briefing. And he was angry that no one had told him sooner about the briefing, the person said.

Really? Why would he ever think that Adam Schiff would lie about stuff to damage him? What could the man be thinking to imagine that this briefing would be leaked by Democrats to the New York Timw which would run it under the headline Russia Backs Trump’s Re-election, and He Fears Democrats Will Exploit Its Support?

We don’t know if the departure of Acting DNI Joseph Maguire is linked to this but we can hope. Anyone with this degree of political tone-deafness should not only be fired but perhaps exiled to an islet in the Aleutians. Pierson, who actually chairs the committee that is supposed to protect the 2020 election, comes across as either a partisan or an idiot or both. One of Grenell’s first actions should be to appoint someone who is not a lackwit to that position.

The bottom line here is that there is absolutely nothing in the story that supports the headline and a lot to indicate that the headline is just the New York Times dusting off 2017 headlines in a search of relevance. What is clear is that our Intelligence Community is not staffed with impartial, big-brained analysts, it is packed to the gills with highly partisan political operatives, like Eric Ciaramella, who dish intelligence to forward their domestic political agenda and high IQ goobers who don’t seem to realize that their consequence-free guesswork is dangerous.

Giants Cancel Championship Legend Aubrey Huff For Tweeting Support Of Trump



When you attend a baseball game, you have no idea how the fan sitting next to you voted in the last election. More importantly, you don’t care. The Giants turning their back on Huff was a mistake.

Sports used to be a thing over which people of different political and social backgrounds could join in support of their local team. No longer. The trend of politicizing everything infected professional sports years ago but now has even started creeping into sports history. This week, the San Francisco Giants cast Aubrey Huff’s legacy down the memory hole because he made the mistake of backing the wrong political party.

Ten years ago, Giants players and fans celebrated their first world championship since 1954. It was the only one they had won to that point, since moving from New York to California, despite nine playoff appearances in that span. The World Series win ended an incredible drought for such a storied franchise, and the jubilation in the Bay Area was apparent immediately. They have won twice since, in 2012 and 2014.

The team visited President Barack Obama at the White House, as is traditional for winners of championships, and the experience was low-key and non-political. Various California politicians joined them there, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, newly appointed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee. These people are all Democrats, and many baseball players are Republicans, but it didn’t matter. They all had a good time at the joyous, lighthearted event.

Now Aubrey Huff Is an Outcast

How times have changed in the decade since. Many of the politicians are the same, but the new occupant of the White House — and people’s extreme reactions to him — have changed even normal events such as these into political contests. Aubrey Huff, a first baseman and outfielder for the 2010 Giants, was recently informed by the team that he is not welcome at an upcoming celebration of the 10th anniversary of the World Series win.

His crime: publicly supporting Donald Trump.

In an interview with Steve Berman and Dan Brown of The Athletic, Huff discussed the snub from his former employers. Asked for his opinion, Huff said he was “quite frankly, shocked. Disappointed. If it wasn’t for me, they wouldn’t be having a reunion.”

Huff, who hit .290 with 26 home runs and slugged .506 that year, was not exaggerating. He was the most valuable player on the team that year, as measured by Baseball Reference’s wins against replacement stat, and finished seventh in the National League’s MVP voting. He was also known as a great presence in the clubhouse, a team leader who had an unusual sense of humor. Huff was no bit player; he was the heart of a winning team.

The Athletic’s story confirmed it was Huff’s social media support for the president that made the Giants management declare him persona non grata. According to a team statement, “Aubrey has made multiple comments on social media that are unacceptable and run counter to the values of our organization.”

Corporate America has long been ruled by men who fear nothing more than being unpopular with the in-crowd, and baseball is no different. In most times, these people have been divided fairly equally between the major parties, but the unending furor against Trump on the left has scared big business into kowtowing to the wokesters, lest they lose the business of online socialists who don’t watch sports anyway.

Huff Reveals the Giants’ Hypocrisy

Far from being cowed at being made into an unperson, Huff used social media to tell his story. He tweeted, “My locker room humor on Twitter is meant to be satirical, and sarcastic. And it was that type of humor that loosened up the clubhouse in 2010 for our charge at a World Series title. They loved it then, and it hasn’t changed. That’s not the issue. It’s politics.”

Huff also took aim at the Giants owner, Larry Baer. “I find this whole thing very hypocritical coming from a man who has had his share of real controversy for pushing his wife, for which he had to take a break from the Giants and issue a formal apology. All I did was tweet.” Huff was referring to a 2019 incident in which Baer was seen and filmed arguing with his wife in a park, an argument that left her sprawled on the ground after Baer wrestled a cell phone from her. Major League Baseball, under the pusillanimous leadership of Rob Manfred, suspended Baer for three months.

It’s a good thing Baer didn’t vote the wrong way, or else he’d be out in the cold for good. Huff is right to be outraged, and not just at the Giants’ ownership’s hypocrisy. Extremists in politics have always wanted their preferred ideology to overshadow everything, but that monomania has been gaining in popularity even among once-normal people on the political left. When radicals in the ’60s proclaimed that “the personal is political,” most Americans were quite certain they were wrong. Politics had a place — it is the way a free people governs itself — but that place was not every place.

Politics Shouldn’t Destroy Monoculture

Americans are a political people. We have to be. We elect our leaders, and that requires thinking about — and talking about — politics. That means politics isn’t a dirty word. But it also includes a temptation to let it take over everything. Our political opinions need not be a secret, but neither should a difference of political opinion mean we can no longer associate with each other.

Politics is important, but it can tear us apart, too. People need a break from it all, and there is no better escape from fractiousness than the unity that sports brings to a city. When you attend a baseball game, you have no idea how the fan sitting next to you voted in the last election. You don’t know if he wants socialized health care or tax cuts or entitlement reform or school vouchers. More importantly, you don’t care. You’re there to cheer on your team and have a nice time at the ballpark.

Sports, like music, art, and theater, can get political. But it really doesn’t have to. People who differ in worldviews about government can be perfectly in agreement about baseball, jazz, impressionism, and many other cultural items. The Giants do all baseball fans a disservice by turning their back on Huff, a player who helped them bring home their first championship in 66 years. In doing so, they also chip away at one of the few remaining institutions that unites people of all political stripes.

Issues with CDC Coronavirus test...


Issues with CDC coronavirus test 
pose challenges for expanded screening

Expanded screening for the coronavirus has been postponed amid issues with a test developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Although the Trump administration had planned to expand screening to various state and local public health labs, only three of more than 100 such labs nationwide have verified the CDC’s test for use, Politico reported.

The CDC has also had to postpone its plans to screen samples collected during flu surveillance for the virus using public health labs in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb told the publication further delays could leave public health officials ill-equipped to detect scattered cases as they accumulate.

“By that point, it may be harder to contain spread, and we'll be forced to rely on mitigation tactics to just limit the impact of the virus," he told Politico.

One of the three reagents upon which the test hinges produced inconclusive results during a quality check, Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious diseases at the American Association of Public Health Laboratories, told Politico.

The news comes after more than 20 Senate Democrats said in a letter that the Trump administration should put additional funds toward its response to the virus after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) warned it was running low.

“We strongly urge the administration to transmit an emergency supplemental request that ensures it can and will fully reimburse states for the costs they are incurring as part of this response,” they wrote in a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney.

The virus has thus far been confirmed in more than 75,000 people and killed more than 2,100, with the vast majority of cases in China.

Obama's 'Wingman' Eric Holder Calls Journalist a 'loser,' Tells Him to 'Shut the Hell Up'



Former attorney general Eric Holder lashed out at a journalist on Twitter Thursday, calling him and “obvious loser” and telling him to “shut the hell up.”

“Why don’t you shut the hell up. Your bias is showing,” Holder fumed at RealClearInvestigations and New York Post reporter Paul Sperry. “I bet you’ve never been a prosecutor or have any idea how DOJ works. People like you-who want to use the justice system for political reasons-are both dangerous and ignorant. The case was-like you-an obvious loser,” he tweeted.


Holder was responding to Sperry’s tweet about Assistant U.S. Attorney Molly Gaston, an attorney in the Washington D.C. office’s fraud and public corruption section.

Gaston is one of the attorneys who relayed the letter to former deputy attorney general Andrew McCabe’s legal team informing them that the DOJ would not pursue criminal charges in case against McCabe.

The decision frustrated conservatives who have watched in despair as deep state malefactors seem to escape justice while Trump associates get the book thrown at them for committing similar offenses.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report on McCabe’s misconduct in April of 2018, alleging that he lied to his boss at the time, then-FBI director James Comey, his fellow agents, and the Inspector General himself. McCabe also tried to cast blame on colleagues for his orchestrated press leak to the Wall Street Journal. Horowitz referred the case to federal prosecutors.

It should have been a slam dunk.

Here is a timeline of McCabe’s lies courtesy of the Washington Times:
⦁ Told Mr. Comey on Oct. 31, 2016, that he didn’t approve the leak.
⦁ Denied to FBI agents on May 9, 2017, under oath that he had authorized the October 2016 leak.
⦁ Told the inspector general in July 28, 2017, that he was not aware that Ms. Page was authorized to leak to The Journal.
⦁ Told the inspector general on Nov. 29, 2017, under oath three alleged lies: He acknowledged that he had authorized the leak and contended that he never issued a denial to FBI internal affairs on May 9; he told Mr. Comey that he, Mr. McCabe, had approved the leak; and he said FBI internal affairs agents asked him about the Journal disclosure only as an afterthought as they were leaving his office.
One of the agents who interviewed Mr. McCabe in May 2017 was not happy that his boss spread blame to others for something the deputy director had done.
The agent told the inspector general: “I remember saying to him, at, I said, sir, you understand that we put a lot of work into this based on what you’ve told us. I mean, and I even said, long nights and weekends working on this, trying to find out who amongst your ranks of trusted people would, would do something like that. And he kind of just looked down, kind of nodded, and said, ‘Yeah, I’m sorry.’ “

Meanwhile, former national security adviser Michael Flynn is still fighting to stay out of jail for lying to federal agents, a crime no one thinks he actually committed.

Perhaps as a way to explain why the troubling double standard, Sperry pointed out that Gaston, like most federal attorneys, is a partisan Democrat who’s donated thousands of dollars to Democrats. She also previously worked for Democrat side of House Oversight Committee as well, Sperry said.

Holder’s harsh retort prompted many conservatives to reminisce about the bad old days when he considered himself Obama’s “wingman” at the DOJ. The former AG made the “wingman” comment in April of 2013, nearly a year after he had been held in Contempt of Congress by House Republicans for refusing to turn over documents related to the ATF’s criminal and deadly Fast and Furious fiasco.


When asked during a radio interview whether he would soon be leaving the administration, the scandal plagued AG brushed off the question and professed his allegiance to the deeply partisan left-wing ideologue Obama.

“I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done.  I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.  So we’ll see,” the nation’s chief law enforcement officer said.

In December, Obama’s former “wingman” had the unmitigated gall to write in a Washington Post oped that Attorney General William Barr was “unfit to lead the Justice Department” because he had “…taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate.”

But in reality, Holder proved over and over throughout his disgraceful tenure that he is the one who was unfit for office.

In addition to the Fast and Furious scandal, Obama’s wingman will forever be remembered as a race-baiting corruptocrat who helped weaponize the IRS against conservatives, prosecuted more whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined, spied on reporters, and repeatedly lied to congress.

Investor’s Business Daily in May of 2013 counted at least four times Holder had lied to Congress, starting with his shamelessly deceitful House testimony about the New Black Panther voter suppression case.
People have forgotten about the New Black Panther case, perhaps the most clear-cut case of voter suppression and intimidation ever. On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members in military garb were videotaped intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place.
The slam-dunk prosecution of these thugs was dropped by Holder’s Justice Department. When asked why, Holder, on March 1, 2011, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that the “decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department.”
Holder lied, for the decisions were made by political appointees. J. Christian Adams, a former career DOJ attorney in the Voting Rights Section, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it was Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, who overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by Adams and his associates.
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch and a ruling by Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to a suit brought by the group show that “political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case.”
Fast forward to Fast and Furious, the Obama administration’s program to “walk” guns across the border and into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in furtherance of its gun control agenda.
“When did you first know about the program officially I believe called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa asked Holder in sworn testimony on May 3, 2011. “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks,” was Holder’s response.
Holder lied: A July 2010 memo shows Michael Walther, head of the National Drug Intelligence Center, told Holder that straw buyers in Fast and Furious “are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said other documents indicate Holder began receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center on or before that date.
In an exchange with Sen. Pat Leahy on Nov. 8, 2011, Holder admitted his May 3 testimony was inaccurate when he said he knew about Fast and Furious for a “few weeks.” He later changed that to a “couple months.”
But the memo from Walther referring to Fast and Furious in detail was sent directly to Holder on July 5, 2010 — not a “couple months” before he testified in May.
No surprise then on May 15, 2013, before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder lied when he said: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”
He personally signed off on James Rosen’s warrant. Holder’s defenders say the statement is technically correct because he never meant to prosecute Rosen, only to find the leaker. If so, then he lied to a federal judge.
Similarly, Holder’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the Associated Press leak investigation that led to the blanket seizure of call records is not backed up by a formal recusal letter, which is required under such circumstances.

The day he stepped down from office should have been celebrated by every American who respects the rule of law.

Holder is one of the more loathsome and corrupt swamp creatures to slither out of the DC cesspool so it’s no surprise that Obama’s wingman would come forward in such a deranged way to deride a journalist just for doing his job.