Mediaboss Marketing

Former Vice President Joe Biden talks to the media as he leaves a polling station after a visit on the day of the New Hampshire presidential primary in Manchester, N.H., February 11, 2020. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)Over and over, they are boxed in by their own believe all women standard. Its clear they never believed in it in the first place.

They never learn, do they? Democrats and their pundit class have a long habit of promoting standards for others that their own side cant abide living under. Somehow, they make arguments year in and year out that come back to bite them, and they never pick up on the slightest clue that this will, predictably, happen again.

So it is now that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has been accused by a woman who worked for him in the early 1990s of sexually assaulting her. If we apply the standards that Republicans and conservatives have advocated for these kinds of things, the question we would ask right now is whether the evidence shows the allegation to be credible. We can return to that another day. Because under the Believe All Women standard promoted by Democrats, liberals, and progressives, Biden should be simply assumed to be guilty. Case closed. David Harsanyi has a selection of those arguments from the Kavanaugh hearings, including from Biden himself.

The examples he lists are not hyperbole; they are what Democrats argued with straight faces as recently as a year and a half ago. They made those arguments loudly, insistently, repeatedly, emotionally, sometimes with tears in their eyes and voices quivering with rage. They argued them in congressional hearings and on the campaign trail, tweeted them and memed them. And those Democrats who even bother to notice Tara Reades allegations against Biden will now be forced to explain that they never really meant any of it. To all of them, I now say: Not only did we warn you and warn you and warn you that this exact thing would happen to you sooner or later (and probably sooner), but it has happened to you before and you learned absolutely nothing from it.

Those of you old enough to remember the Clarence Thomas hearings will recall that a major part of the argument for believing Anita Hills sexual-harassment charges against Thomas was this same line of reasoning. We were told that men just dont get it and cannot and should not attempt to evaluate the facts and testimony to judge whether Hill was telling the truth. This you-must-believe, you-may-not-question stance became a centerpiece of the Democrats 1992 Year of the Woman Senate campaigns. There were reasons that they took this tack: Polls at the time by Gallup and the New York Times/CBS News showed that more voters believed Thomas than Hill, and voters throughout the hearings favored his confirmation by a two-to-one margin. The cleanest way to avoid discussion of the credibility of your witnesses is to argue that their credibility is irrelevant.

This happens nowhere else in politics or the law. We should, of course, listen to every accuser who comes forward with a claim of sexual assault or abuse, and too often as a society we have failed to do so. We should listen to Reade, just as we should listen to the women who have made accusations against Donald Trump and other political figures of both parties. But in any accusation of misconduct (sexual or otherwise), what matters most is whether it is true or not. In the civil and criminal law, that means we have the protections of due process. In politics, it sometimes means making judgments about the facts without the benefit of a legal proceeding. But the duty to take the truth seriously and apply our common sense in finding the truth is no less important.

Lots of people on the right argued at the time that the thou shalt not question Anita Hill edict was an insane standard that would sting the Democrats at the next opportunity. Democrats, recklessly disregarding all these warnings, not only persisted in making the argument but also went ahead and nominated a notorious Lothario for president in 1992. Predictably enough, early in Bill Clintons presidential term, he was sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones, a former subordinate in Arkansas. Kathleen Willey, a Democratic supporter of Clintons, accused him of groping her in the Oval Office. He was also accused, by Juanita Broaddrick, of rape.

The Paula Jones case eventually expanded to questions of Clintons other workplace sexcapades, thanks to the liberal discovery rules of civil litigation. That, in turn, led to the referral of the Monica Lewinsky affair to yet another liberal innovation the independent counsel. The independent counsel was, itself, a Carter-era Democratic creation. In 1988, Justice Antonin Scalia tried to warn liberals of precisely why it was dangerous, with its presumption in favor of launching unaccountable investigations. Not one of these events dented the absolute certainty of liberal pundits and Democratic politicians in making deeply illiberal arguments, so long as the targets were Republicans. All of them were shocked when their own rules were forced on them during the Clinton presidency. The believe all women standards went quiet for a long time, workplace sexual harassment was shrugged off as compartmentalized from Clintons presidency, and the independent-counsel statute was allowed to expire by bipartisan consent in 1999.

But in the long term, Democrats learned nothing. When presented with the chance to play the credibility-of-the-accuser-doesnt-matter card in pursuit of Kavanaugh, they took the same absolutist position all over again. It didnt take long to blow up in their faces, as the thirst for corroborating allegations brought out people such as the bottom-feeding attorney Michael Avenatti to push ludicrous gang-rape charges against Kavanaugh that just proved his defenders point. Boxed in by their own standards, Democratic senators actually read Avenattis nonsense into the Senate record during the hearings. Republicans and conservatives warned them that they would regret these standards the next time charges were leveled against one of their own. It didnt take long, as two women came forward to publicly accuse Virginia lieutenant governor Justin Fairfax of rape in mid-2019. Fairfax is still in office, and he plans to run for governor, and his party may well fall in line behind him. Now an accusation has been raised against the partys presumptive presidential nominee.

Will Democrats learn their lesson this time? Dont bet on it.

See more here:
Joe Biden, Democrats, and Sexual Assault: They Never Learn - National Review

The question of whether state lawmakers needed to appear in person at the Colorado Capitol Monday to extend a pause in the lawmaking term because of the new coronavirus opened a rare public rift between Democrats in the Colorado House and Senate.

The situation highlights just how much pressure the disease is putting on the legislature and how much of a threat it is to Democrats policy agenda. Lawmakers had a tentative, bipartisan plan to avoid gathering and extend the legislative recess until April, but that fell apart on Sunday afternoon.

Instead a handful of legislators gathered at the Capitol on Monday for a few minutes to recess until later this week.

The latest from the coronavirus outbreak in Colorado:

>> FULL COVERAGE

A letter was drafted and was set to be signed by about two-thirds of the legislature both Democrats and Republicans explaining that the General Assembly was going to continue its recess until at least April 13. But instead of returning to the Capitol to extend the pause in the legislative session as was originally thought to be necessary, lawmakers would stay home to avoid the risks posed by the disease.

A copy of the letter, obtained by The Colorado Sun, says lawmakers recognize the critical importance of protecting the health and safety of the members and staff of this body and all other persons who work at the Capitol or who seek to observe and participate in their government, by respecting and adhering to the recommendations of public health officials.

But the letter was scrapped at the behest of House Democrats in favor of a few top lawmakers returning on Monday to punt the decision on whether to extend the recess to later in the week.

Senate Democrats appear to have been mostly united behind sending a letter, rather than meeting in person

I think its irresponsible for us to go in tomorrow, and I think we should follow the example we want to set for everybody, Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat who was at the Capitol Monday, said in an interview late Sunday.

On the other side is House Speaker KC Becker, a fellow Boulder Democrat, who said the best option was for a brief return to the Capitol on Monday. She worried that using a letter to extend the recess might not be legal. Returning, she said, is the safest course of action right now.

Becker was marked excused on Monday during the Houses minutes-long gathering. A spokesman for Becker said House leaders wanted to limit the session to as few people as possible. House Majority Leader Alec Garnett, a Denver Democrat who lives a mile away, was designated to handle the quick proceedings.

The Senate appeared to gather for even less time.

Both chambers adjourned for three days, until Thursday, the longest period for which they are allowed to temporarily recess without a quorum and a vote. Both Senate and House Democrats urged their members not to show up for safety reasons.

Only nine lawmakers were in the 65-person House Monday morning. So few senators showed up that Senate President Leroy Garcia, D-Pueblo, didnt even bother to take a count to see if there were enough lawmakers present to proceed with business.

Gov. Jared Polis has ordered people to stay home until at least April 11 to slow the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus which has killed nearly 50 Coloradans and sickened at least 2,300 more. The legislature is exempt from the order.

The General Assembly shut down on March 14 for two weeks because of the disease with the hope of returning on Monday. But with the viral outbreak only worsening since then, lawmakers couldnt safely resume their business.

The idea behind the letter was to allow lawmakers to return the week after Polis stay-at-home directive expired. Many preferred sending the letter because it allowed everyone to stay home, including nonpartisan staffers and the legislative leadership who had to quickly clock in and clock back out again.

And while the Office of Legislative Legal Services, the legislatures attorneys, feels sending the letter to extend the recess likely was legally sound, it wasnt willing to call it bulletproof.

There is a risk that someone may challenge the constitutionality of any legislation adopted following the return of the legislature, the office wrote in an opinion.

Meanwhile, the legislature is waiting for the Colorado Supreme Court to make a decision on whether it can extend the lawmaking term beyond May 6, the day lawmakers were originally supposed to adjourn. Becker said she is hopeful that ruling will come in the next few days and by Thursday they will have a better picture of how to proceed.

We just need to wait to hear from the Supreme Court, she said. I want to spend our time figuring out how were going to move forward as a legislature for the next several months. This is just a disagreement in how you effectuate that.

Becker called the clock-in-clock-out approach, which required just legislative leadership and nonpartisan staff, a middle ground between the letter and a push from some in her caucus to return to vote in person to extend the lawmaking pause. The vote would have required at least 33 members of the House and 18 members of the Senate to show up at the Capitol.

Plans were underway last week to make that happen, beginning by choosing the least vulnerable lawmakers to come into the building. One legislator state Sen. Jim Smallwood, a Parker Republican has tested positive for the coronavirus, but is recovering after experiencing only mild symptoms.

Becker said there was never a deal to go with the letter, but that she understands the position of those who didnt want to return to the Capitol. I think thats a very fair position to have and I totally get it, she said. What weve put forward doesnt require any other members to come into the chamber.

Fenberg was emphatic about the danger of gathering. I dont think we should be going into the Capitol, he said. It puts us at risk. It puts our communities at risk when we go back. It puts our staff at risk.

Want exclusive political news and insights first? Subscribe to The Unaffiliated, the political newsletter from The Colorado Sun. Join now or upgrade your membership.

Democratic Sens. Julie Gonzales, of Denver, and Faith Winter, of Westminster, were among those ready to sign the letter. This procedural vote could have been achieved without putting nonpartisan staff at risk, Gonzales said.

Both Winter and Gonzales did not go to the Capitol on Monday.

Senate Minority Leader Chris Holbert, a Parker Republican, said he also was ready to sign onto the letter. I thought it was a viable solution.

Holbert, the top GOP state senator, said more than half of his caucus was ready to sign the letter. He said legislative leadership has been trying to find a way to avoid making people come back to the Capitol.

He was at the Capitol on Monday morning for the brief gathering, along with a few other Senate Republicans.

There are some folks who really feel the responsibility to be there, Holbert said. They were elected and we are convening so they are going to be there.

Staff writer John Frank contributed to this report.

Updated at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, March 30, 2020: This story has been updated to reflect the Colorado House and Senate met briefly on Monday morning to recess until later in the week. House Speaker KC Becker, D-Boulder, was marked excused.

Original post:
Democrats in the Colorado legislature jostle over whether they must return to the Capitol to continue their coronavirus pause - The Colorado Sun

To address various concerns about the amendment, the Legislature passed laws that would ensure racial and ethnic diversity on the commission and would require the State Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, to appoint a special master to draw the maps using the same criteria as the commission. Another new law eliminates prison gerrymandering, the practice of counting prisoners where they are incarcerated rather than where they are from.

These are good fixes. Still, the commission itself has significant flaws, chief among them that it includes lawmakers, who have demonstrated time and again that they shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the redistricting process. Foxes guarding henhouses are still foxes, even if theyre being watched closely by the farmer. But the amendment is an important step in the right direction, and in the end it succeeded because nine Democrats joined all Republicans to get the measure over the hump for a second time.

And what of those Republicans? Arent they to be commended for voting in favor of fairer maps? Sure, but it was an easy call once they were out of power, or knew they were about to be. The better question is, Where was their public spirit when they held an unthreatened majority?

Republicans continue to find countless ways to block efforts to make voting fairer and more democratic. In Missouri, Utah and Michigan, Republican lawmakers are working to undo citizen-led ballot initiatives that were passed, in some cases overwhelmingly, by voters tired of being chosen by their politicians.

And when Republicans do lose at the ballot box, they respond not by trying to appeal to more voters, but by stripping power from duly-elected Democrats essentially looting the shelves on their way out the door. This is the behavior of a party that neither trusts its own popularity nor accepts its opponents legitimacy, a fatal combination for a constitutional republic.

In light of this, many Democrats have little patience for calls to level the playing field. After all, why play fair when the other side doesnt? The answer is that the alternative is a race to the bottom, where voters of both parties give up because they know whatever box they check at the polls, the politicians have already made their choices for them.

In far too many parts of the country, thats the reality today. Partisan gerrymandering is a key reason millions of Americans feel the government is rigged against them. The good news is that this behavior used to happen behind closed doors, and now its being dragged out into the open. The more the public learns about it, the more they oppose it. Virginia voters support the new redistricting amendment, 70 percent to 15 percent; according to a January 2019 poll commissioned by Campaign Legal Center, which pushes for electoral reform, 65 percent said they favored districts with no partisan bias, even if it meant their own party would win fewer seats.

See the original post:
A World Without Partisan Gerrymanders? Virginia Democrats Show the Way - The New York Times

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 27: (L-R) Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Senate Majority Leader Mitch ... [+] McConnell (R-KY), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Vice President Mike Pence and Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) applaud U.S. President Donald Trump during a bill signing ceremony for H.R. 748, the CARES Act in the Oval Office of the White House on March 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. Earlier on Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the $2 trillion stimulus bill that lawmakers hope will battle the the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo by Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images)

A recent Ipsos/Reuters poll found that 14% of Democrats said they were infected with COVID-19 or knew someone who was infected. For Republicans, this number was only 10%.

While not a huge difference, its enough to raise an eyebrow. Why might this number be higher for Democrats? And what political implications might follow? Answers to these questions are explored below.

#1: The difference in infection rate by party affiliation is very explainable.

It shouldnt come as a surprise that more Democrats are infected than Republicans. Looking at the areas that have been hardest hit by Coronavirus, it is the coastal regions of the country (New York, California, Washington, New Jersey, etc.) areas where Democrats outnumber Republicans. If the disease were centered in the South or the Midwest, it would be a different story.

But theres another factor at play, and that has to do with the demography of income. Wealthy people, who tend to vote Republican, maintain smaller social networks than lower income people. A 2016 study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science found that wealthy Americans spend 6.4 fewer evenings per year in social situations. Rich people also live in less populated areas. Social distancing thus comes more naturally to them which may lower their risk of contracting the disease.

#2: It is likely that differences in infection rates are driving threat perceptions.

Not only are Democrats more likely to say they are infected or know someone who is infected, they are more concerned about the threat posed by the disease. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 41% of Democrats view COVID-19 as a major threat to their personal health compared to only 30% of Republicans. Furthermore, Democrats are more worried than Republicans about the threat Coronavirus poses to the economy, to the health of the nation as a whole, and to their personal financial situation.

Hispanic Americans and other minority groups (who are traditionally Democratic voting blocs) are especially concerned about the threat of Coronavirus, and it just so happens that they report higher than average infection rates. A recent article pointed out that minorities disproportionately work jobs that cant be shut down (think hospital custodial workers, delivery drivers, and warehouse workers). Nearly half of black people (49%) and Hispanics (48%) say the coronavirus is a major threat to their own health, states the team at Pew Research. Among white people, 30% say this.

#4: What political implications might we expect to see?

For one, it is Democrats who believe, more than Republicans, that people around the country arent taking the threat seriously enough and they are more likely to agree with governmental efforts to reduce the spread of the virus. For example, 81% of Democrats believe that closing businesses is a necessary step to reduce the spread of COVID-19 compared to only 61% of Republicans. Democrats are also more likely to agree with the cancelling of sporting events, entertainment events, schools, and limiting restaurants to carry-out only.

While everyone is pushing for action to contain the spread of the disease, it is likely that the Democrats will continue to be the most vocal advocates for containment in the weeks ahead. This may change as the virus penetrates the interior of the country.

Here is the original post:
More Democrats Are Infected With Coronavirus Than Republicans, According To New Survey Research - Forbes

The Trump family business interests have not been immune from the economic devastation that has blanketed the country. Hotels and tourism have been among the hardest-hit industries, and the president's properties have suffered. Across the country, his hotels and resorts have either partially or completely shut their doors, likely costing his family millions of dollars even as they lay off thousands of employees.

Mar-a-Lago, Trump's South Florida home away from the White House, has closed. The restaurant at Trumps Washington hotel, a popular gathering spot for candidates, lobbyists and congressional aides, isn't serving food or drinks. And the spa at the Trump International Hotel & Tower New York is not accepting customers.

Various facilities are temporarily closed given local, state and federal mandates, a Trump Organization spokesman said. We anxiously await the day when this pandemic is over and our world-class facilities can reopen.

Trump, who has met with various industries looking for bailouts, including hospitality executives, has said he would like to re-open businesses by mid-April, despite public health officials warning that much more time is needed.

Some of Trump's properties were initially slow to respond to government calls to limit business activities that involved large gatherings of people. Some kept advertising banquets and spa services, for instance. Other properties remain open in a limited capacity and are still promoting some activities, such as rounds of golf.

The Trump International Hotel in Washington remains open even though only about 5 percent of its rooms are occupied, according to John Boardman, executive secretary-treasurer of the D.C. affiliate of Unite Here, which represents 172 employees at the hotel. About 160 employees, including bartenders, housekeepers, doormen, were laid off, he said.

Earlier this week, Trump didn't rule out accepting the taxpayer money from the expected stimulus package.

Lets just see what happens because we have to save some of these great companies that can be great companies literally in a matter of weeks," he said. "We have to save them."

The White House and Trump Organization did not respond to questions on Thursday.

Schumer pushed the original provision about the president's businesses during negotiations with Republicans and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Both sides later agreed to change the language to address the collective ownership issue.

Yet the tweak was somehow missing from the final bill. A Republican source familiar with the situation said it was an oversight and that both sides were fine with the updated language.

To suggest it is anything other than a clerical error is wrong, the person said.

The clause doesnt just address the president. It also pertains to the vice president, the heads of executive departments and members of Congress.

The new language was designed to prevent Trump, his adult children, Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric, or even his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is also personally wealthy, from selling their stake in a company to a family member to escape the bill's restrictions.

The bill also was missing a second provision that Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had pushed, indicating that the Treasury Department had to publish the companies receiving the loans every seven days.

We told Republicans it was unacceptable to omit strict prohibitions on Trump businesses having access to the Treasury lending, as well as critical transparency measures, and that we would hold up the bill until they included them in the final text, Schumer told POLITICO. They relented and these important accountability provisions were successfully added to the final bill.

Some House Democrats and numerous watchdog groups have been arguing for three years that Trump is violating the Constitution's little-used emoluments clauses, which forbids presidents from receiving gifts from foreign governments or money from U.S. taxpayers beyond their salaries.

Before he was sworn into office, Trump ignored calls to fully separate from his namesake company, which is comprised of more than 500 businesses. Instead, he placed his holdings in a trust designed to hold assets for his benefit. He can withdraw money from it at any time without the publics knowledge.

Shortly after Democrats took control of the House, they launched investigations into whether the arrangement violated the emoluments clause. But lawmakers eventually cut the allegations out of their articles of impeachment, choosing to narrowly focus on Trump pushing Ukraine to open an inquiry into Democratic political rival Joe Biden.

The fact that President Trump accepts payments from foreign governments and corporate lobbyists who are willing to spend money at his hotels is a massive scandal hiding in plain sight," said Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.), chairwoman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee with jurisdiction over Trump's Washington hotel. "Taxpayers should not be forced to partake in it. This provision is one way to stop that.

The Trump Organization has responded to the scrutiny by donating $350,000 to the U.S. Treasury that it said came from foreign governments. But watchdog groups say there is little accountability and that the amount should be higher.

Trump denies he is using the presidency to promote his resorts and claims he receives unfair scrutiny because of the "phony emoluments clause. It's a defense that his critics dismiss, noting how often Trump discusses and stays at his own properties.

Every decision made by this president has been tainted by his rampant conflicts of interest. His unwillingness to divest from his properties and his abuse of taxpayer dollars at Trump properties necessitated this action," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a House Oversight Committee member.

The Senate provision wont completely prevent Trump businesses from getting money. They could still be eligible for small-business loans or benefit through a $15 billion change to the tax code. And the provision also doesnt cover the many businesses branded or managed by Trump, but not owned by the family.

This provision helps ensure President Trump and his family cant benefit from the coronavirus pandemic, but there are some loopholes, said Aaron Scherb, director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, an advocacy group that works closely with House committee staffers. They could benefit in indirect ways.

The Senate unanimously approved the $2 trillion emergency package after more than five days of negotiations. The House is expected to pass it soon. The legislation will authorize direct checks to many Americans, a massive fund for beleaguered industries, immediate aid for hospitals and back-up cash for state and local governments.

Meridith McGraw contributed to this report.

Originally posted here:
Democrats delayed stimulus bill to tighten ban on Trump family profiting - POLITICO