Category: zerohedge

Authored by Rick Moran via PJMedia.com,

Federal authorities have closed their investigation into a “hate crime” incident in Madison, WI where a black woman claimed 4 white men threw lighter fluid on her and set her on fire after shouting a racial epithet at her.

Eighteen-year-old Althea Bernstein claimed she was the victim of a hate crime attack. Her story was uncritically reported across the nation. CNN, NBC, Good Morning America, and most major print publications told a horrific story.

Althea Bernstein, 18, told investigators she was stopped at a traffic light in the city at around 1 a.m. Wednesday when she heard someone yell a racial slur through her rolled-down window, according to a police department incident report

“She looked and saw four men, all white. She says one used a spray bottle to deploy a liquid on her face and neck, and then threw a flaming lighter at her, causing the liquid to ignite,” the report states.

But after an investigation by the FBI, which included examining every scrap of video available, no evidence ever emerged of a “hate crime” and, indeed, Bernstein was nowhere to be seen.

Washington Free Beacon:

“After reviewing all available evidence, authorities could not establish that the attack, as alleged by the complainant, had occurred,” U.S. attorney Scott Blader said in a Friday statement. A statement from Madison’s chief of police stated that “detectives were unable to corroborate or locate evidence consistent with what was reported.”

In a statement released by police, Bernstein and her family said they “appreciate the detailed investigative efforts by all involved in this case.”

You’d think the media would have been taught a lesson after the first 50 hate crime hoaxes. Instead, they doubled down on this one, reporting every detail with that hysterical tone they get when they think America needs to be taught a lesson.

It’s them that need to go back to school and learn how to be journalists.

In addition to earning national headlines, Bernstein was interviewed on ABC’s Good Morning America, included in a floor speech by Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D., Mass.), and received a phone call from Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. She was also included in the NFL’s list of “victims of systemic racism, victims of police brutality, and social justice heroes,” and her name has been featured this season on the helmet of players such as the Atlanta Falcon’s Todd Gurley.

Hate crime hoaxes will continue as long as the media reacts this way. And as long as authorities let the criminals get away with it.

I love this statement from “community leaders” who, like Bernstein’s family, never mention the investigation’s findings.

“This morning the Mayor and the Police Chief briefed myself and other community leaders about the investigation surrounding Althea Bernstein and I appreciate the time federal authorities and local law enforcement officials put into this case,” Johnson told the Washington Free Beacon. “In the meantime, we will continue to provide support to Althea and hope and pray for her healing and well-being.”

CNN and NBC haven’t gotten around to issuing a correction yet.

How quickly people forget.

With the narrative across both media and markets driven by the latest polling data turning to the “guaranteed” victory of Joe Biden over Donald Trump on Nov 3, it’s worth remembering that exactly this time 4 years ago, Trump’s betting odds to defeat Hillary Clinton were about half where they are now, as the following chart from JPMorgan shows.

But while most have forgotten Trump’s dismal polling in 2016, when the NYT declared Hillary’s chances of victory at 92% just days before the election, everyone remembers what happened on Nov 8, 2016, even if the NYT and the entire polling industry would like to forget.

And yet, despite this clear lesson from the very recent past that polling and political prediction markets are total garbage, we are going through all the motions again, and as JPMorgan’s “other” quant, Nick Panagirtzoglou writes in the latest Flows and Liquidity report, “markets have been factoring in greater probability of Biden winning the election” which naturally “implies that a potential Trump win  would constitute a big surprise for markets”… just like in 2016. At the same time, with hopes for a fiscal deal before the election now effectively dead, “a large fiscal package under a Democratic sweep could also constitute a significant surprise for rate markets.”

Addressing the main news this week, i.e., Trump testing positive for Covid, the JPM strategist writes that this “news create some uncertainty as, in the scenario where the US President and Presidential candidate gets ill, potential succession issues could be raised on multiple fronts should it prove to be serious.” In response, Panigirtzoglou notes that following this news betting odds for the US election widened even further from this week’s debate, with Trump’s odds already below 40% on Oct 1st and likely lower today according to preliminary indications, down from 46% a week ago. Of course, as discussed at the top, even with the Friday drop to around 40%, Trump’s winning chances are still nearly double the 25% betting odds seen a month before the 2016 election.

Curiously, just yesterday, the “other” JPM quant, Marko Kolanovic laid out a case where Trump’s illness could actually boost the president’s odds, to wit: “a combination of voter sympathy, turnout and an asymptomatic or mild virus outcome boosts Trump’s election chances (e.g. vindicating his strategy of opening by example).”

In any case, as JPM’s Panigirtzoglou writes, the sharp decline in Trump’s betting odds over the past week is raising questions about what is priced in across markets. To answer this question the bank looked at various markets to assess whether the market pricing has moved in similar direction to US presidential election betting odds over the past weeks.

Starting with stocks, to gauge how equity markets are positioned, JPM uses baskets constructed by the bank’s equity strategists for US equities. In particular, it focuses on the Democratic Agenda Outperformers and Underperformers baskets and the ratioof the two baskets is depicted in Figure 2. It shows relatively flat performance until September. After the tech-led correction in early September, the Democrat Agenda Outperformers have gained 10% relative to the Underperformers baskets, suggesting the US equity markets have been pricing in a higher probability of a Biden Presidency.

Next, we look at European equities, where JPM again looks at thematic baskets that include companies with higher US sales exposure, ESG underperformers and defence in a European ‘Trump winners’ basket. And the European ‘Biden Winners’ includes companies in the tech (including green tech) and healthcare sectors as well as companies with greater exposure to trade and Asia. These baskets suggest that European equities have also been gradually pricing in a higher chance of a Biden Presidency.

A third way to assess market pricing of a US election is to look at the performance of Asian equities and FX, “given that a  continued Trump Presidency would mean further US/China conflict on trade, technology and investments.” JPM looks at the Bloomberg JPM Asian Dollar Index (ADXY) as well as the relative performance of the MSCI Asia Free float index vs. the MSCI AC World.

The figures show the performance over the past three months as well as the performance around the same stage ahead of the 2016 election. Both of the charts show that in 2016 the bulk of the reaction came after the election result, consistent with the low odds betting markets were assigning to a continued Trump Presidency outlined above. This year, the charts suggest increased chances of a Biden Presidency up until mid-September, after which there has been some retracement. In other words, after mid-September Asian equities and FX appear to have diverged somewhat from US and European equities that continued to price in a greater probability of a Biden Presidency.

But enough about stocks, what about rate markets? Given the backdrop of endless continued Fed QE purchases, and that the implications for fiscal policy of a Biden or Trump Presidency under a split Congress are less likely to be significantly different, it is not as clear cut how different market pricing ought to be in either of those scenarios. In other words, when it comes to monetary policy, the name of the US president is completely irrelevant (once again demonstrating that the Fed Chair is far more powerful than the US president). Indeed, a clear victory by either candidate could reduce uncertainty and hence term premium priced in longer maturity yields. That said, there is a question over how rate markets would react to a ‘Democratic Sweep’ scenario. Recall that Goldman recently predicted a sharp spike in yields in the case of a Blue sweep. However, JPM counters by warning that the immediate reaction could be to add uncertainty given the prospect of changes to tax policy and potentially pushing yields lower.

Then again, over the medium term JPM agrees with Goldman, that “the prospect of a significant fiscal stimulus package could add to steepening pressure by adding to the already increased issuance needs of the US Treasury as well as potentially higher inflation expectations via infrastructure spending and minimum wage increases.” The chart below shows the change in the 2s/10s slope around the election date in 2016 and in 2020, with 0 representing the current level in 2020 and the equivalent period ahead of the 2016 election.

 

It shows that in the 2016 election, markets only began to price a prospect of significant fiscal stimulus in the form of then-candidate Trump’s tax cut agenda after the election, consistent with the above.

Putting it all together, JPmorgan find “that markets have been factoring in greater probability of Biden winning the election” just like in 2016.  “This implies that a potential Trump win would constitute a big surprise for markets” according to the largest US commercial bank. 

Authored by Jeff Deist via The Mises Institute,

Today’s headlines announced Donald and Melania Trump “tested positive” for covid-19. Another claims nineteen thousand Amazon workers “got” covid-19 on the job. Both of these pseudostories are sure to ignite another absurd media frenzy. 

As always, the story keeps changing: Remember ventilators, flatten the curve, the next two weeks are crucial, etc.? Remember Nancy Pelosi in Chinatown back in February, urging everyone to visit? Remember Fauci dismissing masks as useless? Why should we believe anything the political/media complex tells us now?

So what do these headlines really mean? What exactly is a covid “case”? 

Since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, most US media outlets have been exceedingly credulous and complicit in their reporting. Journalists almost uniformly promote what we can call the “prolockdown” narrative, which is to wildly exaggerate the risks from covid-19 to serve a political agenda. They may be motivated to hurt Trump politically, to promote a more socialist “new normal,” or simply to drive more clicks and views. Bad news sells. But the bias is clear and undeniable. 

This explains why media outlets use the terms “case” and “infection” so loosely, to the point of actively misinforming the public. All of the endless talk about testing, testing, testing served to obscure two important facts. First, the tests themselves are almost laughably unreliable in producing both false positives and negatives. And what is the point? Are we going to test people again and again, every time they go out to the grocery or bump into a neighbor? Second, detecting virus particles or droplets in a human’s respiratory tract tells us very little. It certainly does not tell us they are sick, or transmitting sickness to anyone. 

Take a perfectly healthy person with no particular symptoms and swab the inside of their nose. If the culture shows the presence of staphylococcus aureus, do we insist they have a staph infection? When someone drives to work without incident or accident, do we create statistics about their exposure to traffic?

A virus is not a disease. Only a very small percentage of those exposed to the virus itself – SARS-CoV-2 – show any kind of acute respiratory symptoms, or what we can call “coronavirus disease.” 

The only meaningful statistics show the incidence of serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths. The single most important statistic among these is the infection fatality rate (IFR). Data collected through July shows that the IFR for those under age forty-five is actually lower than that of the common flu. The covid-19 IFR rises for those over fifty, but it is hardly a death sentence. And the data does not segregate those with preexisting health issues caused by obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. If we could see data only for reasonably healthy people under fifty, the numbers would be even more reassuring. 

Mild or asymptomatic covid cases are effectively meaningless. The world is full of bacteria and viruses, and sometimes they make us a bit sick for a few days. There are millions of them in the world all around us, on our skin, in our nose and respiratory tract, in our organs. We are meant to live with them, which is why we all have immune systems designed to help us coexist and adapt to ever-changing organisms. We develop antibodies naturally, or we attempt to stimulate them through vaccines, but ultimately our own immune systems have to deal with covid-19. The virus will always be out there waiting, on the other side of any lockdown or mask—so we might as well get on with it. 

From day one the focus should have been on boosting immunity through exercise, fresh air, sunlight, proper dietary supplementation, and the promotion of general well-being. Instead our politicians, bureaucrats, and media insisted on business lockdowns, school closures, distancing, isolation, masks, and the mirage of a fast, effective vaccine. As with almost everything in life, state intervention made the situation worse. We can only hope many governors are removed from office, either by impeachment or at the next election. Several, including Andrew Cuomo in New York and Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, should face criminal charges for their lawless edicts. There is no due process exception for “public health.”

Lockdowns were never justified, either in terms of the covid-19 risk or the staggering economic tradeoffs, which will be felt for decades. They certainly are not justified now, given seven months of additional data showing that the transmission and lethality of covid-19 are not particularly worse than previous SARS, swine flu, or Ebola pandemics. We still don’t know how many of the reported two hundred thousand US covid-19 deaths were actually caused by the SARS-CoV-2 respiratory disease, or simply reflect people who died of other causes after exposure to covid-19. We do know that the harms caused by the lockdowns far outweigh the harms posed by the covid-19 virus.

We have had nearly eight months of life and liberty stolen from us by politicians and their hysteria-promoting accomplices in media. How much more will we accept?

Recall that in July the US seized 1.1 million barrels of Iranian fuel aboard four privately owned tankers that had been bound for Venezuela. This after a federal court deemed the move was lawful in accord with sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. 

That confiscated gasoline was previously bound for Houston, according to top US administration official statements; however, it was recently rerouted, with at least half of it discharged in New York on Thursday.

Vessel tracking data shows that the Singapore-flagged Maersk Progress unloaded its cargo there, estimated at 557,000 barrels of gasoline, according to Reuters.

“The Maersk Progress was due to arrive in Houston last month, but changed its route. Euroforce, a second tanker carrying some of the seized cargo, has been off the coast of Texas since Sept. 9,” Reuters writes.

Meanwhile the private owners of four Iranian fuel cargoes are attempting to sue and get the seizure ruling overturned in US District Court, basing their argument primarily on claims that the customers are in Peru and Colombia, and not blacklisted Maduro’s Venezuela. 

Meanwhile, officials in Tehran recently mocked the whole episode, claiming the seized fuel was not Iran’s at all, stating that it had already been sold to international customers.

The #Iran tanker Forest, bringing fuel, arrived in #Venezuela today. Fortune & Faxon are on their way as well. Worth noting as more of these ships arrive, Iranian officials have started to divulge more details about their partnership w. Caracas. 1/2 #OOTThttps://t.co/g90C748AeK

— Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) September 28, 2020

Even as the alleged Iranian fuel was being discharged in New York, Venezuela hailed a separate “victory” this past week : 

Two Iranian fuel tankers have reportedly reached Venezuela with a third ship set to dock soon. Their arrival constitutes a success for the two nations sanctioned by the United States following an August seizure of such fuel.

The Iran-flagged ship Forest reached a Venezuelan port Tuesday. A second Iranian ship, the Fortune, entered Venezuelan waters Wednesday. The Forest brought 275,000 barrels of gasoline, The Associated Press reported.

A third Iranian ship, the Faxon, is expected to arrive this weekend; the three are collectively carrying around 815,000 barrels of fuel in total, the AP said.

More such maneuvering and controversy regarding cargo on the high seas is expected in the coming months, given Iran and Venezuela’s deepening trade and military ties.

Last summer multiple Iranian fuel ships were escorted safely to Venezuelan ports by Maduro’s armed forces, something which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has vowed to stop.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the sentencing hearing of former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Unfortunately, in the hearing, Judge Emmet Sullivan fulfilled the expectations of the D.C. Circuit panel that ordered him to dismiss the charge without further delay. That decision was reversed en banc but only because the court decided (as many of us argued) that Sullivan should be allowed to issue a final decision before an appellant review of his handling of the case. The en banc court did not rule in favor of his controversial comments or orders. Yet, in the hearing, Sullivan declared “Suffice it to say, the case was remanded to me by the en banc court.”

As argued below, the law is clear and, suffice it to say, Sullivan will be reversed if he follows the advice of John Gleeson.  Instead, Sullivan announced that he still “has questions” and indicated that he is not prepared to issue a final decision after two years.  Instead, he repeated the words of Gleeson as virtual fact like an alter ego. This is moving from the cathartic to the tragic. The Court is not just prolonging the inevitable for the ruling but the trauma for the defendant. Flynn should have been sentenced years ago and the charges dismissed months ago. A defendant should not be a vehicle of the court to express displeasure or satisfy its curiosity on public controversies.

The court knows that it would be almost certainly reversed if it follows the advice of its self-appointed quasi-prosecutor Gleeson. Instead, it is continuing to refuse to rule while using the case to ask more questions about the internal decision-making at the Justice Department.

Here is column:

When Michael Flynn heads to court for his final sentencing hearing today, a lifetime of respected national service will hang in the balance on what is said and done. I am not talking about Flynn but of Judge Emmet Sullivan. There is no issue over the dismissal of the charge of Flynn lying to federal investigators. The only issue is whether, just before an election, Sullivan will use the hearing as a forum for injudicious commentary.

I have practiced law for years before Sullivan and praised him for his demeanor and record as a judge. He has served with distinction since 1994 in cases ranging from Guantanamo Bay detainees to the flawed prosecution of Ted Stevens to the emails of Hillary Clinton.

Then came the case of Flynn, who was charged with a single count of lying to federal investigators. Such a charge ordinarily would result in a short sentencing hearing. Flynn fought the charge but, after exhausting his assets and facing threats by prosecutors to target his son, he agreed to plead to one count. Even the uncooperative witness like Alex Van Der Zwaan received only 30 days in prison on a similar charge related to the investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Yet this is the third attempt at sentencing for Flynn, as what should have been the simple hearing two years ago was derailed by Sullivan himself. Both Flynn and the prosecutors believed they would have a perfunctory hearing and a likely sentence without jail time. After all, this was just one count, and Flynn pleaded guilty, then met with Mueller about 20 times as a cooperative witness. Furthermore, we know federal investigators at the time did not believe Flynn intentionally lied to them. Yet when Flynn went to court, he was given a scolding rather than a sentence.

Using the flag in court as a prop, Sullivan falsely accused Flynn of being an “unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser” who sold his country out. Sullivan even suggested Flynn should have been charged with treason, then suggested he might ignore any recommendations and send Flynn to jail when he declared, “I cannot assure you that if you proceed today, you will not receive a sentence of incarceration. I am not hiding my disgust and my disdain.”

Sullivan apologized for some of his comments, but the hearing led to a critical delay. During that time, new evidence emerged that cast further doubt on the investigation of Flynn, including the material showing that FBI agents wanted to close the case in 2016 due to lack of evidence. The investigation was kept open at the insistence of fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who showed intense animus for President Trump.

We also know that former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that conversations Flynn had with Russians as incoming national security adviser appeared legitimate. These and other revelations correctly led the Justice Department to seek dismissal of the charge. There is an ongoing investigation and various experts, including myself, have argued that the investigation and charge in the case of Flynn were flawed.

The law on this is clear and overwhelming. Sullivan should have dismissed the charge months ago. Instead, he again took a controversial position. He not only suggested he might charge Flynn himself, with criminal conduct for contesting his guilty plea, but he hired a former judge to argue against any dismissal. Enlisting such a third party to argue for prosecution is very unusual and deeply troubling. Sullivan seemed to be claiming the right to mete out his own version of justice with a criminal charge from the bench and an outsider playing the role of another prosecutor.

Sullivan chose John Gleeson, who has spoken about the case of Flynn and is also a critic of Trump. Gleeson was reversed as a judge for usurping the position of federal prosecutors in a case that involved a bank, in which the Second Circuit knocked him for magnifying his role in a way that “would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head.” Gleeson filed a brief calling for the court to reject the motion and order the jailing of someone who prosecutors maintained was not properly charged.

His brief was filled with heated rhetoric and attacks on the “accusation of government misconduct.” It drew a sharp rebuke from an appellate panel for relying “on news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record to contrast the government grounds for dismissal here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases.” The appellate panel held that time was up for Sullivan in the case of Flynn because “we need not guess if this irregular and searching scrutiny will continue” as “it already has.”

After that opinion, many predicted the full appellate court would reverse, not because of any discord on the law but because Sullivan must be given the chance to do the right thing. He had not made a final ruling and, while making note of the clear law in this issue, the panel should not have taken that decision away from him. There remains no doubt as to the outcome of this case. Sullivan either will dismiss this charge or be reversed by the same court that sent it back to him for a final ruling.

But as if determined to prove the panel right, Gleeson responded with another brief arguing the government position is evidence of “a corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system.” Gleeson still is arguing against overwhelming case law and advocating a certain reversal for Sullivan by convicting a person of a federal crime who the government maintains was improperly charged.

That is why the reputation of Sullivan instead of Flynn is at stake in this hearing. He can follow the law dispassionately and dismiss this charge without gratuitous commentary. Or he can use the hearing to lash out at the administration and the defendant just before an election. Many of us have already criticized the handling of this case. Others were thrilled by the comments from the bench. Those who reversed the panel did not do so in approval of handling of the case or prior orders.

Their opinion was a model of objective analysis, citing the need for a final ruling from Sullivan regardless of the controversies. I respect Sullivan and hope he brings an end to this cathartic record which has lasted two years. The law here is clear, and it is time for a decision that was never in serious doubt. It is time to dismiss the criminal case against Flynn.

The Mayor of Rochester, NY, Lovely Warren (D), was indicted on Friday on two felony charges, including a scheme to defraud in the first degree and violating election laws.

According to Fox News, Warren’s campaign treasurer, Albert Jones Jr., and the treasurer of her PAC, Rosalind Brooks-Harris were also charged.

Warren has not been arrested, but will be processed according to Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley. If convicted, the mayor would be removed from office.

“This could be a long process and we anticipate that there could be challenges along the way so I don’t think this will be anything resolved quickly,” said Doorley in a press briefing.

Warren has called the investigation a “political witch hunt.” Her lawyer did not return messages from Fox News seeking comment.

Specifics about the ongoing investigation were not revealed but the charges focused on Warren’s first term in office from November 2013 through November 2017 in which she raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for her re-election, RochesterFirst.com reported.

Doorley said the city’s first female mayor and others took steps to evade contribution limits. –Fox News

Warren has been under investigation by the NY State Board of Elections over financial interactions between her campaign committee and a political action committee which supported her re-election, Warren for a Stronger Rochester, which transferred $30,000 from the group to her committee.

The transfer was an apparent violation of rules which forbid PACs and committees from coordinating. She is scheduled for arraignment on Monday.

According to warren, the funds were mistakenly placed in the PAC account.

Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

Famed market analyst and historian James Grant is no fan of the current policies of the US Federal Reserve:

Distortion in the cost of credit is the not-so-remote cause of the raging fires at which the Federal Reserve continues to train its gushing liquidity hoses. But the firemen are also the arsonists. It was the Fed’s suppression of borrowing costs, and its predictable willingness to cut short Wall Street’s occasional selling squalls, that compromised the U.S. economy’s financial integrity.

At age 74, having lived through a number of economic booms and busts as well as having authored numerous books on the history of financial markets, Jim sees the degree of speculation, overvaluation and malinvestment in today’s markets as about as bad as it’s ever been.

He lays much of the blame at the feet of the Fed and its global central bank brethren, who collectively through their intervention have suppressed interest rates to their lowest levels in all of recorded history:

This has resulted in all sorts of unnatural distortions and deformations that are hollowing out our economy and social structure.

As Jim recently wrote:

Needing income, investors will take imprudent risks to get it. And if 2% invites trouble, zero percent almost demands it.

Not only do 0% interest rates act as “molasses” on growth by gumming the system up with zombie institutions and toxic malinvestment, but it imperils the social good.

Savers and investors, increasingly desperate for yield, are forced to accept worse and worse choices in attempt to stay afloat.

Under this regime, the rich benefit disproportionately at the expense of everyone else AND it creates a “hyperinflation in the cost of retirement”. This accelerating war on the 99% can not stand for much longer without serious consequences and repercussions.

We are thrilled Jim was gracious enough to come on the program this week. It was a huge honor to finally get to interview him (after years of attempt) and I can tell you firsthand, not only is he prodigiously smart, but he is ridiculously nice. A true class act.

But simply put, he’s one of the most respected market analysts and historians on the planet.

So when an expert like him warns that today’s markets are at one of the most dangerous levels of speculation in history, we all better be paying close attention:

*  *  *

Anyone interested in scheduling a free consultation and portfolio review with Mike Preston and John Llodra and their team at New Harbor Financial can do so by clicking here.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has announced that all scheduled activity on the Senate floor will be postponed for two weeks until October 19 following President Trump’s positive COVID-19 diagnosis, but that confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will proceed as scheduled, beginning October 12th.

“On Monday, I intend to obtain a consent agreement for the Senate to meet in pro forma sessions for the next two weeks. Previously-scheduled floor activity will be rescheduled until after October 19th,” reads a Saturday statement from McConnell.

“The important work of the Senate’s committees can and will continue as each committee sees fit. The Senate Judiciary Committee will convene on October 12th as Chairman Graham has scheduled to begin confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The Senate’s floor schedule will not interrupt the thorough, fair, and historically supported confirmation process laid out by Chairman Graham.“

“Elaine and I continue to pray for President Trump, the First Lady, and all of those impacted by COVID-19,” the statement concludes.

McConnell announces the full Senate will stay out for two weeks until Oct 19, but SCOTUS confirmation hearings will move forward on Oct 12 as scheduled pic.twitter.com/Nubs31po2I

— Ali Zaslav (@alizaslav) October 3, 2020

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In a recent column in the New York Times, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer criticized President Donald Trump for not issuing a national order making the wearing of masks mandatory – a pledge made by Vice President Joe Biden raising serious constitutional questions. Now, Whitmer is having her broad interpretation of state executive authority checked by the Michigan Supreme Court, which found that she violated the Constitution with her extension of the state of emergency.

As a reminder, Andrea Widburg writes that Whitmer’s “Stay Home, Stay Safe Executive Order” went into effect at the end of March, while people were still talking about a short-term exercise in “flattening the curve.”  

Whitmer quarantined everyone, locking people in their homes except for allowing them to go to major chain stores or work for (and still get paid by) the government.

As time passed, Whitmer’s orders got more detailed, with carve-outs for activities that raised taxes or advanced social policies.  Thus, the lockdowns did not stop alcohol, pot, and lottery tickets purchases, as well as abortions.  She also issued orders affecting harmless or constitutionally protected behavior, such as banning travel to vacation homes, forcing stores to close whole sections, banning store advertising and hydroxychloroquine, and forbidding jet skiing and outdoor gardening.

Her decisions were devastating to people whose lives depended on these activities or businesses.  Her most vicious act was to wage a brutal war against a 77-year-old barber who had to choose between ignoring her ban against personal grooming services and starving.  It took two months before a judge finally set the matter to rest by ruling in favor of the barbershop.

The Supreme Court found that Whitmer lacked authority under two laws – the Emergency Management Act from 1976 and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act from 1945.  Notably,  before the court’s opinion, advocacy groups submitted more than 539,000 signatures in a bid to repeal the 1945 law.

Yet the Michigan Supreme Court has now ruled that neither law gave Whitmer the authority to continue the state of emergency or issuing unilateral orders past April 30th. Justice Stephen J. Markman authored the majority opinion and wrote:

“We conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government– including its plenary police powers– and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely.

As a consequence, the EPGA cannot continue to provide a basis for the Governor to exercise emergency powers.”

The ruling will fuel opposition to Whitmer, including protests that she denounced as irresponsible during the pandemic. That position led to further criticism when Whitmer participated in even larger Black Lives Matter protests.

The dissenting opinion authored by Chief Justice Bridget McCormack (with Justices McCormack, Richard Bernstein and Megan Cavanagh joining) drew a curious line. The dissenters agreed with the majority that Whitmer violated the Constitution and did not have the authority to extend the emergency orders but would uphold the EPGA because to facially invalidate the EPGA is unnecessary because there are other judicial remedies.”

This case came before the Court after a federal district court certified questions of state law to be addressed on the constitutionality of Whitmer’s actions.

Here is the decision: In re Certified Questions

*  *  *

It’s still too early for Michiganders to start celebrating.  Whitmer seems to have enjoyed her flirtation with totalitarian power and is not prepared to give it up:

Whitmer said Friday she “vehemently” disagreed with the court’s ruling, which she said made Michigan an “outlier” among the majority of states that have emergency orders in place.

The governor said that even after the Supreme Court ruling takes effect, her directives will remain in place through “alternative sources of authority.” 

Summary:

• Cam Newton tests positive
• India tops 100k deaths
• Global cases near 35 million

* * *

Once again, Saturday’s biggest COVID-19-related story is the ongoing White House outbreak. Already this morning, Sen. Ron Johnson became the 24th person to test positive. Meanwhile Fla. Sen. Rick Scott and former NJ Gov. Chris Christie have both “misspoke” during appearances on cable news, saying they were “positive” when they actually meant “negative”. Though shortly after, Christie turned around and confirmed that he did, in fact, test positive.

Meanwhile, as Trump’s doctors insist the president is doing “very well” and that his fever has disappeared, ESPN just reported that Patriots QB Cam Newton has tested positive for the virus, and won’t be playing in Sunday’s game against the Chiefs.

New England Patriots quarterback Cam Newton has tested positive for the coronavirus and is out for Sunday’s game against the Kansas City Chiefs, league sources tell ESPN’s Adam Schefter and Field Yates.

“Late last night, we received notice that a Patriots player tested positive for COVID-19. The player immediately entered self-quarantine,” the Patriots said in a statement Saturday. “Several additional players, coaches and staff who have been in close contact with the player received point of care tests this morning and all were negative for COVID-19.”

Veteran Brian Hoyer has served as the Patriots’ No. 2 quarterback through the first three weeks of the season, and 2019 fourth-round draft choice Jarrett Stidham has been third on the depth chart.

The Patriots were scheduled to depart for Kansas City on Saturday afternoon, but plans are now on standby as the club awaits more test results and guidance from the NFL, sources tell Schefter.

Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy, one of the world’s most infamous Patriot’s fans, declared in response that COVID-19 has gone too far, and needs to chill out.

Emergency Press Conference – Covid Just Went Too Far pic.twitter.com/7UlBb3Ek9H

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) October 3, 2020

Globally, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases has climbed to 34,683,124 as of noon on Saturday in New York, while the global death toll has climbed to 1,029,667. New York Gov Cuomo offered some harsh new warnings last night, though neither he nor NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio have offered any new information on the state’s resurgent COVID-19 numbers. Nearby New Jersey has also seen its transmission rate climb to the highest level in months.

The biggest international story outside the US comes from India, where the death toll passed 100,000, making India the 3rd country to pass the confirmed 100k death mark.

India’s death toll from the novel coronavirus topped 100,000 on Saturday, making India only the third country in the world to reach that depressing milestone after the US and Brazil.

As its economy reopens, India’s outbreak shows no signs of slowing. Total deaths rose to 100,842, the health ministry said, after the country reported another 1,069 new deaths, while the tally of infections climbed to 6.47 million after a daily increase of 79,476 new cases. India now has the highest rate of daily increase in infections in the world. The country just reported another 1,069.