Tag: news

8 Dead, 3 Wounded In Georgia Massage Parlor Rampage, 21-Year-Old Suspect Arrested

8 Dead, 3 Wounded In Georgia Massage Parlor Rampage, 21-Year-Old Suspect Arrested

After an hours long manhunt, a 21-year-old man has been captured in southwest Georgia, hours after eight people were killed in shootings at three Atlanta-area massage parlors…

Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Capt. Jay Baker said the suspect, Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, was taken into custody in Crisp County, about 150 miles (240 kilometers) south of Atlanta.

The eight women were shot dead in three separate incidents at two spas and a massage parlor in and around Atlanta.

Around 5 p.m., five people were shot (4 dead, 1 wounded) at Young’s Asian Massage Parlor in Acworth, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) north of Atlanta, Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Capt. Jay Baker said.

From there, The Daily Mail reports that it’s believed Long drove more than 30 miles where a further two shootings occurred in northeast of the city in the suburb of Woodland Hills.

Atlanta police officers responding to a call of a robbery in progress at Gold Spa around 5:50 p.m. found three women dead from apparent gunshot wounds, police said.

While on the scene at Gold Spa, cops reportedly received a second call from the Aromatherapy Spa directly across the street and found one woman had been shot and killed there as well.

While authorities were not immediately releasing the gender or race of the victims, Atlanta Police Chief Rodney Bryant said all victims were female and “it appears that they may be Asian.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 23:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2P0y1Dw Tyler Durden

21 Republican Attorneys General Ask Secretary Yellen About Constitutionality of American Rescue Plan Act

On Saturday, I blogged about Section 602(c)(2)(A) of the American Rescue Plan Act. I questioned whether this conditional spending program was constitutional. On Tuesday, twenty-one Republican Attorneys General wrote to Treasury Secretary Yellen. And they asked many of the questions I posed. The letter was spearheaded by the Attorneys General of Georgia, Arizona, and West Virginia.

Here is the introduction:

The undersigned State Attorneys General request that the Department of the Treasury take immediate action to confirm that certain provisions of the American Rescue Plan Act (the “Act”) do not attempt to strip States of their core sovereign authority to enact and implement basic tax policy. Those provisions, found in section 9901 of the Act,1 forbid States from using COVID-19 relief funds to “directly or indirectly offset a reduction in … net tax revenue” resulting from state laws or regulations that reduce tax burdens—whether by cutting rates or by giving rebates, deductions, credits, “or otherwise[.]”2 This language could be read to deny States the ability to cut taxes in any manner whatsoever—even if they would have provided such tax relief with or without the prospect of COVID-19 relief funds. Absent a more sensible interpretation from your department, this provision would amount to an unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion on the separate sovereignty of the States through federal usurpation of essentially one half of the State’s fiscal ledgers (i.e., the revenue half). Indeed, such federal usurpation of state tax policy would represent the greatest attempted invasion of state sovereignty by Congress in the history of our Republic.

I think the easiest way for the states to win is under Pennhurst: there is no clear statement of what the condition requires:

First, if the Tax Cut Prohibition were interpreted to place any limits on how States could enact tax relief not directly connected to the relief funds provided by the Act, it would impose a hopelessly ambiguous condition on federal funding. The examples listed above make the point: how is a State to know, when accepting the relief funds, whether any of these kinds of commonplace and sensible tax relief measures are “indirectly” offset by COVID-19 relief funds? Is it enough that the funds help balance a state budget that also contains tax relief measures? What if the presence of relief funds in 2021’s budget effectively frees up funds to offer tax relief in 2022? Absent a clear and narrowing construction by Treasury regulation, States cannot possibly know the bargain they are striking in accepting the relief funds. Yet the “legitimacy of Congress’ power to legislate under the spending power … rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.'” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981).

The letter asks the Secretary for clarification of how the policy will be interpreted.

Given the foregoing, we ask that you confirm that the American Rescue Plan Act does not prohibit States from generally providing tax relief through the kinds of measures listed and discussed above and other, similar measures, but at most precludes express use of the funds provided under the Act for direct tax cuts rather than for the purposes specified by the Act. In the absence of such an assurance by March 23, we will take appropriate additional action to ensure that our States have the clarity and assurance necessary to provide for our citizens’ welfare through enacting and implementing sensible tax policies, including tax relief.

The emphasized text means a lawsuit, probably in the 11th or 5th Circuit. The Biden administration should tread carefully here. If it takes a hardline position, the executive branch may suffer a huge defeat at the Court.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lm2J6j
via IFTTT

Congress Uses COVID-19 As a Cover for an Epidemic of Fiscal Recklessness

Schumer-and-Pelosi-3-15-21

The “recovery rebates” that Americans began receiving this week supposedly have something to do with the economic damage caused by COVID-19 and the control measures it inspired. But like most of the so-called American Rescue Plan Act, these payments, which account for more than a fifth of the bill’s $1.9 trillion price tag, are only tenuously related to the pandemic.

The Democrats who championed the law hope those bribes will buy them votes in the midterm elections. But you really should be thanking your children and grandchildren, because they will ultimately pick up the tab for this package and the rest of the $5 trillion spending binge that Congress claimed was justified by a public health emergency.

Individuals with adjusted gross incomes of up to $75,000 will get $1,400, while married couples earning up to $150,000 will get $2,800, plus $1,400 for each dependent. That amounts to $5,600 for a four-person family, on top of the $5,800 that such households received under the coronavirus relief packages that Congress approved in March and December.

Congress distributed that money without regard to whether the recipients had suffered pandemic-related economic distress. A Pew Research Center survey conducted last August suggests that most of them have not: Forty-two percent of respondents said they or someone in their households had lost jobs or income due to COVID-19, less than half the 85 percent of Americans who are expected to receive the latest round of payments.

Another survey found that just 15 percent of people who received the money distributed in April reported that they spent most of it; instead, they typically saved it or used it to pay down debts. Those findings cast doubt on the hope that such payments, even when they go to relatively well-off families, will stimulate the pandemic-battered economy by increasing consumer spending.

The package also includes an expanded, fully refundable child tax credit that will cost at least $89 billion—more if the temporary change becomes permanent. Like the recovery rebates, that provision applies fully to households earning up to $150,000.

Other major elements of the American Rescue Plan Act likewise have little or nothing to do with COVID-19.

The package includes nearly $129 billion for K–12 education, which ostensibly is aimed at helping students safely return to school. Yet most of the more than $100 billion in education funding authorized by earlier legislation remains unused, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that just 5 percent of the new money will be spent this fiscal year, which ends on September 30.

Congress allocated $350 billion to “coronavirus state and local relief funds” for governments that generally have emerged from the pandemic in much better financial condition than expected. California, for example, will benefit from this largesse even though it is running a surplus.

Another $86 billion will be used to bail out union-run pension funds that were already in dire straits before the pandemic. Obamacare premium subsidies for households earning as much as $350,000 annually will cost $34 billion.

Republicans, who last year supported massive, frequently ill-considered spending in the name of fighting COVID-19, have changed their tune now that Democrats control the executive and legislative branches. They uniformly opposed the latest bill in the House and the Senate, and they plan to make political hay by accusing Democrats of using the pandemic as an excuse for fiscally reckless spending aimed at achieving longstanding policy goals, rewarding their party’s most dedicated supporters, and enticing voters with found money.

Blatant hypocrisy aside, the Republicans have a point. The national debt—currently about $27.5 trillion, three-quarters of which is publicly held—already exceeds the size of the U.S. economy. The annual deficit was $3.1 trillion last fiscal year and will be more than $1 trillion this fiscal year.

Continuing on this path will slow economic growth, replace useful spending with interest payments, and force tax increases, benefit reductions, or both. Enjoy your debt-financed windfall while you can.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3tu1rc9
via IFTTT

21 Republican Attorneys General Ask Secretary Yellen About Constitutionality of American Rescue Plan Act

On Saturday, I blogged about Section 602(c)(2)(A) of the American Rescue Plan Act. I questioned whether this conditional spending program was constitutional. On Tuesday, twenty-one Republican Attorneys General wrote to Treasury Secretary Yellen. And they asked many of the questions I posed. The letter was spearheaded by the Attorneys General of Georgia, Arizona, and West Virginia.

Here is the introduction:

The undersigned State Attorneys General request that the Department of the Treasury take immediate action to confirm that certain provisions of the American Rescue Plan Act (the “Act”) do not attempt to strip States of their core sovereign authority to enact and implement basic tax policy. Those provisions, found in section 9901 of the Act,1 forbid States from using COVID-19 relief funds to “directly or indirectly offset a reduction in … net tax revenue” resulting from state laws or regulations that reduce tax burdens—whether by cutting rates or by giving rebates, deductions, credits, “or otherwise[.]”2 This language could be read to deny States the ability to cut taxes in any manner whatsoever—even if they would have provided such tax relief with or without the prospect of COVID-19 relief funds. Absent a more sensible interpretation from your department, this provision would amount to an unprecedented and unconstitutional intrusion on the separate sovereignty of the States through federal usurpation of essentially one half of the State’s fiscal ledgers (i.e., the revenue half). Indeed, such federal usurpation of state tax policy would represent the greatest attempted invasion of state sovereignty by Congress in the history of our Republic.

I think the easiest way for the states to win is under Pennhurst: there is no clear statement of what the condition requires:

First, if the Tax Cut Prohibition were interpreted to place any limits on how States could enact tax relief not directly connected to the relief funds provided by the Act, it would impose a hopelessly ambiguous condition on federal funding. The examples listed above make the point: how is a State to know, when accepting the relief funds, whether any of these kinds of commonplace and sensible tax relief measures are “indirectly” offset by COVID-19 relief funds? Is it enough that the funds help balance a state budget that also contains tax relief measures? What if the presence of relief funds in 2021’s budget effectively frees up funds to offer tax relief in 2022? Absent a clear and narrowing construction by Treasury regulation, States cannot possibly know the bargain they are striking in accepting the relief funds. Yet the “legitimacy of Congress’ power to legislate under the spending power … rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.'” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981).

The letter asks the Secretary for clarification of how the policy will be interpreted.

Given the foregoing, we ask that you confirm that the American Rescue Plan Act does not prohibit States from generally providing tax relief through the kinds of measures listed and discussed above and other, similar measures, but at most precludes express use of the funds provided under the Act for direct tax cuts rather than for the purposes specified by the Act. In the absence of such an assurance by March 23, we will take appropriate additional action to ensure that our States have the clarity and assurance necessary to provide for our citizens’ welfare through enacting and implementing sensible tax policies, including tax relief.

The emphasized text means a lawsuit, probably in the 11th or 5th Circuit. The Biden administration should tread carefully here. If it takes a hardline position, the executive branch may suffer a huge defeat at the Court.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3lm2J6j
via IFTTT

Congress Uses COVID-19 As a Cover for an Epidemic of Fiscal Recklessness

Schumer-and-Pelosi-3-15-21

The “recovery rebates” that Americans began receiving this week supposedly have something to do with the economic damage caused by COVID-19 and the control measures it inspired. But like most of the so-called American Rescue Plan Act, these payments, which account for more than a fifth of the bill’s $1.9 trillion price tag, are only tenuously related to the pandemic.

The Democrats who championed the law hope those bribes will buy them votes in the midterm elections. But you really should be thanking your children and grandchildren, because they will ultimately pick up the tab for this package and the rest of the $5 trillion spending binge that Congress claimed was justified by a public health emergency.

Individuals with adjusted gross incomes of up to $75,000 will get $1,400, while married couples earning up to $150,000 will get $2,800, plus $1,400 for each dependent. That amounts to $5,600 for a four-person family, on top of the $5,800 that such households received under the coronavirus relief packages that Congress approved in March and December.

Congress distributed that money without regard to whether the recipients had suffered pandemic-related economic distress. A Pew Research Center survey conducted last August suggests that most of them have not: Forty-two percent of respondents said they or someone in their households had lost jobs or income due to COVID-19, less than half the 85 percent of Americans who are expected to receive the latest round of payments.

Another survey found that just 15 percent of people who received the money distributed in April reported that they spent most of it; instead, they typically saved it or used it to pay down debts. Those findings cast doubt on the hope that such payments, even when they go to relatively well-off families, will stimulate the pandemic-battered economy by increasing consumer spending.

The package also includes an expanded, fully refundable child tax credit that will cost at least $89 billion—more if the temporary change becomes permanent. Like the recovery rebates, that provision applies fully to households earning up to $150,000.

Other major elements of the American Rescue Plan Act likewise have little or nothing to do with COVID-19.

The package includes nearly $129 billion for K–12 education, which ostensibly is aimed at helping students safely return to school. Yet most of the more than $100 billion in education funding authorized by earlier legislation remains unused, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that just 5 percent of the new money will be spent this fiscal year, which ends on September 30.

Congress allocated $350 billion to “coronavirus state and local relief funds” for governments that generally have emerged from the pandemic in much better financial condition than expected. California, for example, will benefit from this largesse even though it is running a surplus.

Another $86 billion will be used to bail out union-run pension funds that were already in dire straits before the pandemic. Obamacare premium subsidies for households earning as much as $350,000 annually will cost $34 billion.

Republicans, who last year supported massive, frequently ill-considered spending in the name of fighting COVID-19, have changed their tune now that Democrats control the executive and legislative branches. They uniformly opposed the latest bill in the House and the Senate, and they plan to make political hay by accusing Democrats of using the pandemic as an excuse for fiscally reckless spending aimed at achieving longstanding policy goals, rewarding their party’s most dedicated supporters, and enticing voters with found money.

Blatant hypocrisy aside, the Republicans have a point. The national debt—currently about $27.5 trillion, three-quarters of which is publicly held—already exceeds the size of the U.S. economy. The annual deficit was $3.1 trillion last fiscal year and will be more than $1 trillion this fiscal year.

Continuing on this path will slow economic growth, replace useful spending with interest payments, and force tax increases, benefit reductions, or both. Enjoy your debt-financed windfall while you can.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3tu1rc9
via IFTTT

Pennsylvania Bar Dismisses 3rd Circuit Appeal in Rule 8.4(g) Challenge

In December, a federal district court declared unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). The judge reiterated points that Eugene Volokh and I have been making for years: this rule may be well intentioned, but it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

In January, the Pennsylvania Bar field a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. But yesterday, the Bar surrendered. It voluntarily dismissed the appeal. Congratulations to Adam Schulman, Ted Frank, and the other lawyers at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute for their victory.

Going forward, the Pennsylvania Bar will presumably try to draft a constitutional version of the rule. Other states considering ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) should take note, and proceed in a different direction.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cCJDEZ
via IFTTT

Pennsylvania Bar Dismisses 3rd Circuit Appeal in Rule 8.4(g) Challenge

In December, a federal district court declared unconstitutional Pennsylvania’s version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). The judge reiterated points that Eugene Volokh and I have been making for years: this rule may be well intentioned, but it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

In January, the Pennsylvania Bar field a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. But yesterday, the Bar surrendered. It voluntarily dismissed the appeal. Congratulations to Adam Schulman, Ted Frank, and the other lawyers at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute for their victory.

Going forward, the Pennsylvania Bar will presumably try to draft a constitutional version of the rule. Other states considering ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) should take note, and proceed in a different direction.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cCJDEZ
via IFTTT

Up To Two-Thirds Of Entry-Level Tech Jobs Go To Foreign Guest-Workers From Unranked Colleges

Up To Two-Thirds Of Entry-Level Tech Jobs Go To Foreign Guest-Workers From Unranked Colleges

A new report from Bloomberg reveals that up to two-thirds of entry-level tech jobs go to foreign guest workers from low-ranked colleges who don’t dare complain about long work long hours and low wages lest they destroy their chances of a green card – as opposed to hiring debt-laden American graduates willing to grind just as hard, yet have no such immigration leverage to exploit.

According to the report, the United States in 2018 had “between 96,000 and 143,000 openings in IT occupa­tions that typically went to candidates with a bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or engineering.”

Meanwhile, the government grants annual “Occupational Practical Training” (OPT) work permits to hundreds of thousands of foreigners attending American universities – while also inviting roughly 85,000 foreign graduates to reside and work in the United States on H-1B work visas.

In total, “OPT participants accounted for anywhere from one-third to one-half of new hires. If you add H-1B candidates, up to two-thirds of openings went to guest workers,” reads the report, which Breitbart News‘ Neil Munro notes relies heavily on Rutgers University high-tech employment expert, Hal Salzman.

Setting the bar low

When it comes to education, few OPT workers attended ranked colleges. “More than 70% of nonresident computer science master’s degrees awarded in 2018 came from unranked programs, or those ranked 50 and lower by U.S. News and World Report. Just 17% came from schools ranked in the top 25. [universities].”

Breitbart News has extensively reported on the fraud-ridden OPT program — and its sister program, the Curricular Practical Training program — which provides Fortune 500 companies with roughly 400,000 cheap foreign workers each year.

The OPTs — and the many similar H-1B, L-12, J-1, and TN visa workers — fill many starter-jobs and mid-career white-collar jobs in a wide variety of industry sectors, including tech, healthcare, academia, accounting, and design.

Few of the OPT workers complain about their lower-wage jobs because their CEOs can fire them at will. –Breitbart

At least one million foreign workers are working in low-wage white collar jobs, according to the report, which says that the “Green Card Workforce” contributes to suppressed salaries and a lack of American innovation.

Read the rest of the report here.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 22:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3vAYlos Tyler Durden

Who And What Killed George Floyd?

Who And What Killed George Floyd?

Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Friday, as the jury was being empaneled for the trial of fired police officer Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis City Council voted 13-0 to approve a record $27 million civil settlement with the family of George Floyd over his death in police custody.

The jury will not likely miss this message sent by the city fathers:

I.e., an atrocity was perpetrated by our police, and we are admitting our responsibility and doing our duty by offering these reparations for Floyd’s cruel and unjustified death and the suffering visited on his family.

Most Americans who saw the nine-minute tape of Chauvin with his knee on the neck of George Floyd as he pleaded, “I can’t breathe,” will probably concur with the charge of criminal culpability of Chauvin.

Yet, over the months, new facts and factors have emerged.

George Floyd was not choked to death. He was not asphyxiated. He was not killed by Chauvin’s knee on the side of his neck. An autopsy showed Floyd’s neck muscles were not even bruised.

Floyd died when his heart stopped. Yet, he was already suffering from an enlarged heart with constricted arteries, one of five of which was 90% blocked and two others were 75% blocked.

An autopsy found heavy concentrations of fentanyl in Floyd’s system and traces of methamphetamines. If Floyd had collapsed and died in the street while being wrested into the squad car, his death would have been attributed to a drug overdose and a bad heart.

Also, a videotape of the minutes prior to Floyd’s being put on the pavement, his neck under Chauvin’s knee, shows Floyd crying, repeatedly, “I can’t breathe,” while resisting the two rookie cops trying to put him in the patrol car.

Moreover, there is testimony from those with Floyd when he was stopped for passing an allegedly phony $20 bill, that he had passed out in the car before the cops arrived.

And the arresting cops claim he was foaming at the mouth before being restrained.

In short, Chauvin’s defense attorneys will likely make a credible case, backed by evidence, that Floyd’s death was not caused by the knee on his neck but by the battered condition of his heart, the near-lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, and his anxiety and panic at being arrested and fearing, as he wailed, that he was going to be shot.

The prosecution will counter-claim that Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck, and the two other cops sitting on him, precipitated the stopping of his heart.

But the prosecution faces other questions.

How could Chauvin, who arrived late to the scene, know Floyd was a drug addict with a serious heart condition and a large amount of fentanyl in his system, before using the restraint technique of sitting on him and putting a knee on the side of his neck?

What was Chauvin trying to do when he arrived to see two rookie cops trying to cope with a powerfully built, six-foot-four-inch, 220-pound man violently resisting arrest?

Did Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s neck to kill him? To torture or injure him? Or did he use the technique to restrain him?

Prosecutors will contend that the knee on the neck was criminal assault, a felony that caused Floyd to black out and his heart to stop?

But that raises another question:

Is placing a knee on the side of the neck an outlawed or a prohibited procedure for police to use to restrain a suspect violently resisting arrest, as a chokehold is in some precincts?

Or is it a procedure some police use legally at times?

Chauvin was clearly familiar with the technique. Had he used it before without injury to a suspect?

In a motion to dismiss the charges he himself faces in the death of Floyd, former police officer Thomas Lane included 30 pages of Minneapolis PD training materials including information on the “maximal restraint technique.” Lane included a photo of an officer with a knee on a suspect’s neck, similar to the hold used by Chauvin.

In preparing for the trial of Chauvin, Minneapolis has fortified, with concrete barriers, fences and razor wire, the courthouse where it will be held. Understandably, for any acquittal of Chauvin, or conviction on a lesser charge than murder, could trigger a riot like those that plagued the city through the summer of 2020.

And if a mob does take to the streets in Minneapolis, as it did all last summer, the national reaction will be telling.

How does one accurately describe a crowd that gathers outside a courthouse to demand, on the threat of a riot, a verdict of guilty?

And should a riot occur — and violent protests in Louisville, Seattle and Portland over the weekend seem to point to another such long hot summer – may we expect our new national leaders (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer) to denounce the mob and stand up unequivocally for the rule of law?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 22:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38KglDa Tyler Durden

Biden Says Cuomo Should Resign If Investigation Confirms Harassment Allegations From 7 Women

Biden Says Cuomo Should Resign If Investigation Confirms Harassment Allegations From 7 Women

After doing everything he could to avoid getting dragged into Cuomogate (some still recall the name Tara Reid) and making an official statement on the record, late on Tuesday Joe Biden said that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo should resign if an investigation confirms the sexual harassment allegations against him.

In what Bloomberg has dubbed “his most extensive comments about accusations made by several women against his longtime Democratic ally”, Biden reiterated his support for seeing the inquiry carried out but said that its findings could force the three-term governor from office.

Asked by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos if Cuomo should step down if the investigation confirms the allegations, Biden replied, “Yes” adding that “I think he’ll probably end up being prosecuted, too.” At another point in the conversation, Biden repeated the expectation, saying “there  could be a criminal prosecution that is attached to it.”

Well of course he will say that if the allegations are confirmed. The real question is whether Biden – a staunch believer that women never lie, especially #metoo women who are taking down republican opponents except when one of those women turns her attention on Biden himself – will challenge the recollections and veracity of the increasingly more numerous accusers who are now almost in the double digits… when it involves a close political ally.

So caught in a bit of a bind, Biden said that “a woman should be presumed telling the truth and should not be scapegoated and become victimized by her coming forward.” 

Well, then Cuomo should quit right? Not exactly, because while the presumption that a woman is telling the truth is equivalent to the presumption of guilt for the target of her allegations if that someone is republican, when it comes to fellow democrats it gets… complicated. 

Which is why Biden once again refused to make any definitive statements, instead falling back to what he told reporters on Sunday that he was waiting for the probe to be carried out. ”I think the investigation is underway and we should see what it brings us,” BIden said in response to a question about whether the New York governor should resign; he echoed as much on Tuesday when he said that “the presumption” is that allegations should be taken seriously and investigated “and that’s what’s underway now.”

Asked if Cuomo can continue to serve effectively even as New York elected officials including both of the state’s U.S. senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, have said he should step down, Biden responded: “Well, that’s a judgment for them to make.”

According to CNN, the comments mark the President’s most explicit repudiation of Cuomo since multiple women made allegations of sexual harassment or unwanted advances against the New York governor. They came in an interview with Stephanopoulos in which Biden encouraged migrants not to come to the US as a crisis unfolds at the country’s southwestern border — with thousands of unaccompanied children now in federal custody — and he expressed openness to changing the Senate’s filibuster rule for the first time.

Seven women have accused Cuomo of sexual misconduct and inappropriate workplace behavior. Cuomo, however, has repeatedly refused to step down and denied the allegations. The governor is also in deep trouble for his mishandling of the covid fiasco in New York; he could be criminally liable for dozens of nursing home deaths due to his catastrophic mishandling of the crisis… for which he won an Emmy and received constant praise from the “bluecheck” brigade.

State Attorney General Letitia James has appointed an outside attorney to investigate the claims made against Cuomo. State Assembly members last week initiated an impeachment investigation into the misconduct claims that could lead to his removal.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 03/16/2021 – 21:48

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3bU67SB Tyler Durden