Thomas Eakins Walt Whitman 1891
Ever since I began reporting on the new coronavirus, I have pointed to trendlines as the reason to publish graphs and numbers on a daily basis. They make it possible to see how things develop. And what I see lately scares the heebees out of me. The trendlines tell us that things are getting worse, fast, while at the same time everyone pretends that they’re ready to re-open their societies.
I’ve said from the start that lockdowns can only be temporary, because we are social beings, but also that you need to use a lockdown wisely. Very few societies have, though.
In a few days’ time we will cross 10 million global confirmed cases, and 500,000 deaths. There is a lot wrong with the way these numbers are tallied, but they’re the best we have. And yes, these two “milestones” indicate a case fatality rate of 5%. Now, I can hear the protests all the way over here, and I don’t think a 5% rate is real, but even just one tenth of that, an 0.5% rate, is pretty terrible.
Yes, there are many more infections than those 10 million, no doubt, but there are also a lot more deaths than half a million. And by the way, that is a lot of lives lost, we should never forget that. Moreover, both the cases and the deaths just keep on coming, and there is no end in sight to that.
If things continue along current trendlines, we will in all likelihood observe how the end to the lockdowns does a lot more economic damage than the lockdowns ever did. Several US states already ring alarm bells over their healthcare facilities threatening to be overwhelmed.
And what about Brazil, Mexico, India and more? What will happen in Europe now all countries there are opening up, claiming that they have it all solved? There are many many millions of jobs in the west that are gone forever, and I can’t see countries being prepared to deal with that.
Be careful out there!
Worldometer reports new cases for June 24 (midnight to midnight GMT+0) at + 172,383.
New cases past 24 hours in:
• US + 38,621
• Brazil + 40,021
• Russia + 7,790
• India + 23,229
From Worldometer yesterday evening -before their day’s close-:
A lot is being said about the “newfound” Peter Strzok notes from the Jan 4 2017 meeting with Rise, Yates, Biden, Comey, Obama. I think this part has more meaning than any other.
The real impact of the notes may be on the Justice Department’s ongoing investigation of the Russia investigators, where U.S. Attorneys John Durham and Jeff Jensen are determining whether the FBI or others committed crimes in deceiving the courts or Congress about the evidence in the now-discredited Russia collusion allegations. A former senior FBI official told Just the News that Strzok’s notes about the White House meeting are a red flag that the Comey-led bureau may have been involving itself illegitimately in a political dispute between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump administration. “It was a political meeting about a policy dispute, and the bureau had no business being involved,” Former Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said. “No other FBI director would ever have attended such a meeting.
“Comey is quoted in the notes as saying the Kislyak call appeared legit. At that point he should have gotten up and left the room,” Brock added. “The FBI had no business being represented in that meeting. It did not have a counterintelligence interest any longer.”
A second impact of the notes could be on the campaign trail. A few months ago, Biden claimed he was unaware of the Flynn probe as he was leaving the VP’s office. I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,” he said. He then clarified his denial. “I was aware that … they asked for an investigation,” Biden said. “But that’s all I know about it, and I don’t think anything else.” If Powell’s interpretation of the notes is correct, Biden was knowledgeable enough to suggest a possible pretext for continued investigation, the Logan Act. And he eventually unmasked one of Flynn’s intercepted phone calls a week later.
Is this a deliberate mess?
Missouri appellate attorney John Reeves has weighed in on today’s decision by the US Court of Appeals for DC ordering Judge Emmett Sullivan to grant a DOJ request to drop the case against Michael Flynn. The opinion, authored by one of the three judges on the panel, Neomi J. Rao, “thoroughly demolishes” a dissenting opinion by Judge Robert Wilkins – who Reeves thinks was so off-base that he “shot himself in the foot” when it comes to any chance of an ‘en-banc review’ in which the Flynn decision would be kicked back for a full review by the DC appellate court.
[..] In all my years of appellate practice, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a non-US Supreme Court appellate opinion that so thoroughly demolishes a dissenting opinion as this one. Judge Rao could not have done better in writing the opinion, and it should be required law school rdg. In addition, Judge Wilkins’ dissenting opinion is so off-the-mark that I believe he has shot himself in the foot for purposes of en banc review–in other words, he has ensured that otherwise-sympathetic judges on the DC Circuit will vote against en banc review. Judge Rao comes out swinging by holding that its earlier opinion in Fokker “foreclose[s] the district court’s proposed scrutiny of the government’s motion to dismiss the Flynn prosecution.” p. 7.
In relying on Fokker, Judge Rao explicitly rejects Judge Wilkinson’s argument that Fokker’s holding is dicta (that is, non-binding). She holds Fokker “is directly controlling here.” p. 14. Keep in mind that Fokker was written by Chief Judge Srinivasan, an OBAMA appointee. Judge Srinivasan does NOT want Fokker’s legitimacy undermined, no matter his politics. Judge Wilkins’ dissent implies that Fokker was wrongly decided, and that it conflicts with other federal appellate courts. See p. 23 of 28. Judge Srinivasan will NOT be impressed by this argument in deciding whether to grant en banc rehearing. Fokker does not create a split. Judge Rao goes on to emphasize that while judicial inquiry MAY be justified in some circumstances, Flynn’s situation “is plainly not the rare case where further judicial inquiry is warranted.” p. 6.
Rao notes that Flynn agrees with the Govt.’s dismissal motion, so there’s no risk of his rights being violated. In addition, the Government has stated insufficient evidence exists to convict Flynn. p. 6. Rao also holds that “a hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions.” p. 7. But by appointing amicus and attempting to hold a hearing on these matters, the district court is inflicting irreparable harm on the Govt. because it is subjecting its prosecutorial decisions to outside inquiry. p. 8 Thus, Judge Rao holds, it is NOT true that the district court has “yet to act” in this matter, contrary to Judge Wilkins’ assertions. p. 16. “[T]he district court HAS acted here….[by appointing] one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue the charges.” p. 16. This justified mandamus being issued NOW.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sought to recruit hackers at conferences in Europe and Asia who could provide his anti-secrecy website with classified information, and conspired with members of hacking organizations, according to a new Justice Department indictment announced Wednesday. The superseding indictment does not contain additional charges beyond the 18 counts the Justice Department unsealed last year. But prosecutors say it underscores Assange’s efforts to procure and release classified information, allegations that form the basis of criminal charges he already faces.
Beyond recruiting hackers at conferences, the indictment accuses Assange of conspiring with members of hacking groups known as LulzSec and Anonymous. He also worked with a 17-year-old hacker who gave him information stolen from a bank and directed the teenager to steal additional material, including audio recordings of high-ranking government officials, prosecutors say.
Assange’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, said in a statement that “the government’s relentless pursuit of Julian Assange poses a grave threat to journalists everywhere and to the public’s right to know.” “While today’s superseding indictment is yet another chapter in the U.S. Government’s effort to persuade the public that its pursuit of Julian Assange is based on something other than his publication of newsworthy truthful information,” he added, “the indictment continues to charge him with violating the Espionage Act based on WikiLeaks publications exposing war crimes committed by the U.S. Government.”
And @johngoetz, who was also present at the time, signed a witness statement saying Harding and Leigh made it up – #Assange had never said that. (@LukeHarding1968, as the world knows since his ridiculous 'Manafort visits #Ecuador embassy' story, DOES make things up.) @wikileaks pic.twitter.com/Pnjcuiauvv
— Bella Magnani ⏳ (@BellaMagnani) June 25, 2020
In Thordarson—convicted paedophile & conman—& Monsegur—former petty criminal turned stool pigeon—the US gov has found fitting representatives of its campaign against Assange. The US extradition request is a criminal operation, using individuals who themselves should be in prison.
— Bean🔥 (@SomersetBean) June 25, 2020
What’s going to happen to all the people who end up without jobs?
A new private sector report is warning anew of continuing damage to the economy if Washington doesn’t deliver several hundred billion dollars in budget relief to states and local governments amid the coronavirus pandemic. But Wednesday’s report by Moody’s Analytics, a private sector economic research firm, could also help illustrate a path for bipartisan agreement in Congress on next month’s fifth, and possibly final, COVID-19 response bill. The study warns that doing nothing to address the economic perils of state layoffs and cutbacks could cost 4 million jobs. But it also says that significantly less money is needed than what’s being called for by House Democrats, who passed almost $1 trillion in help for cash-poor states and local governments as part of a sweeping $3.5 trillion rescue package last month.
The Democratic bill combines $500 billion for state governments — as requested by the nation’s governors — and $375 billion for local governments, many of whom were left out of earlier relief efforts. The Moody study says that level of spending — rejected out of hand by Republicans — is likely beyond what’s needed. “The scope of aid being requested is certainly unprecedented in size and warrants significant scrutiny,” Moody’s says. “For example, the $1 trillion in aid recently approved as part of the house’s HEROES Act would be enough to raise the eyebrows of even the most aggressive advocates of fiscal stimulus.”
We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since their revenue has collapsed, ads no longer pay for all you read, and your support is now an integral part of the interaction.
Frederick Douglass about Abaham Lincoln:
Support the Automatic Earth in virustime.