Last night, Fox News's Tucker Carlson rebuked a federal judge's decision to deny bail to a 1/6 Capitol invader and his mother.
"Neither Lisa Eisenhart or her son damaged any property in the Capitol or committed any violence — they just walked in to what we used to refer to as 'The People's House," Carlson said. And yet somehow Joe Biden's Justice Department convinced a federal judge that Lisa Eisenhart was quote 'a threat to our Republic' and her son was a 'would-be martyr.' Keep in mind, these are people whose crime was trespassing in the Capitol. We're not endorsing that, but some perspective please."
This is an interesting way to characterize a man who stormed the House floor wearing military-style garb, face masked, hands gloved, and carrying flex cuffs.
Here's a photo of Eric Munchel doing what Tucker Carlson characterized as just walking in and trespassing.
If the same man dressed the same way, carrying flex cuffs, just walked into Carlson's house while his terrified family hid in a closet, would Tucker say that he should be granted bail because he was just trespassing?
Of course, he wouldn't. This sort of disingenuous reporting is typical at Fox News. And this wasn't really about this particular defendant. This is about an ongoing push by some at Fox News to downplay the seriousness of what occurred at the Capitol on 1/6.
If Tucker had explained that the right to bail is a bedrock American principle, I'd have no problem with him arguing that Eric Munchel and his mother should have been granted bail. In fact, another judge overruled the judge who denied Munchel and his mother bail and released them to monitored home confinement. When possible, this is the arrangement I'd like to see, at a minimum.
If presumed innocent really means anything, it should mean that pre-trial detention is reserved for those who present a real and immediate danger to others or a substantial flight risk. It would have been more helpful if Carlson had educated his audience regarding the widespread abuse of pre-trial detention instead of arguing that this particular individual deserved bail because he was just trespassing. But discussing pre-trial detention in such terms would probably challenge many Fox viewers who are fine with the mass incarceration of those accused but presumed innocent, even though they have a constitutionally protected right to pre-trial bail under the Eighth Amendment. And all that is beside the point if the underlying intent of the bail discussion was to convince Fox News viewers that 1/6 was merely about some people trespassing.
Barack Obama: "Citizens United was a bad decision."
Republicans: "You lie, you illegitimate, radical foreign-born, communist, Mau Mau president standing at a podium lecturing us! Citizens United was correct because corporations are people and money is speech."
Democrats: "Okay. Hey businesses, you need to say something.
Corporations say something Republicans don't like.
Republicans: "Businesses need to stay out of politics!"
NIAID is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Does Greene have aides who write these bills? Wouldn't they reality check the content for her? Is this only about symbolic gesturing or is Greene one of those people who can't listen to reason when people try to explain reality to her?
We have an abundance of data favoring the latter explanation.
Andrew Desiderio is a congressional reporter for Politico. He covers the Senate, national security, and foreign policy.
Whether it's a good idea or not, Medicare for all is politically DOA. Such a program would mean a drastic reduction in the health insurance industry's size, so insurers won't let it happen. Moreover, voters would not accept a change that would be branded "socialist medicine." Even if Medicare for all is good public policy, current American political realities will not let it happen. For now.
But there may be a more politically palatable way to move toward Medicare for all. One of the most popular provisions of ACA allows adult children to continue their health insurance coverage under a parent's health policy until age 26. By introducing a Medicare option for Americans ages 26-30, those who have not yet or only recently entered the private insurance marketplace might find the option appealing. These Americans would comprise relatively low-risk, low-cost enrollees, so an affordable option could be offered. Such an option might even be popular enough to get it passed into law.
At age 31, these Medicare enrollees could be offered the option to continue on Medicare, but if they drop Medicare and return to it later, they would face an otherwise higher premium. This arrangement would incentivize continuing with Medicare rather than jumping on board after they become ill.
In 15 -20 years, a majority of Americans could be covered by Medicare. At that point, Medicare for all might be politically acceptable to a majority of Americans.
Getting to Medicare for all in this way would also reduce the role of private insurance more gradually rather than instantly dissolving the industry as a source of primary insurance. The private insurance industry would continue to exist just as it does under Medicare, as supplemental insurance, but reliance on private insurance would be significantly reduced. The more gradual expansion of Medicare would also allow for the government's Medicare apparatus to grow more manageably.
I'm not going to discuss the reasons I think Medicare for all would be a better system than the existing system, other than mentioning bargaining power and cost control, which is, perhaps, its greatest advantage.
Donald Trump wandered into a wedding at Mar-a-Lago and grabbed a mic, something he's been known to do as the owner of the venue. Since he's the main attraction at the club, I assume that guests have no objection. So he ranted about Biden and insisted again that he won the election. Of course, the whole thing was captured on video.
An intelligent person who makes a sincere effort can read SCOTUS rulings, opinions, & legal commentary to answer their questions about permissible gun regulations. If a grown-ass man demands answers to these questions in tweets, he's probably not prepared to hear the answers, and perhaps ill-equipped to understand them.
To all others, Google is your friend, but I warn you: an understanding is not available in 280 characters.
Responding to a Sorbo-like character who once claimed that Heller banned all gun regulation, I quoted Antonin Scalia from his majority opinion in DC v Heller. My interlocutor then called me "a sophist."
That's what I mean by "not prepared to hear the answers."
Prior to Ronald Reagan's presidency, presidents did not return salutes out of respect for the principle of civilian control of the military. Not even retired 5-star Dwight Eisenhower returned salutes when he was president. Be that as it may, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president is part of the chain of command. The vice president has absolutely no authority over the military and is not part of the chain of command. VPs should not return salutes. If any did so in the past, they were wrong to do it.
It's been reported that the 21-year-old Boulder gunman who killed ten people asked to see his mom last night. He has absolutely no idea how radically and irrevocably the course of his life changed yesterday.