{"id":89444,"date":"2021-01-19T19:31:14","date_gmt":"2021-01-20T00:31:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=89444"},"modified":"2021-01-19T19:31:25","modified_gmt":"2021-01-20T00:31:25","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-monday-january-18th-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=89444","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Monday, January 18th, 2021"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Monday, January 18th, 2021…but before we begin, allow us to offer a few random thoughts occasioned by this recent article from FOX News<\/em>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mandatory lockdowns may not be any better at controlling COVID-19 than less restrictive measures, study finds<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

No big surprise here, we thought.\u00a0 What we did<\/span><\/em> find surprising lay in the final paragraphs of the article, the first sentence of which we had to reread to grasp its true meaning:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“…This does not mean<\/span><\/em> that measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 are ineffective<\/span><\/em>, just that more restrictive<\/span><\/em> nonpharmaceutical interventions may not provide more<\/em><\/span>\u00a0benefits than less restrictive voluntary measures<\/span><\/em>, according to these researchers.<\/span> “While small<\/span><\/em> benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant<\/span><\/em> benefits on case growth of more restrictive [nonpharmaceutical interventions],” the study concluded. “Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.”<\/span><\/span><\/strong>“<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Note that first sentence is not<\/span> in quotes<\/span><\/em>, thus constituting an\u00a0opinion masquerading as fact<\/span><\/em>\u00a0offered by a mere reporter regarding the conclusions of the researchers, who at no time even vaguely<\/span><\/em> suggested measures to mitigate the spread of the Wuhan virus were ineffective.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The reporter then doubles down by noting…<\/strong><\/p>\n

“<\/span>Other<\/span><\/em> studies have found that lockdowns do<\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0work.<\/span><\/strong><\/span>”\u00a0[emphasis ours<\/em>]<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Sorry, but this statement erroneously infers the Stanford researchers concluded lockdowns don’t<\/em><\/span> work.\u00a0 That’s not<\/span><\/em> what they concluded.\u00a0 They simply found strong indications the same effect could have been achieved through less stringent measures.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

“<\/span>For instance, researchers from Rice University\u00a0found in a study\u00a0last month that\u00a0“states that are more open are susceptible<\/span><\/em> to higher COVID-19 death rates.”“The increasingly strong relationship between high levels of openness and high [daily deaths per million]\u00a0suggests that lockdowns have been effective in both reducing [daily deaths per million]\u00a0in highly infected states<\/span><\/em> and in preventing new spikes in deaths.”<\/span><\/strong>“<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So what the “other” study from Rice tells us is, in “highly infected states<\/span><\/em>“, lockdowns were effective, though we’re relatively certain the thousands of elderly killed by Sonny Cuomo might beg to differ.\u00a0 Moreover, the results of the Rice study beg the question why states like Florida and Texas which didn’t<\/span><\/em>\u00a0initiate Cuomo-like lockdowns didn’t<\/span><\/em> experience higher<\/span><\/em> infection and death rates than their blue counterparts<\/span><\/em>?\u00a0 After all, both have large populations and dense urban centers, though certainly none as dense as New York City.\u00a0 Then there’s South Dakota, which imposed almost no restrictions on its citizens yet suffered little if any ill effects.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The article ends with this:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“<\/span>Another study\u00a0by researchers at Columbia University found that “school closures and voluntary or mandated stay-at-home measures” reduced the spread<\/span><\/em> of COVID-19 in New York City last spring by 70%<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

Then again, if we completely<\/span><\/em> shut down the country and everyone just hunkered down in their homes until the cows came home and pigs took wing, the spread of the Wuhan virus might have been reduced by 99<\/span><\/em>%…though both the homicide and suicide rates might have ticked up a titch.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Here’s the juice: The issue isn’t<\/span><\/em>, and never has been<\/span><\/em>, whether draconian government-mandated lockdowns, measures which were never<\/span><\/em> necessary in any<\/span><\/em> prior pandemic, reduced the spread; it’s whether the resulting reduction justified the massive economic impact<\/em><\/span><\/a> and human cost<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let’s be clear on something: as related in the November 30th edition of The Gouge<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>, a Johns Hopkins study, which was published online then quickly taken down, clearly<\/span><\/em> indicated during this scamdemic\u00a0while the total death toll from disease hasn’t increased, the number claimed by heart disease has decreased<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>…for the first time<\/span><\/em>…ever<\/span><\/em>.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Which means one of three things is true: in America, the majority of whose population has been stuck at home for the better part of a year with little else to do but eat and watch television, either (A) deaths from heart disease, the perennial number one killer in the country, decreased<\/span><\/em> for the first time<\/span><\/em> since the figures have been recorded; (B) we’ve experienced <\/strong>a statistical anomaly…or, to be more accurate, next-to-impossible\u00a0improbability<\/span><\/em>…akin to that presented by Biden winning the presidency; or, (C)\u00a0<\/strong>the figures have been, and are being, fudged<\/span><\/em>.\u00a0 They say when in doubt, choose (C), though in this case, we’ve no doubt whatsoever!<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is not to say people aren’t dying of the effects of the Wuhan virus; rather we maintain the actual impact of COVID-19 has been dramatically overstated so as to justify the gross usurpations of power we’ve witnessed in the past year.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a related item, as\u00a0NRO\u00a0<\/em>informs us…<\/strong><\/p>\n

HHS Secretary Alex Azar Resigns, Citing Pro-Trump Capitol Riot<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Azar\u2019s resignation is effective Wednesday…January 20th…the same day Biden, assuming he hasn’t drank any coffee brewed by Kamalaa, will be sworn in as President.\u00a0 Talk about a man with the courage of his convictions!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge<\/em>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up,\u00a0The Washington Free Beacon<\/em> relates how…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prosecutors Face a Daunting Challenge in Wake of Capitol Riot<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…Prosecuting rioters is hard by nature, since the chaos mobs unleash makes it difficult to establish facts and assign blame. Many wrongdoers will ultimately escape criminal charges: Washington, D.C., prosecutors have brought fewer than 300 criminal cases related to unrest in the capital over the summer.<\/span> The scale of the evidence from the Capitol riot and the mammoth federal investigatory effort underline those challenges and the unique threat riots pose for the rule of law<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

As this item from\u00a0FOX News<\/em>\u00a0confirms:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Judge dismisses 39 cases against 28 Black Lives Matter protesters in Detroit<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

The cases can be reinstated if the city provides certain evidence<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Next, courtesy of James Nichols, writing at Legal Insurrection<\/em>, William A. Jacobson suggests why…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chief Justice Roberts May Not Have Constitutional Authority To Preside At Trial Of FORMER President<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“The Constitution says \u201c[w]hen the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside\u201d \u2014 but Trump will not be \u201cthe President\u201d during the upcoming trial. If Roberts refuses to preside at upcoming Senate trial as beyond his constitutional authority \u2014 as he should \u2014 that will render the \u201cimpeachment\u201d trial not an \u201cimpeachment\u201d trial at all.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Donald Trump no longer will be president as of noon on January 20, 2021, when Joe Biden is sworn in. At some point after that, possibly just hours, the Senate under control of Democrats will initiate an impeachment trial of the then-former president.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

As detailed in a prior post, there is no constitutional basis for the Senate trying a former president,<\/span>\u00a0Impeachment 2.0 \u2013 No, the Senate cannot convict Trump after he leaves office<\/a><\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

But there is one question about a trial I had not thought about, and was<\/span>\u00a0raised in a column<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/span>\u00a0by Prof. Jonathan Turley.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

First, Turley starts by pointing to the weakness of the case against Trump, then goes on to reject the notion that a former president can be tried by the Senate:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution states that the sole purpose of an impeachment trial is whether \u201cthe president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office.\u201d<\/span> While the Senate can later add a disqualification from holding federal office again, that is only after removal is decided \u2014 because it is a question of the penalty, not the purpose of the proceeding.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The Constitution refers to a present-tense status of \u201cthe president.\u201d<\/span> That status is key to other provisions bestowing official powers and privileges, which do not linger after leaving office. No one would argue that Trump could continue to exercise those powers once President-elect Biden is sworn in.<\/span> Yet a Senate trial would insist that, while Trump has no continuing powers, he remains subject to continued penalties tied to the office. Moreover, the stated purpose of the impeachment trial is whether a president \u201cshall be removed.\u201d<\/span> Thus, the only person constitutionally subject to an impeachment trial would be the sitting president, Joe Biden<\/strong><\/em><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

Those interested in more of Jonathan Turley’s thoughts on the latest anti-Donald vendetta can access his latest commentary\u00a0here<\/span><\/em><\/a><\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, why is Adam Schiff worried about Trump receiving intelligence briefings AFTER he leaves the White House<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>?\u00a0 Hells bells, the guy rarely bothered to receive them while he was IN<\/em>\u00a0office<\/span><\/a>!<\/strong><\/p>\n

For more on the January 6th incursion into the Capitol, we turn to\u00a0The Federalist<\/em>, where one J. Michael Waller claims…<\/strong><\/p>\n

I Saw Provocateurs At The Capitol Riot On Jan. 6<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

The deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol bore the markings of an organized operation planned well in advance of the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Mr. Waller’s biography at The Federalist<\/em> states he’s a senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy,\u00a0<\/strong>a former professor and instructor at the Institute of World Politics (a graduate school in Washington, D.C.) and the Naval Postgraduate School respectively, a current instructor\/lecturer at the John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg and his areas of\u00a0<\/strong>of concentration are propaganda, political warfare, psychological warfare, and subversion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Still, though Mr. Waller obviously knows of what he speaks, and certainly wouldn’t seem<\/span><\/em> prone to exaggeration, having hard, photographic evidence of some sort…<\/strong><\/p>\n