News/Nachrichten

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 The human destruction of natural ecosystems increases the numbers of rats, bats and other animals that harbour diseases that can lead to pandemics such as Covid-19, a comprehensive analysis has found. The research assessed nearly 7,000 animal communities on six continents and found that the conversion of wild places into farmland or settlements often wipes out larger species. It found that the damage benefits smaller, more adaptable creatures that also carry the most pathogens that can pass to humans. The assessment found that the populations of animals hosting what are known as zoonotic diseases were up to 2.5 times bigger in degraded places, and that the proportion of species that carry these pathogens increased by up to 70% compared with in undamaged ecosystems. Humans populations are being increasingly hit by diseases that originate in wild animals, such as HIV, Zika, Sars and Nipah virus. Since the coronavirus pandemic began, there have been a series of warnings from the UN and WHO that the world must tackle the cause of these outbreaks – the destruction of nature – and not just the health and economic symptoms. In June, experts said the Covid-19 pandemic was an “SOS signal for the human enterprise”, while in April the world’s leading biodiversity experts said even more deadly disease outbreaks were likely unless nature was protected. The new analysis is the first to show how the demolition of wild places, as the world’s population and consumption grows, leads to changes in animal populations that increase the risk of disease outbreaks. The research demonstrates that disease surveillance and healthcare needs to be ramped up in those areas where nature is being ravaged, the scientists said. “As people go in and, for example, turn a forest into farmland, what they’re doing inadvertently is making it more likely for them to be in contact with an animal that carries disease,” said David Redding, of the ZSL Institute of Zoology in London, who was one of the research team. The work is published in the journal Nature. Redding said the costs of disease were not being taken into account when deciding to convert natural ecosystems: “You’ve then got to spend a lot more money on hospitals and treatments.” A recent report estimated that just 2% of the costs of the Covid-19 crisis would be needed to help prevent future pandemics for a decade. “The Covid-19 pandemic has awakened the world to the threat that zoonotic diseases pose to humans,” said Richard Ostfeld, at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, US, and Felicia Keesing at Bard College, US, in a commentary in Nature. “With this recognition has come a widespread misperception that wild nature is the greatest source of zoonotic disease,” they said. “[This research] offers an important correction: the greatest zoonotic threats arise where natural areas have been converted to croplands, pastures and urban areas. The patterns the researchers detected were striking.” The reason for species such as rodents and bats simultaneously thriving in ecosystems damaged by humans and also hosting the most pathogens is probably because they are small, mobile, adaptable and produce lots of offspring rapidly. “The ultimate example is the brown rat,” Redding said. These fast-living species have an evolutionary strategy that favours large numbers of offspring ahead of a high survival rate for each one, which means they invest relatively little in their immune systems. “In other words, creatures that have rat-like life histories seem to be more tolerant of infections than do other creatures,” said Ostfeld and Keesing. “In contrast, an elephant has a calf every couple of years,” said Redding. “It has to make sure that offspring survives, so it is born with a very strong and adaptive immune system.” The analysis found that small, perching birds were also disease hosts that do well in habitats suffering from the impact of human activities. Such birds can be reservoirs of diseases such as West Nile virus and a type of chikungunya virus. Humans have already affected more than half of the Earth’s habitable land. Prof Kate Jones, of the University College London, and also part of the research team, said: “As agricultural and urban lands are predicted to continue expanding in the coming decades, we should be strengthening disease surveillance and healthcare provision in those areas that are undergoing a lot of land disturbance, as they are increasingly likely to have animals that could be hosting harmful pathogens.” 

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 What term do you want to search? Search with google 

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 Paramedics were called night before TV presenter killed herself after friends thought she had taken overdose Friends of Caroline Flack have told the inquest into her death that they thought she had taken an overdose the night before she killed herself, but the TV presenter refused paramedic advice to go to hospital. Long-time friends Louise Teasdale and Mollie Grosberg said they found Flack, 40, barely conscious on the sofa at her north London flat with tablets lying nearby, and called an ambulance. But, when paramedics arrived, Flack denied she had intended to kill herself, and refused to go to hospital, coroner Mary Hassell sitting at Poplar coroner’s court, east London was told. One of the paramedics, Tony Rumore, said Flack was “slightly lethargic” but able to stand up. He said: “We asked Caroline if her intention was to harm or kill herself. She said it was merely an attempt to sleep and escape from the stresses she was under.” The two friends stayed overnight but left the following morning after Flack was angry with them for calling paramedics. Flack was found dead later that day, 15 February. The Love Island host was facing trial for assaulting her boyfriend, Lewis Burton, a former tennis player and model, in December. She had learned the previous day that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was continuing with the prosecution. Flack’s mother, Chris Flack, said her daughter had faced a “show trial” and been “hounded by the press” in the weeks before she took her life. In a statement read to the court she said: “I believe Caroline was seriously let down by the authorities and in particular the CPS for pursuing the case.” The CPS’s original intention was to caution Flack, rather than charge her. That was overturned following an appeal from the Metropolitan police who felt Flack had not made full admissions in her police interview, Lisa Ramsarran, a deputy chief crown prosecutor, told the inquest. In December last year, Burton had dialled 999 claiming Flack was “trying to kill him” while he was asleep and that he had a cracked head after being hit with a lamp, which was bleeding “profusely”, she said. Flack admitted making a “flicking gesture” with her phone, which made contact with Burton’s head, after reading texts which questioned his fidelity, and that she was surprised to see an injury and blood, added Ramsarran. It was decided a caution was not appropriate, that there was sufficient evidence and it was in the public interest to authorise a charge of assault by beating. Flack was then charged, she added. It was never resolved whether it was a lamp, a desk fan or a phone that caused the injury, the inquest was told. Flack had self-harmed at the scene, and was taken to hospital for a psychiatric assessment and deemed fit for interview, the inquest heard. Family and friends painted a picture of the TV star falling apart in the weeks leading up to her death. Asked by the coroner Mary Hassell, sitting at Poplar coroner’s court in east London, whether Flack had said “she actually wanted to kill herself”, Flack’s friend Teasdale replied “yes”. Flack’s mother said the evidence in the criminal proceedings against her daughter was “disputed”. But the resulting media attention had “forced Caroline to leave her home which she loved, I believe eventually to take her own life”. Through it all, Flack was told not to “tell her side of the story”, her mother said in a statement. “The only person who was hurt that night was Caroline,” she said. “She lost the job she worked so hard at.” Flack had been called an “abuser” in the newspapers, her sister Jody Flack said. “Her life and reputation she worked hard to build was falling apart … because of a false accusation,” she added. Flack had “spent months hiding inside”. “Caroline seemed very sad the day before her death – she seemed to have lost her fight,” she said. She said Flack was in a “very anxious” state of mind. Ambulances had previously been called on four occasions. Tamsin Lewis, a psychiatrist and lifestyle practitioner, who was called by Flack’s personal assistant on 17 December, told the court she was informed Flack was “in the middle of a media crisis and could not sleep”. She was “incredibly distressed” and tearful, Lewis said in a statement. “She was scrolling the media reports on her phone.” She had a bandaged finger, which she explained was the result of a “lovers’ tiff” with Burton, “heightened by alcohol”. Lewis added that her mood appeared low and “she reported having panicky feelings all day – a sense of impending doom”. Flack did not say she had suicidal intent, added Lewis. “She said she had been drinking excessively to numb herself. She said sleep had been impossible.” Burton described Flack as “not in a good place emotionally”, “devastated” and said she sometimes talked of taking her own life. He said in a statement: “The media were constantly bashing her character, writing hurtful stories, generally hounding her daily.” He added: “What was worrying her most was the police case and losing her presenting job on Love Island, plus not being able to see me.” Burton had asked the CPS to drop the case. David O’Toole, a paramedic called to Flack’s flat on 15 February, said it appeared she had been dead for hours. The inquest continues. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at www.befrienders.org.  

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, told Breitbart News on Tuesday that President Trump saved the city of Portland, Oregon. President Trump ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to send in around 100 Federal Protective Service (FPS) agents to defend the federal courthouse that had been under siege for two months by violent anarchists who were intending to destroy the building. Miller, in an appearance on Breitbart News Tonight on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel on Tuesday evening, made the case that the Trump administration’s actions have officially quelled the violence of the “riotous mob” by stopping those rioters from setting off a chain reaction of events that would have led to more destruction beyond the federal courthouse. “Donald Trump saved the city of Portland,” Miller said. “Let’s not beat around the bush. If a riotous mob has succeeded in pillaging, plundering, and ultimately burning down a federal courthouse, you think the mob stops there? No, they’re gonna burn the next building and the next building and the next building, all while the police have been given a stand down order. Donald Trump literally saved the city of Portland.” Trump, Miller argued, successfully forced the hand of Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, and Portland mayor Ted Wheeler, another Democrat, to lift stand down orders they had given to state and local law enforcement that effectively allowed the anarchist mob free reign over Portland. “Donald Trump forced it to be lifted by his actions,” Miller said of the stand-down order that Trump forced to be lifted. In the wake of Trump’s Portland success, which was also explained in the Wall Street Journal in a piece by Bill McGurn that Trump tweeted on Tuesday night, the establishment media and Democrats have tried to revise the history of what happened. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL “Trump Wins in Portland” “Something big has changed in Portland, Ore. After weeks of chaos and flames outside the city’s federal courthouse, the past few days have seen the violence subside dramatically. What happened?” William McGurn @WSJ — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 4, 2020 In the telling of those seeking to revise history, it was the federal agents’ presence that caused the violence and subsequent withdrawal of those forces was what quelled the rioting. Miller, during his appearance on Breitbart News Tonight, debunked this false revisionist narrative. “So the federal courthouse in Portland was under attack for over 60 days by anarchists, Antifa, and left-wing violent extremists,” Miller said. “The city of Portland refused to provide protection to the federal courthouse, thereby, in effect, aiding and abetting the lawless mob, and rioters allowing them to descend upon the courthouse and to do violent damage to it. The president, consistent with federal law and the requirement for the protection of federal buildings, and the Department of Homeland Security, developed a plan to save the courthouse that was in Portland. Had they not dispatched the additional DHS personnel, which are under the authority and control of the Federal Protective Service, or FPS, whose congressional mandate is to protect federal buildings, if they hadn’t dispatched those officers, the courthouse would have been razed to the ground. It would have been completely and totally destroyed. That’s the first fact to keep in mind as one of the terrible lies from the media, which is almost beyond redemption, is that the federal government somehow incited the riots and the violence. That is a reprehensible lie on the part of the elected officials in Portland and Oregon. The lawless mob besieged a federal building and, had additional resources not been sent [to] that building, would have been absolutely destroyed. And I might add it would have been your tax dollars and our tax dollars that would have had to pay to eventually rebuild the destroyed courthouse. You can imagine what a national and international debacle it would have been if a U.S. district court was burned to the ground live on television by anarchists. So that building was saved. That’s step one.” After the federal agents saved the building, step two, Miller said, was ensuring the safety of the federal officers from the violent mob. “Step two in this process was then the nightly violence perpetrated by the lawless mob against brave personnel at the Department of Homeland Security,” Miller said. “The Department of Homeland Security contingent was a little bit over a hundred law enforcement officers and their mission was a defensive mission to save and defend the courthouse against the rioters and the rioters that were then engaging in now direct violent assaults against law enforcement. Arrests were carried out by DHS in response to specific acts of violence being perpetrated against them. They were not operating as, although they would have the right to, as an advanced police force generally protecting the streets of the city. They were operating as a defensive line to protect the courthouse, and I’ve likened it to the line between chaos and civilization, because if the mob is allowed to burn down the courthouse, then that is that – it’s chaos burning down civilization. So, the city again during this whole time refused to provide any support at all. In fact, they barred the Portland Police from supporting the effort to defend and save the courthouse. They gave free reign, in effect created an autonomous zone—a secessionist activity, if you will—where federal law and state law and city law was suspended and they said that, in effect, the rioters can freely assemble here to launch their nightly attacks against the federal building.” Eventually, Miller said, the president forced the state’s Democrat governor to agree to send in state police to help restore law and order and take control away from the anarchists’ violent mob. “Our government then made clear, the federal government issued an ultimatum to the state of Oregon and to the city of Portland that said ‘either you clean this up or we will. Either you send in law enforcement or we will,’” Miller said. “In response to that, the governor, who was presumably inundated with requests or cries for help from her constituents, then agreed to send in state troopers, the state police, at our request for the purpose of, now beyond the fence line, going out and enforcing a general clearing out of the rioters in all the blocks where they had assembled to launch these nightly attacks. That was coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security and not a single federal agent was withdrawn during this time period. Every federal officer was in place. So that brings me to the last lie, just as egregious and hateful as all the other lies, which is that somehow the violence subsided because the federal forces were withdrawn. No, federal forces were A, not withdrawn, and B, the sole factor that changed the scene in Portland is that our law enforcement plan was initiated by the state at our urging and under pressure from President Trump. That is the reason why the violence ended. The travesty here is that it took 60 days for the state to do it, but rest assured if we hadn’t sent in, if President Trump had not sent in those DHS reinforcements, that courthouse would be nothing but ash right now.” More from Miller’s exclusive interview on Breitbart News Tonight is forthcoming. LISTEN TO STEPHEN MILLER ON BREITBART NEWS TONIGHT: 

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 Just one day after Democrats at a Senate hearing on destructive riots in Portland denied that description and claimed otherwise peaceful protests turned violent because of the presence of federal officers, the state police declared a riot, which included gunfire, a stabbing, and setting the Portland Police Association building on fire. To those attempting to break into and/or damage the Portland Police Association building: Stop now or you may be cited, arrested, or subject to use of force. — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) August 5, 2020 Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) accused President Donald Trump at the hearing of sending “secret police” into Portland who provoked violence from protesters, despite the screening of a video compilation showing mobs dressed in black and wearing gas masks setting fires, throwing explosive devices, and attacking buildings and police officers. A riot has been declared at N Lombard St and N Campbell Ave. You are ordered to disperse to the south immediately. Failure to comply with this order may subject you to citation or arrest, and may subject you to the use of crowd control agents and/or impact weapons. — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) August 5, 2020 Protests following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died at the hands of Minneapolis police in May, have devolved into dangerous riots in cities across the country. The local media outlet KOIN reported on the scene on Tuesday night: As the protests spilled into Wednesday morning, several shots rang out near North Mobile Avenue and then again about 15 minutes later near North Lombard Street. No one was hurt, but a car was struck. When Portland police went to investigate, the crowd that met them was hostile and no one would speak to officers about the incident. A short time later, a group of protesters breached the doors of the Portland Police Association building. While inside, some set a fire and caused other damage — prompting the police to declare a riot around 1 a.m. Upon reaching their destination Tuesday night, some in the crowd proceeded to drag a dumpster into the street and light it on fire. Others set debris on fire and pushed it against the PPA building, only for some to dismantle the pile and extinguish the flames. Portland police did not engage the crowd but tweeted that there was “criminal activity” occurring in the area and asked peaceful protesters to leave. National Review reported on a stabbing on Monday night: A woman had walked into Lownsdale Square park in downtown Portland and was taking photos or recording video just before 6:30 p.m. when an argument began between the woman and other people in the park. The woman who had been taking photos then brandished a knife and stabbed another woman in the chest. Officers were met with a “hostile crowd” on the scene and were forced to bring in reinforcements to the area. As police were trying to secure the crime scene, someone picked up the knife used in the stabbing and ran off with it, Portland police said. https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/1290975373950365701 As Breitbart News reported, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared it would not back down from its responsibility to protect federal property in the United States until state and local police were successful in aiding the federal officers already stationed at the courthouse. Federal officers provide protection for 9,000 federal buildings across the country. Follow Penny Starr on Twitter. 

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) caved to Black Lives Matter and signed an executive order on Wednesday granting voting rights to those who have served their felony sentences. “When someone serves their sentence and pays the price our justice system has set for their crime, they should have their right to vote restored automatically, plain and simple,” Reynolds said during a press conference on Wednesday. Reynolds said her executive order would restore the “voting rights of some felons.” She added that her order requires Iowans to complete their sentences, and they will still require those who committed felony homicide offenses to apply for voting rights restoration individually. “This is a cause on which so many Iowans have worked on,” she added. The order will allow thousands of Iowans to vote in the upcoming November elections, which has significant implications for the reelection of President Donald Trump, Sen. Joni Ernst’s (R-IA) reelection, and the swing congressional districts in the state. The Des Moines Register wrote that Reynolds had resisted calls to sign an executive order granting voting rights to felons. However, Reynolds reportedly promised to sign an executive order in June after meeting with activists from the Des Moines, Iowa, Black Lives Matter, the NAACP, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Since that meeting, Black Lives Matter lobbied Reynolds to sign an executive order and allow potential felons to vote less than 90 days ahead of the 2020 elections. Reynolds has called for a constitutional amendment to automatically restore voting rights to felons once they have completed their sentences; however, the majority Republican state Senate blocked her constitutional amendment. Passing an amendment would enshrine the voting rights policy in the state constitution. Previous governors have taken opposing views on restoring voting rights. Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) signed an executive order restoring felon voting rights in 2005, but Reynolds, predecessor, Gov. Terry Brandstad (R), scrapped the Democrat executive shortly after taking office in 2011. Aaron Klein, formerly a Breitbart News senior investigative reporter, wrote in 2019 that progressive organizations, financed by George Soros, have worked “overtime” to restore voting rights in many battleground states such as Florida. Reynolds called her executive order a temporary solution and reiterated her call for a “permanent solution” by passing a constitutional amendment. “Let me be clear: an executive order is, at best, a temporary solution. It can be changed with a stroke of a pen by the next governor, which is not good enough,” the Iowa Republican said. “Something that is fundamentally right should not be based on benevolence of a single elected official.” 

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 Former Vice President Joe Biden will not attend the Democratic National Convention in person to accept his party’s nomination for the White House over concerns about the novel coronavirus. Biden’s campaign announced on Wednesday that the presumptive nominee would not attend the convention later this month in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, according to Bloomberg News. SCOOP: Joe Biden is no longer traveling to Milwaukee to accept the Democratic nomination. His plans to travel to the convention have been scrapped because of coronavirus concerns. — Tyler Pager (@tylerpager) August 5, 2020 Jeff Zeleny, a senior Washington correspondent for CNN, also reported on Wednesday that the former vice president was likely to accept the nomination with a speech planned in his home state of Delaware. NEW: Joe Biden now plans to accept the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in a Delaware speech — not in Milwaukee, which had been the plan for months, officials tell CNN. Yet another blow to the Milwaukee's convention in the age of Covid. — Jeff Zeleny (@jeffzeleny) August 5, 2020 Similarly, the Daily Mail reported that other high-profile Democrats scheduled to address the convention, including former President Barack Obama, would no longer be doing so in person in Wisconsin. Biden, who at the age of 78 is in the at-risk category for the coronavirus, had initially intended to attend a scaled-down version of the convention, but that calculus seems to have changed as COVID19 cases and deaths have spiked nationally in recent weeks. The decision follows a similar move made by President Donald Trump, who in late July announced he was abandoning plans to accept renomination at a large scale convention in Jacksonville, Florida. “It’s hard for us to say we should have a lot of people packed into a room and then other people shouldn’t do it,” Trump said at the time. “There’s nothing more crowded than a convention.” Biden has curtailed his public appearances in recent months because of the pandemic. The former vice president’s campaign did not return requests for comment on this story. 

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 A Restoration PAC poll released Wednesday revealed a positive trend for the president, who appears to be gradually closing the gap on Joe Biden’s sizeable lead in the key Rust Belt states Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The latest survey, taken July 13 – 27 among 600 likely voters in each state, showed President Trump narrowing the gap in each state compared to June’s results, which had the former vice president up by double-digits in every state. In June, the former vice president led Trump by 17.5 percent in Michigan, 16.5 percent in Wisconsin, and 11.7 percent in Pennsylvania. The latest results shows his lead shrinking in each state. He now leads by 11 percent in Michigan, 12.8 percent in Wisconsin, and 5.4 percent in Pennsylvania: Our brand new poll #'s: MICHIGAN Trump: 40.3% Biden: 51.3% Change from June: Trump +6.5 percentage points WISCONSIN Trump: 37.9% Biden: 50.3% Change from June: Trump +4.2 percentage points PENNSYLVANIA Trump: 44.3% Biden: 49.7% Change from June: Trump +6.3 percentage points — RestorationPAC (@restorationpac) August 5, 2020 “I believe the race appears to be turning in the President’s direction.” Restoration PAC Founder and President Doug Truax said in the press release. “Americans seem to be reaching out to President Trump to stop the dismantling of our country’s traditions, statues, and way of life.” The survey’s margin of error is +/- 3 percent. Restoration PAC has made waves in recent weeks after launching a $2 million ad buy in Wisconsin and $2.5 million ad buy in Michigan, highlighting what some call Biden’s “worst campaign moment.” The ad features a clip of then-Sen. Biden touting his resumé at a New Hampshire campaign event on April 3, 1987 and unleashing a host of fabrications. “I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect. I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my — in my class,” Biden tells a man in the clip. “I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees,” he continued, adding that he would “be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours if you’d like”: As Breitbart News reported: All of those claims, as Restoration PAC highlights, proved to be false — something the New York Times even reported later that year. Biden did not graduate in the top half of his class in law school, he was not named the outstanding student in his college political science department, he did not graduate with three degrees, nor did he go to law school on a full academic scholarship. Nonetheless, Biden claimed that his recollection was “inaccurate.” His lies were eventually forgotten following the eruption of his plagiarism scandal, leading to his departure in the race According to Restoration PAC, the ad was “highly effective in a recent wide-ranging focus group testing both Republican and Democratic TV ads,” giving it the potential to prove “devastating” for Biden. President Trump narrowly defeated Hillary Clinton in all three states in 2016 by less than one percentage point. 

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 A model developed by a historian that has predicted very presidential election since 1984 — including President Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 — now suggests that the path of the economy will determine who wins the White House in November. The most likely path now leads to a win by Joe Biden, according to the model. But a stronger than expected economic rebound could put re-election within reach for President Trump. Allan Lichtman, an author and history professor at American University, said in an op-ed video for The New York Times published Wednesday that his 13-factor model now indicates challenger Biden will defeat incumbent Trump. But his model could predict a Trump win if the economic recovery strengthens more than is currently expected in the second half of the year. “The pollsters and the pundits cover elections as though they were horse races,” Lichtman said in the Times’ video. “But history tells us voters are not fooled by the tricks of the campaign. Voters vote pragmatically according to how well the party holding the White House has governed the country.” Past performance, of course, does not guarantee future results. The model has a track record of correctly predicting just nine elections, although Lichtman says he back-tested it. And the unprecedented changes in the economy, politics, and society could mean that this year’s results will be particularly unpredictable. Lichtman’s predictive model looks at thirteen “keys” to the White House, statements that are each marked true or false. True marks boost the chances of an incumbent party’s presidential candidate. False marks boost the chances of a challenger party’s candidate winning. Six or more false marks means the incumbent party loses control of the White House. One of the statements, for example, asks if the president’s party still has an electoral mandate by looking at the midterm elections. “After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the House than it did after the previous midterm elections,” it reads. That answer gets scored False because Democrats took control of the House in 2018. Other statements evaluate whether an incumbent is running, if the incumbent had no serious primary challenge, or if there is a lack of a major third party challenge. All of those are scored True —outcomes that are positives for Trump. Trump also garners True marks for lack of a foreign policy crisis, the lack of Biden’s charisma, and enacting major policy changes. Right now, Lichtman’s model has seven keys that produce a challenger friendly false result — pointing to a win for Biden. In addition to the midterm loss, the factors favoring Biden are False scores for a lack of social unrest, a major military or foreign policy victory, Trump’s charisma, and two statements about economic performance. “The keys predict that Trump will lose the White House,” Lichtman says. The truth of falsity of most of the statements are already determined. Trump cannot undo the 2018 election and is powerless to bring to an end the social unrest that has gripped the country. Biden cannot reverse Trump’s tax cuts and probably will not emerge from his basement with previously unseen charisma. The two statements about the economy, however, could tilt Lichtman’s model towards a Trump victory. The first is about the short-term economy. “The economy during the election season is not in recession,” the statement says. Lichtman scores that as False. “The pandemic has pushed the economy into recession,” he says. But the economy likely has already emerged from the recession and will likely have grown at an unprecedented rate in the third quarter. Depending on when the “election season” is defined, that could mean no recession during the election season. It is not clear from Lichtman’s op-ed that he realizes the recession is already over. The second statement is about the long-term economy: “Real annual per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the two previous terms. “ “The pandemic has caused such negative GDP growth in 2020 that the key has turned false,” Lichtman says. Prior to this year, this would have been a winning slot for Trump. The mean annual GDP growth during the Obama administration was around 1.6 percent. The mean growth in the first three years of the Trump administration was around 2.5 percent. If the economy shrinks 6.5 percent this year, as the Fed’s median projection forecast in June, then Trump’s annual economic growth would be a positive 0.275. If the economy recovers a good deal faster than the Fed expects, Trump’s GDP growth could exceed Obama’s—despite the calamity of this year’s first half. To beat Obama’s economic performance, the full year GDP would have to come in no lower than negative 1.3 percent. This isn’t impossible but it won’t be easy. The economy would have to grow at something like a 25 percent rate in the third quarter to come close. That’s not outside the range of forecasts but it is toward the top end. Keep in mind that we are already one-month into the July through September third-quarter. So far growth is likely lagging behind that figure, meaning the economy would need to accelerate in the months ahead. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow calculation shows economic data for the quarter that is already available putting the U.S. on track for 20.3 percent growth. That means Republicans will likely have to take aggressive measures to raise the upward pressure on the economy. That might include changing directions on enhanced unemployment, which some Republicans have been seeking to cut, and a new round of direct federal “impact” payments. With millions of Americans losing their jobs each week, millions more without health insurance in a pandemic, businesses pulling back on reopening plans, and many parents struggling to work because school districts are staying closed, no one should expect that economy to accelerate without a major fiscal boost. So it looks like once again, when it comes to the presidential race, it is the economy, stupid. 

  Published Date: 2020-08-05 

 Former Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates testified on Wednesday at the Senate Judiciary Committee that former Vice President Joe Biden was at a January 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office where Michael Flynn was discussed. Yates testified that she had not known about Flynn’s conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Yislyak until that meeting, and that the purpose had not been to discuss whether to investigate Flynn, or merely whether to withhold information from him for counterintelligence reasons. Flynn was the incoming National Security Advisor at the time. Notes taken at the time by then-FBI agent Peter Strzok, and released in June, indicated that Biden suggested Flynn could be investigated for violating the Logan Act, which prevents private citizens from conducting U.S. foreign policy. Yates said she did not remember all of the details of the January 5 meeting, which was first described by then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice in an email memorandum that she sent to herself as the Obama administration ended. She confirmed that Biden was there, but could not confirm whether he had brought up the Logan Act. “I don’t remember the Vice President saying much of anything,” she said. She said no formal decision had been made about investigating Flynn for violating the rarely-enforced Logan Act, though she said that she had been skeptical about the idea at the time. Other important points in Yates’s testimony included: – Yates testified that she would not sign the warrant application to the FISA court on Carter Page, knowing what she knows today. She acknowledged that the warrant, and the application for its renewal (both of which she had signed), had misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, given that the FBI relied on the “Steele dossier.” However, she said she had trusted the FBI’s analysis — even though she knew something of the dossier’s political origins. – Yates misstated several facts about the Michael Flynn case and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Yates claimed falsely that Flynn had lied to FBI agents — a conclusion very much in doubt, given new evidence. She also claimed falsely that he pleaded guilty twice to lying to the FBI; in fact, he only pleaded guilty once. And she claimed, falsely, that Flynn tried to “neuter” Obama administration sanctions on Russia; in fact, he asked Russia not to escalate. In addition, she testified George Papadopoulos had been a Russian intelligence asset — a false claim she had to walk back. – Yates could not explain why she believed there was a “legitimate” reason for investigating Flynn even after FBI agents recommended dropping the case on January 4, 2017. Yates testified that she believed the FBI agents who made that recommendation had not yet seen the transcripts of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, but there is no evidence to substantiate that claim. (The reason the agents actually gave at the time: FBI leadership wanted the case to continue.) – Yates admitted that former FBI Director James Comey went “rogue” by sending FBI agents to interview Flynn at the White House without warning White House counsel. She testified that she had been upset at the breach of FBI protocol, and that the Obama administration would not have been treated that way. She seemed not to remember that former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe discouraged Flynn from having an attorney present at the meeting. – Yates seemed to admit that Flynn was investigated because of policy concerns about the incoming administration. Yates could not provide any evidence of a crime Flynn had committed prior to meeting with the FBI agents in the White House, but said that the investigation was necessary because of concerns that the new administration would reverse the Obama administration’s (belated) policy of confronting Russia — a concern she admitted had to do with foreign policy. – “The Obama administration was not surveilling the Donald Trump campaign.” Yates pushed back against the idea that surveilling Page (a former campaign adviser) and Papadopoulos (a junior campaign adviser) amounted to surveilling the campaign itself, even though a FISA warrant would have allowed the FBI to look at Page’s previous communications. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, but the Department of Justice has since sought to drop the prosecution, after new evidence emerged to suggest Flynn had been framed — in part to undermine President Donald Trump’s administration. Biden has said he was at the meeting, and was aware that “they” wanted to investigate Flynn, but that he knew little more. The key question remains who pushed for the Flynn investigation, and why, despite no evidence of any wrongdoing. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.