Advice from the greatest liar in White House history. Or maybe all of American history.

His advice on California wildfires, handling or preventing, has the same value as his advice on the virus.

Lysol, bleach, and quack cures.

Wait for the warm weather, it will just go away.

That's the standard for measuring his advice on anything.

And his endless denunciations of the virus as a hoax and fake news reveal the quality of all his claims that other things are hoaxes or fake news.

Think climate change.

Think Russiagate.

Think the Deep State.

Think anything you like.

All of his denunciations of fake news and hoaxes are hoaxes and fake news.

As is all his advice about anything.

Mail in voting, for instance.

The real danger isn't fraud.

It's chaos and delay and contested counts all over the country.

The law and the constitution make no provision for a do over, which the stable genius has warned could be needed.

He doesn't get that if there is no identifiable winner he is out and done January 19th and somebody else gets the job on the 20th.

He doesn't get to stay on until someone is elected.

This is an important ruling on the Second Amendment.

Federal Appeals Court Rules California’s Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court on Friday overturned California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, ruling that the prohibition violates the Second Amendment.

“Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” Appellate Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the majority on the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, adding that California’s ban “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment — the right to armed self-defense.”

That is not the core of the Second Amendment, nor is it a consequence of that amendment in the least degree.

An individual right to keep and bear arms is not and does not entail a right to use those same arms for self-defense.

Just another muddle-headed lawyer, him, reading invisible ink without even knowing it.

And the core of the amendment is anyway the conditionality of the right to keep and bear arms on the falsehood that a militia is necessary to the defense of a free state.

The right is an undetachable consequent, conditional upon that falsehood.

It is a constitutional nullity.

Nor in any case does the restriction on magazines seriously inhibit the use of firearms for self-defense.

It is clearly intended to somewhat diminish the harm they can do used on offense.

At a school, say. Or a church.

One of the judges on the panel dissented, leaving a majority of two who voted to throw out the ban, which Lee wrote was passed “in the wake of heart-wrenching and highly publicized mass shootings.”

CNN is running ads for an evening show explaining the Electoral College

CNN at 10 pm tomorrow "Count on Controversy: inside the Electoral College".

They also have this other video.

The host said during an ad piece that an amendment providing for direct popular election of the president was supported by Nixon and got through the house and would have got through the senate but for a small-state filibuster.

On September 18, 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted by an overwhelming 338 to 70 to send a constitutional amendment to the Senate that would have dismantled the Electoral College, the indirect system by which Americans elect the president and vice president.

“It was the only time in American history that a chamber of Congress actually approved an amendment to abolish the Electoral College,” says Jesse Wegman, a member of the New York Times editorial board and author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College.

The House vote, which came in the wake of an extraordinarily close presidential election, mirrored national sentiment about scrapping an electoral system that allowed a candidate to win the presidency even while losing the popular vote. 

A 1968 Gallup poll found that 80 percent of Americans believed it was time to elect the nation’s highest office by direct popular vote.

Yet just a year later, the Senate bill that would have ended the Electoral College was dead in the water, filibustered by a cadre of Southern lawmakers intent on preserving the majority’s grip on electoral power in their states. 

Despite widespread bipartisan support for the amendment in both large and small states, the Senate came five votes shy of breaking the filibuster.

He said he thinks that means no such amendment will ever be sent to the states by the congress.

But if the Dems win both houses this fall and dump the filibuster?

Harris "birtherism" appearing, say CNN and BBC. "Racism, racism!" they scream, as does every Democrat they interview on the subject, lawyers included.

Well, not racism, and not the same as the baseless conspiracy theories about O being born in Kenya that doubtless gained currency largely because of white racism.

Instead, an accurate allusion by some conservatives to a lacuna in the settled understanding of the rarely self-explanatory US constitution and the federal law regarding US citizenship, to which Trump referred to broadcast media.

The claim is not that she wasn't born in the US but that the then immigration status of her parents makes her qualification questionable.

Similar questions, you may recall, were raised during the campaign of 2016 by some Republicans about Ted Cruz because he was born in Canada.

(John McCain was born at a naval air station in the then US Panama Canal Zone.)

Of course, this is Trump, the King of Chaos, trolling KH and the Democrats.

Trump stokes 'birther' conspiracy theory about Kamala Harris

After a conservative law professor questioned Ms Harris' eligibility based on her parents' immigration status at the time of her birth, Mr Trump was asked about the argument at a press conference on Thursday.

The president said: "I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements and by the way the lawyer that wrote that piece is a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.

"I have no idea if that's right. I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked that out before she gets chosen to run for vice-president.

"But that's a very serious, you're saying that, they're saying that she doesn't qualify because she wasn't born in this country."

The reporter replied there was no question that Ms Harris was born in the US, simply that her parents might not have been permanent US residents at the time.

Earlier on Thursday, a Trump campaign adviser, Jenna Ellis, reposted a tweet from the head of conservative group Judicial Watch, Tim Fitton.

In that tweet, Mr Fitton questioned whether Ms Harris was "ineligible to be vice-president under the US constitution's 'citizenship clause'".

He also shared the opinion piece published in Newsweek magazine by John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University in California, that Mr Trump was asked about.

Prof Eastman's argument, which he claims is also being made by other "commentators", hinges on the idea that Ms Harris may not have been subject to US jurisdiction if her parents were, for example, on student visas at the time of their daughter's birth in California.

"Her father was (and is) a Jamaican national, her mother was from India, and neither was a naturalized US citizen at the time of Harris' birth in 1964. 

That, according to these commentators, makes her not a 'natural born citizen' - and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president."

In 2010, Prof Eastman ran to be the Republican candidate for California attorney general. He lost to Steve Cooley, who went on to be defeated by Ms Harris, the Democratic candidate, in the general election.

Following furious backlash to the Newsweek op-ed, its editor-in-chief Nancy Cooper stood by the decision to publish, arguing on Thursday that Prof Eastman's article had "nothing to do with racist birtherism" and was instead "focusing on a long-standing, somewhat arcane legal debate".

BBC and every Democratic news source are denouncing this as racist garbage, but it is true that not just everyone born here is a citizen on that account, at all.

And even generally liberal Wikipedia reports there are areas of unclarity in the law where there are competing theories about who, born here, is automatically a citizen and the Supremes have never ruled in such a way as to cover all questions.

On the other hand, if immigration authorities at the time did not require her naturalization but accepted her birthright, would a court balk now?

And, personally, I would favor a generous reading of the constitution on this matter, even allowing birthright citizenship and qualification for the presidency to children born here to illegals.

And KH's parents were not illegals, but legal immigrants not yet granted permanent residency when she was born in Oakland, reportedly.

As I have suggested more than once, it is a flaw in our constitutional arrangements that we do not have a clear account of citizenship settling all questions of eligibility and no formal authority conducting formal reviews of persons coming forward as candidates whose OK is legally necessary to even being a candidate.

<Update>

BBC just now indicated on the air the lawyer who brought up the issue in Newsweek sees daylight between being a birthright citizen under the 14th Amendment and relevant US law on the one side and being "a natural born citizen" in whatever is the sense required by Article II, Section 1. 

He did not question, as I took the article above to indicate, whether KH is a birthright citizen under the 14th Amendment but whether she is a natural born citizen. 

The article above cited and quoted has the two questions rather muddled. 

Cruz and McCain were not even born here but were accepted by most people as natural born.

Why really should we accept that someone who was born here and is a citizen on that account is not natural born? 

Has any court ruled on the general question?

Could anyone seek a ruling?  

I personally would have thought anyone who did not need to be naturalized is natural born.

This is Article II, Section 1. 

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States 

 </Update>

Seizing his chance, the Duce strikes a deep blow at Social Security, Medicare

None of this is legal or constitutional.

But it's one hell of a victory for the hardest of the hard right.

Add this to the giant Trump tax cut for the rich and his continuing efforts to destroy utterly every jot of the ACA and you will see him endearing himself to the plutes whose support is deathless for the most vicious version of capitalism possible.

This kind of move shows Trump knows how to make his populism appealing to the really big money on the right.

And his repeated use of unconstitutional means is just so typical of the increasing radicalism, extremism, and ferocity of the American political scene.

Trump signs executive orders after coronavirus relief talks falter

President Trump on Saturday signed orders to extend unemployment benefits, suspend payroll taxes, and offer federal eviction and student loan relief, taking unilateral action that is on shaky legal ground amid stalled negotiations about a fifth round of coronavirus relief in Congress.

Executive Orders for virus relief?

He has no legal or constitutional authority to do any of this.

And the last is the prize he's really after. The rest is just a smokescreen.

Trump again threatens executive orders to extend benefits after stimulus talks fall apart

The president described the four proposals he was preparing to take executive action on: 

• Unemployment: A $600 weekly unemployment benefit expired July 31, leaving many out-of-work Americans in a state of financial limbo. It's unclear whether the president may extend the benefit or lower it to a smaller amount, something many Republicans have requested. When asked, Trump would not say the amount he was prepared to offer but said he would be extending the benefits until the end of the year.
• Evictions: A federal moratorium on evictions expired July 24, putting at risk the tenants of more than 12 million rental units nationwide if they miss payments. The president said he wants to extend these protections to ensure renters are not evicted due to the pandemic, but did not say until when. 
• Student loans: Congress also suspended payments on some student loans due to the virus. The provision is set to expire at the end of September. The president said Friday he wanted to extending the deferments "until further notice."
• Payroll tax cut: For months, the president has pushed for a payroll tax cut but has been met with blunt opposition from both parties in both chambers in Congress. Trump said Friday he was preparing to defer payroll taxes until the end of the year, an order he said would be retroactive from July 1.

From the man who suggested injecting Lysol for Covid-19

As part of his scare propaganda about the mess that would result from extensive mail-in voting, Bozo urged the election be put off until we can do it in person in safety.

But the constitution says the time of choosing electors and the day of their voting is up to Congress and election day, when electors are chosen, has been the same since before the Civil War.

The date when the electors meet and vote is also governed by longstanding law.

Congressional leaders of both parties have already poured scorn on the idea of delay.

But what if the elections are held and there is enough mess that, though house and senate seats are decided in time for the new Congress on January 3rd, the presidency and, perforce, the vice presidency are still contested?

Apparently, if no new president and Veep are chosen by January 20 then the person next in the line of presidential succession per the Presidential Succession Act, the Speaker of the House, becomes president on January 21 and stays in office until the elected president and Veep are chosen.

The relevant constitutional text authorizes congress to settle who shall be president in a number of cases which notably do not include that of an absurdly unsettled election, but all the same . . . .

In all probability that will be Nancy Pelosi.

Enough to give a Republican pause, eh?

Trump's tweet on delaying election

Earlier on Thursday, Trump tweeted, 

"With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???"

Trump still making shit up

The discretion to which he appeals is fake news.

The constitution specifies who is to be counted.

It requires all persons be counted and taken into account for purposes of apportionment - really the only purpose for which the constitution requires the census in the first place.

Trump signs order to prevent illegal immigrants from being counted in redrawing of voting districts

An amendment to do this or to base apportionment only on citizens might well be ratified.

But Bozo doesn't get to do this by decree.

The opposite of cancel culture

Apparently, broadly speaking, authorities can refuse to allow messages on public property, but if they do they can't discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.

California city washes away BLM mural after Trump supporter requests ‘MAGA 2020’ display

Anybody suing de Blasio, I wonder?

The majority view on the right, just now?

Andrew McCarthy: Portland riots – it is Trump's constitutional duty to enforce federal law and he should

Not a bad piece, but he misses the chance to cite Eisenhower in Little Rock, as other Republicans have done, in defense of Trump's right to intervene to enforce law and order even in flat defiance of local or state authorities.

Not a great move when the narrative is almost entirely favorable to the mayors and the 50 odd days of street theater they have allowed

CNN, MSNBC, pretty much all the media are against him, giving Tammy Duckworth and others an open mike to attack the Duce.

He has some defenders in conservative media whose public reach is virtually negligible.

The Duce is apparently planning to send federales to a slew of major cities with Democratic mayors, still ongoing demonstrations breaking down apparently every day into rioting, and a marked uptick in violent crime.

Trump administration preparing to send federal agents to Chicago

The tenor of the reaction in Democratic media such as CNN and MSNBC is not far from that of Steve M's post on the deployments to Portland and Chicago.

Meanwhile, on Fox News cable, this is very nearly a non-story.

(It looks like Hannity - "Unrest in America Out of Control" - and a few others with talk shows are supporting him.)

Not much to be found at the Fox website, either.

But talking heads at Fox cable have talked some about this apparently unconstitutional and unprecedented absurdity.

Trump signs order to prevent illegal immigrants from being counted in redrawing of voting districts

A White House official said it clarifies that those in the country illegally would not be included for the redrawing process -- known as apportionment -- of congressional districts after the census. 

Census counts are used to determine the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives, the number of electors in the Electoral College and hundreds of billion dollars of federal spending.

“Excluding illegal aliens for the purpose of apportionment reflects a better understanding of our Constitution and democratic principles,” the official said.

The order says that the Constitution "does not specifically define which persons must be included in the apportionment base."

"Although the Constitution requires the 'persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed,' to be enumerated in the census, that requirement has never been understood to include in the apportionment base every individual physically present within a State's boundaries at the time of the census," the order says.

"Instead, the term 'persons in each State' has been interpreted to mean that only the 'inhabitants' of each State should be included," it says. 

"Determining which persons should be considered 'inhabitants' for the purpose of apportionment requires the exercise of judgment."

It then says that that discretion "delegated to the executive branch to determine who qualifies as an 'inhabitant includes authority to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status."

Dishonesty is sometimes the best policy

The Supremes today cancelled the freedom of the electors to save the republic from the idiocy of the voters by cancelling their authority to actually choose the president.

On the other hand, affirming their authority to make their own choice would invite far more widespread faithlessness motivated and inspired by shocking new levels of skulduggery and corruption.

Most of the time, the rules of the states lead to results that mirror the popular vote nationally.

Admitting the freedom of the electors could lead to results that far more often defy the national popular vote.

So this utterly dishonest decision is more than welcome.

Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' can't go rogue at Electoral College

They affirm that state constraints on the votes of electors are constitutionally OK and can be enforced, though where they don't exist the electors are free to vote as they choose.

Nor does it seem they pronounced the faithless votes of faithless electors invalid.

They regard the electors as mere agents who must do as they are told. If they are told.

The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.

"Because it would be stupid" is not a reason to disbelieve that the constitution says or does something.

Nor is it a good reason to disbelieve the constitution does not say or do something.

But it's a good, if contestable, reason to say that the constitution says or does something, or that it does not.

Good answer, but what was the question?

Supreme Court: Montana Can't Exclude Religious Schools From Scholarship Program

A First Amendment free exercise issue, a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection (anti-discrimination) issue, or both?

Roberts went with the conservatives on this one.

Add Idaho to the list

Of places in America you would never move to.

Rightwing vigilantes on armed patrol after fake rumours of antifa threat

Every day they give us more reasons to abolish the Second Amendment.

Remember that loon who shot up the pizza shop where, per right wing loonies, Hillary and other Democrats were running a child sex ring?

They are all but unimaginably stupid.

Constitutional disobedience.

Whole swaths of the foolish thing are honored largely - some exclusively - in the breach.

Supreme Court appears poised to let states keep 'faithless electors' out of the Electoral College

The electoral college is a blot on democracy. The Supreme Court shouldn't make it worse

Of course, punishing them after the fact does not invalidate their votes, and the punishments are not such as to deter anyone serious.

Some state laws do purport to invalidate the votes of faithless electors, but I don't know how that works out in reality.

Some state laws forbidding faithlessness neither punish it nor invalidate faithless votes.

Wikipedia.

The Supremes dare not just shit-can the EC in favor of direct popular election of the president since that would reveal the nudity of the King who professes to wear robes emblazoned, "I am an honest jurist. I only enforce what the Constitution actually says, making it prevail always in all things. My vote never reflects my judgement of what is desirable or best in defiance of what the Framers gave us. Oh, my, no. Never that."

However thin the robes may seem.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh asked during the argument in the Washington case whether the court ought not to be guided by what he called “the avoid-chaos principle of judging.”

I imagine the remark greeted with much hilarity. But likely not. Notoriously humorless, these robed bureaucrats.

And, anyway, Republicans don't want popular election because they do like their EC wins.

"Faithless elector" laws preserve those wins.

Best thing? Lie.

We can't handle the truth.

Apart from giving added power to smaller states in the choice of president, the only reason for the existence of the EC is to take the decision out of the hands not only of the people but even of the states, their governors or legislatures.

The choice of the electors is clearly supposed to be as ad lib as the votes of legislators or the choices of the president.

They are not mere messengers or mouthpieces for anyone.

The very concept of a faithless elector rests on completely, and even willfully, missing the point.

Faithless electors: US supreme court to weigh role of electoral college members

See Article II, Section 1, clauses 1 through 3.

Subsequent amendments don't affect the argument.

But nobody wants to accept the system prescribed by the constitution.

The only honest way out is by passing an amendment.

But, honest or not, we need a way out.

Protected activities can be regulated for the public safety, nonetheless

GOP congressman says virus safety rules violate 'religious liberty'

People, especially Republicans, are so deferential to this craziness.

Looks like substantive due process rather than equal protection. Interesting either way.

Detroit students have the right to an education, federal appeals court rules

No hint of the basis for this call in the story but there is a link to a pdf of the opinion, Gary B. vs. Gretchen Whitmer.

Create a recess so he can do recess appointments?

McConnell Dismisses Trump’s Call to Adjourn Congress to Make Federal Appointments

President Trump raised the possibility that he could invoke Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution to adjourn Congress in order to make recess federal appointments, a never-before-used presidential power that Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) suggested he would not support.

Trump proposed during the White House coronavirus press briefing on Wednesday that we would use his “very strong power” to “exercise my Constitutional authority to adjourn both chambers of Congress.”

But it is not a power to adjourn congress ad lib.

He can only do it if and when the two houses of congress cannot agree on a time of adjournment, and nothing of the sort is happening or in prospect.

Article II Section 3 reads in pertinent part

. . . in Case of Disagreement between them [the two houses of congress], with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he [the president] may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper . . .

All the same, Trump is rightly frustrated because though the congress is already in recess, making the power to adjourn them irrelevant, anyway, at the same time it pretends not to be in a manner intended precisely and only to prevent recess appointments.

Something that annoyed the heck out of O, back in the day, and that the Supremes endorsed against him.

Congress, currently in recess until May 4, is still having pro-forma sessions in which any lawmaker can object to a motion — preventing the president from pushing through vacancy appointments.

“The current practice of leaving town while conducting phony pro forma sessions is a dereliction of duty the American people can’t afford during this crisis,” Trump said. “They have been warned.”

. . . .

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case against a 2012 attempt by then-President Barack Obama to make three recess appointments during pro-forma sessions, saying “that the Recess Appointment Clause does not give the President the constitutional authority to make the appointments here at issue.”

A warning from AG Barr of an impending constitutional clash?

If Bozo tells the states to knock off the lockdowns in, say, mid-May and they refuse, what happens?

Maybe this is a hint.

Laura Ingraham Very Concerned Americans Can’t ‘Freely’ Catch And Spread Coronavirus

She interviewed AG Barr.

INGRAHAM: 

Right now, we have no freedom of worship, public worship to go, to gather.  

We have no real freedom of assembly, not even freedom of movement, given what some of the states are doing.  

What can you tell our viewers tonight about what the Justice Department will do after this limited period to ensure that our civil liberties are balanced properly against the need to protect the public?

BARR: 

Well, you know, generally speaking there are occasions where liberties have to be restricted during certain emergencies such as war or, in this case, a potentially devastating pandemic but they have to be balanced.  

Whatever steps you take have to be balanced against the civil liberties of the American people and it cannot be used as an excuse for broad deprivations of liberty.  

So as things proceed, you know we're going to be interested in both what the federal government is imposing and also making sure that that's justified but also what the states do.  

The states have very broad well as you know what we call police powers they have very broad powers that the federal government doesn't have to regulate the lives of their citizens as long as they don't violate the Constitution. 

So we'll be keeping a careful, a careful eye on that.

But she wanted a more explicit commitment, so she continued with specific reference to events in New York.

INGRAHAM: 

Governor Cuomo spoke out this week very forcefully this holy week for Christians, obviously Passover as well for Jewish Americans, about the importance of not gathering together to celebrate and I want you to listen.

VIDEO CLIP OF ANDREW CUOMO: 

Now is not the time for large religious gatherings.  

I mean, we've paid this price already. 

We've learned this lesson. 

You do no one a service by making this worse and infecting more people.

INGRAHAM: 

At what point in time do Americans feel like they're going to be able to have that right back and that the federal government will stand up if local officials continue this all-out prohibition going forward?

Barr assured her that he is “very, very concerned” about such restrictions but he also acknowledged that government has the power to impose them during a time of public emergency, such as this one.

She went on.

INGRAHAM: 

I tweeted out something earlier today, just how, you know, these are inalienable rights. 

It means - and there's a lot of Americans today who are mourning those who've lost their lives in this horrible virus who also say the government doesn't have this right, to take this right, to take our rights away. even when the experts are saying this is a horrible time for us health wise.

Salus publica suprema lex est?

Barr explicitly agrees but she is flatly denying government - the state governments, in this instance - has the authority to limit these First Amendment rights in the interests of public health.

She evidently agrees with the claim of those who insist the lockdown is right now unconstitutional and has been from the start because the individual rights in question cannot be limited for the sake of public health.

[Aside: Napolitano, in quoting the Supremes, ignores that the public health emergency posed by the Coronavirus is not a war, despite propaganda and hyperbole to the contrary, nor is the public effort to deal with the danger. That means the quoted passages are simply not relevant to the problem at hand. And see this.]

Barr is not agreeing to that, at all.

And it seems noteworthy that the Duce himself, who has repeatedly, impatiently, and angrily denounced the lockdown as "worse than the disease", does not seem to share that view, either.

But the AG does seem to be signalling readiness to argue the need has passed and so continuing the lockdown is unconstitutional in court when Trump wants him to.

Interesting how far the parties have switched sides on the need for government imposed social discipline for the sake of public health since the time when Obama had to cope with Ebola and the Republicans were demanding more intrusive methods in the face of O's delicacy.

The Duce clearly wants his Coronavirus economics committee to run the rollback of the lockdown on a timetable of his choice - a choice incorporating their views as well as those of the public health gurus under Fauci and Birx.

Suppose his Coronavirus economics committee starts issuing rollback instructions to commence May 1 and the states tell them and Bozo to pound sand.

Will Barr go to the courts to attack the continuation of the lockdown as unnecessary and so a violation of the Bill of Rights, relying on the incorporation doctrine so often denounced by right wingers eager for a return of the "constitution in exile"?

Will Democratic state governments defend the need for a slower rollback as a legitimate limit to the individual rights in question, all which have always been understood to allow exceptions?

Will Barr insist that the duty of the president to enforce the constitution against the states both means his judgement must prevail over theirs as regards the timing of the rollback and legitimates the authority of his economic committee to control it in as much detail as they say they need?

Cuomo said today New York is developing it's own rollback plan.

Will the governors of surrounding states who followed New York's lead on the lockdown opt again to follow Cuomo's lead on the rollback?

Bozo refused responsibility (blame) for controlling or coordination the public health response to the virus, forcing the states to impose, define, and control the lockdowns.

Now he's getting ready to demand the authority (credit) for removing the lockdowns.

Behavior completely true to his opportunist and narcissist and even crooked presidency.

Cuomo on Pathways Nursing and Rehab lending the state 35 ventilators that have now been returned: "Thank you for your incredible generosity" and "Love conquers all".