hotair--2020-08-05--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Beirut blast, bartering economy, human trafficking, identity

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Beirut blast, bartering economy, human trafficking, identity politics, religious liberty, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• We ’ ll get the latest news and analysis about the explosion in Beirut from Heritage Foundation expert James Carafano • Has the COVID-19 crisis accelerated the growth of a bartering economy — and what would that mean ?
Karl Gibbons explains .
• Camillus House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact and cost of human trafficking , and also about the recognition they received for their efforts to combat COVID-19 .
• Heritage ’ s Mike Gonzalez joins us to discuss the impact and distortion that identity politics create in the American electorate .
We ’ ll discuss his new book The Plot to Change America , which gives readers a deep dive on the subject .
• Has California infringed on religious liberty ?
Thomas More Society ’ s Jenna Ellis joins us to discuss efforts to push back against Gavin Newsom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour .
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
We’ll get the latest news and analysis about the explosion in Beirut from Heritage Foundation expert James Carafano
Has the COVID-19 crisis accelerated the growth of a bartering economy — and what would that mean? Karl Gibbons explains.
Camillus House‘s Hilda Fernandez talks about the impact and cost of human trafficking, and also about the recognition they received for their efforts to combat COVID-19.
Heritage’s Mike Gonzalez joins us to discuss the impact and distortion that identity politics create in the American electorate. We’ll discuss his new book The Plot to Change America, which gives readers a deep dive on the subject.
Has California infringed on religious liberty? Thomas More Society’s Jenna Ellis joins us to discuss efforts to push back against Gavin Newsom
And more to come … stay tuned!
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-08-05--"I'm about done with this crap": Documents, voicemail show prosecutors pressured detective into sign

"I'm about done with this crap": Documents, voicemail show prosecutors pressured detective into signing off on McCloskey charges

If police determined that at least one person in the mob on Mark and Patricia McCloskey ’ s property was armed , another labeled “ Human Shield , ” and several issued threats against the couple … then why were they charged at all ?
Local NBC affiliate KSDK reported last week that documents and a voicemail show that Kimberly Gardner ’ s office pressured the lead detective on the case to “ quickly reassess this evidence , ” and when that didn ’ t work , threatened his supervisor with bad publicity unless the detective relented .
That puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more questionable light — and likely makes it impossible to boot ( via Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms ) : The lead St. Louis police detective investigating the McCloskey case refused to sign at least two versions of court documents prosecutors drafted , according to a review of those documents obtained by 5 On Your Side .
In addition , police contend at least one person in the crowd was armed and another was wearing a bullet-resistant vest , after analyzing videos taken June 28 , when the couple confronted protesters with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 On Your Side include an email Gardner ’ s Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley sent to the lead investigator on the case , Sgt .
Curtis Burgdorf .
Hinckley emailed police the day before the McCloskeys were served with a search warrant , stating it needed to happen “ now.
” “ At this point , everything points to these weapons being real and loaded , but no one has asked or confirmed , ” he wrote .
“ Come trial , they ’ ll say they were waiving around a BB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed up with a voicemail : 5 On Your Side also obtained a voice mail Hinckley left Burgdorf after he wrote his response to Burgdorf ’ s objections .
On it , he states : “ Curtis , you need to call me back .
I wrote a long email to you trying to ask a bunch of questions about whatever it is you said some was ( expletive ) .
Now we need to straighten this out because I ’ m about done with this crap .
Call me back.
” When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went over Burgdorf ’ s head .
That included a thinly veiled threat to go public in attacking the police for not complying with Gardner ’ s interpretation of the evidence , no small matter in a time when riots were taking place in cities across the country : “ Our office is receiving inquiries from the public and press about a warrant application and potential charges .
We ’ ve thus far said the matter ‘ remains under investigation.
’ I ’ d really like to avoid pointing to a police follow-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t control the messaging if this goes on any longer .
Please see what you can do to help this along .
Again , I ’ m asking for priority on the firearms issue.
” Burgdorf had a list of fourteen concerns with Hinckley ’ s probable-cause statement , KSDK reports .
Burgdorf eventually got most of the issues resolved in his favor , but not without a lot of angry retorts from Hinckley , who wanted immediate action in order to file charges .
That raises one important question : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , let ’ s return to John Sexton ’ s post last week : The election took place yesterday , just days after Gardner and Hinckley strong-armed the police department into signing off on the probable-cause statement .
Guess who won ?
Want to bet that the first line of defense for the McCloskeys will be pointing out the political pressure exerted by Gardner ’ s office in relation to the primary two weeks out ?
Especially since Det .
Burgdorf ’ s continuing investigation has produced evidence that the mob actually did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and broke the gate to get onto their private property ?
At some point , a judge should demand to know why Gardner and Hinckley rushed to judgment and threatened police to get an indictment before the investigation had reached an end .
That will only be a rhetorical question , of course .
The answer is obvious now .
But now it ’ s moot anyway , since Gardner got what she wanted out of the exercise — renomination , and a walkover in November .
What a disgrace .

If police determined that at least one person in the mob on Mark and Patricia McCloskey’s property was armed, another labeled “Human Shield,” and several issued threats against the couple … then why were they charged at all? Local NBC affiliate KSDK reported last week that documents and a voicemail show that Kimberly Gardner’s office pressured the lead detective on the case to “quickly reassess this evidence,” and when that didn’t work, threatened his supervisor with bad publicity unless the detective relented. That puts the prosecution of the McCloskeys in an even more questionable light — and likely makes it impossible to boot (via Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms):
The lead St. Louis police detective investigating the McCloskey case refused to sign at least two versions of court documents prosecutors drafted, according to a review of those documents obtained by 5 On Your Side. In addition, police contend at least one person in the crowd was armed and another was wearing a bullet-resistant vest, after analyzing videos taken June 28, when the couple confronted protesters with guns. … The documents obtained by 5 On Your Side include an email Gardner’s Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley sent to the lead investigator on the case, Sgt. Curtis Burgdorf. Hinckley emailed police the day before the McCloskeys were served with a search warrant, stating it needed to happen “now.” “At this point, everything points to these weapons being real and loaded, but no one has asked or confirmed,” he wrote. “Come trial, they’ll say they were waiving around a BB gun and an air rifle.”
He followed up with a voicemail:
5 On Your Side also obtained a voice mail Hinckley left Burgdorf after he wrote his response to Burgdorf’s objections. On it, he states: “Curtis, you need to call me back. I wrote a long email to you trying to ask a bunch of questions about whatever it is you said some was (expletive). Now we need to straighten this out because I’m about done with this crap. Call me back.”
When that didn’t work, Hinckley went over Burgdorf’s head. That included a thinly veiled threat to go public in attacking the police for not complying with Gardner’s interpretation of the evidence, no small matter in a time when riots were taking place in cities across the country:
Hinckley also wrote to Burgdorf’s commander, Maj. Angela Coonce. “Our office is receiving inquiries from the public and press about a warrant application and potential charges. We’ve thus far said the matter ‘remains under investigation.’ I’d really like to avoid pointing to a police follow-up request as the hold-up, but I won’t control the messaging if this goes on any longer. Please see what you can do to help this along. Again, I’m asking for priority on the firearms issue.”
Burgdorf had a list of fourteen concerns with Hinckley’s probable-cause statement, KSDK reports. Burgdorf eventually got most of the issues resolved in his favor, but not without a lot of angry retorts from Hinckley, who wanted immediate action in order to file charges. That raises one important question: What was the urgency?
For that, let’s return to John Sexton’s post last week:
Wednesday an attorney for Mark & Patricia McCloskey filed two motions to have St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner disqualified from their case. The twin motions allege that Gardner used their case for campaign fundraising both before and after charges against them were filed.
The election took place yesterday, just days after Gardner and Hinckley strong-armed the police department into signing off on the probable-cause statement. Guess who won?
Want to bet that the first line of defense for the McCloskeys will be pointing out the political pressure exerted by Gardner’s office in relation to the primary two weeks out? Especially since Det. Burgdorf’s continuing investigation has produced evidence that the mob actually did threaten the McCloskeys, was armed, and broke the gate to get onto their private property? At some point, a judge should demand to know why Gardner and Hinckley rushed to judgment and threatened police to get an indictment before the investigation had reached an end.
That will only be a rhetorical question, of course. The answer is obvious now. But now it’s moot anyway, since Gardner got what she wanted out of the exercise — renomination, and a walkover in November. What a disgrace.


hotair--2020-08-05--Biden to skip Democratic convention in Milwaukee due to COVID concerns

Seems like a mistake .
Granted , the older you are , the more you ’ re at risk of a “ poor outcome ” from the disease , as doctors are known to delicately phrase it .
And Biden ’ s , like , a thousand .
But he should be looking for ways to signal to voters that he ’ s not too frail to do the job .
They ’ ve gotten used to him doing interviews from his basement , but if it ’ s too risky for him to show up at a mostly empty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention , maybe the presidency itself is too risky .
There ’ s no guarantee that a vaccine will work , or work particularly well , or work particularly well for people Biden ’ s age .
How ’ s he supposed to perform his duties next year if he can ’ t safely travel from Point A to Point B with all sorts of precautions taken to protect his health ?
I ’ m sure Wisconsinites won ’ t hold it against him , though .
They ’ re used to Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate Joe Biden will not travel to Milwaukee to accept his party ’ s White House nomination because of concerns over the coronavirus .
That ’ s according to a Democrat with knowledge of the decision who spoke to The Associated Press on Wednesday on condition of anonymity to discuss planning .
The move is the latest example of the pandemic ’ s sweeping effects on the 2020 presidential election and the latest blow to traditional party nominating conventions that historically have marked the start of fall general election campaigns .
Two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preparations for the Democrats ’ pageant in Milwaukee , including a huge video screen behind the podium that would display Zoom feeds from up to 64 people , be they delegates , important Democratic figures , or random voters .
They even had a tentative schedule for key speakers : Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders on night one , Jill Biden on night two , the VP nominee on night three , and Biden on night four .
( Barack Obama would be shoehorned in there somewhere . )
Importantly , Biden himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Milwaukee .
Now that he ’ s not attending , what ’ s left of the convention itself ?
“ It ’ s not a convention if no one convenes , ” quipped NYT reporter Astead Herndon .
The delegate roll call formally nominating Biden was already set to be a hybrid event done “ remotely and live , ” per the Daily Beast , but in light of Biden ’ s announcement today presumably that ’ ll be fully remote as well .
It looks like the entire “ convention ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as for Joe , he ’ ll reportedly speak — where else ?
— from Delaware , where he ’ s holed up .
Question : Why is this being announced today ?
Partly it ’ s because Democrats are running out of time to announce a major change of plans , with events set to begin in just 12 days .
But I wonder if they chose this morning to spread the news because they got some political cover from the Trump White House last night .
Trump is reportedly considering not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention to deliver his nomination acceptance speech as well .
Where ’ s he going to speak ?
Why , the south lawn of the White House , according to one proposal .
Which , although not quite illegal , is an ethical transgression in how it would apply the trappings of the public office he holds to his personal interests , i.e .
winning reelection .
Go figure that a guy who tried to use military aid to squeeze Ukraine for dirt on his presidential opponent once again isn ’ t being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public ’ s interest and his own .
Under federal law , government employees and property are generally barred from being used for political purposes , with notable exceptions .
The Hatch Act , which prevents federal officials from certain forms of political activity at work , exempts both the president and the vice president from any restrictions… “ He may not be violating the Hatch Act , but he is ordering other people to , ” [ former Bush ethics chief Richard ] Painter said .
“ At a certain point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that is a violation of the Hatch Act.
” Potential Hatch Act violations are investigated by the Office of Special Counsel , which refers its findings back to the White House to take further action .
But two Democratic lawyers , who requested anonymity to discuss private deliberations , said that while Hatch Act violations do not result in criminal prosecutions , the misuse of congressionally appropriated funds for a political purpose could be criminally enforceable , and the statute of limitations would not have run out in 2021 , when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes office .
I think Trump won ’ t end up doing this .
Not because he ’ ll have any ethical qualms about it , lord knows , but because the backlash to it will make it more trouble than it ’ s worth .
And not just a backlash from the usual suspects , either : Stroman is a former spokesman for Trump ’ s inaugural committee .
Giving the speech from the White House would tee up Biden and Democrats to use it as an example of how Trump can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office even at a moment when he ’ s pleading with voters to grant him a four-year extension in it .
The unflattering coverage would risk overshadowing his own speech .
Why doesn ’ t he try to arrange for his address to be held in front of some monument somewhere that leftists have targeted or criticized ?
He could go back to Mt .
Rushmore if need be .
Or , if it ’ s logistically possible , he could speak in front of the Lincoln “ Emancipation ” monument in D.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although that ’ s probably not feasible given the risk of protesters trying to disrupt the event .
Police would have to clear many blocks around the statue to secure it .
How about Gettysburg ?
Trump could do his own Gettysburg address ( in the swing state of Pennsylvania too ) .
Hopefully he ’ ll refrain from saying something complimentary about the Confederacy if he ’ s tightly scripted .

Seems like a mistake. Granted, the older you are, the more you’re at risk of a “poor outcome” from the disease, as doctors are known to delicately phrase it. And Biden’s, like, a thousand.
But he should be looking for ways to signal to voters that he’s not too frail to do the job. They’ve gotten used to him doing interviews from his basement, but if it’s too risky for him to show up at a mostly empty arena to deliver remarks at his own convention, maybe the presidency itself is too risky. There’s no guarantee that a vaccine will work, or work particularly well, or work particularly well for people Biden’s age. How’s he supposed to perform his duties next year if he can’t safely travel from Point A to Point B with all sorts of precautions taken to protect his health?
I’m sure Wisconsinites won’t hold it against him, though. They’re used to Democratic presidential nominees not visiting.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden will not travel to Milwaukee to accept his party’s White House nomination because of concerns over the coronavirus. That’s according to a Democrat with knowledge of the decision who spoke to The Associated Press on Wednesday on condition of anonymity to discuss planning. The move is the latest example of the pandemic’s sweeping effects on the 2020 presidential election and the latest blow to traditional party nominating conventions that historically have marked the start of fall general election campaigns.
Two weeks ago the Daily Beast reported on elaborate preparations for the Democrats’ pageant in Milwaukee, including a huge video screen behind the podium that would display Zoom feeds from up to 64 people, be they delegates, important Democratic figures, or random voters. They even had a tentative schedule for key speakers: Michelle Obama and Bernie Sanders on night one, Jill Biden on night two, the VP nominee on night three, and Biden on night four. (Barack Obama would be shoehorned in there somewhere.) Importantly, Biden himself would be the only speaker physically present in Milwaukee.
Now that he’s not attending, what’s left of the convention itself? “It’s not a convention if no one convenes,” quipped NYT reporter Astead Herndon. The delegate roll call formally nominating Biden was already set to be a hybrid event done “remotely and live,” per the Daily Beast, but in light of Biden’s announcement today presumably that’ll be fully remote as well. It looks like the entire “convention” may be virtual this year. And as for Joe, he’ll reportedly speak — where else? — from Delaware, where he’s holed up.
Question: Why is this being announced today? Partly it’s because Democrats are running out of time to announce a major change of plans, with events set to begin in just 12 days. But I wonder if they chose this morning to spread the news because they got some political cover from the Trump White House last night. Trump is reportedly considering not traveling to the site of the GOP convention to deliver his nomination acceptance speech as well. Where’s he going to speak? Why, the south lawn of the White House, according to one proposal. Which, although not quite illegal, is an ethical transgression in how it would apply the trappings of the public office he holds to his personal interests, i.e. winning reelection. Go figure that a guy who tried to use military aid to squeeze Ukraine for dirt on his presidential opponent once again isn’t being a stickler about a bright line between the public’s interest and his own.
Under federal law, government employees and property are generally barred from being used for political purposes, with notable exceptions. The Hatch Act, which prevents federal officials from certain forms of political activity at work, exempts both the president and the vice president from any restrictions… “He may not be violating the Hatch Act, but he is ordering other people to,” [former Bush ethics chief Richard] Painter said. “At a certain point you are using White House resources, and that is a violation of the Hatch Act.” Potential Hatch Act violations are investigated by the Office of Special Counsel, which refers its findings back to the White House to take further action. But two Democratic lawyers, who requested anonymity to discuss private deliberations, said that while Hatch Act violations do not result in criminal prosecutions, the misuse of congressionally appropriated funds for a political purpose could be criminally enforceable, and the statute of limitations would not have run out in 2021, when the winner of this year’s election takes office.
I think Trump won’t end up doing this. Not because he’ll have any ethical qualms about it, lord knows, but because the backlash to it will make it more trouble than it’s worth. And not just a backlash from the usual suspects, either:
Thune: “Is that even legal? I assume that’s not something that you could do. I assume there’s some Hatch Act issues or something there. I don’t know the answer to that." Thune added: "I think anything you do on federal property would seem to be problematic." https://t.co/jk916KC6qK — Manu Raju (@mkraju) August 5, 2020
https://twitter.com/alexstroman/status/1290984434863415297
Stroman is a former spokesman for Trump’s inaugural committee. Giving the speech from the White House would tee up Biden and Democrats to use it as an example of how Trump can’t resist petty corruption of the office even at a moment when he’s pleading with voters to grant him a four-year extension in it. The unflattering coverage would risk overshadowing his own speech. Why doesn’t he try to arrange for his address to be held in front of some monument somewhere that leftists have targeted or criticized? He could go back to Mt. Rushmore if need be. Or, if it’s logistically possible, he could speak in front of the Lincoln “Emancipation” monument in D.C. that some Jacobins wanted to tear down, although that’s probably not feasible given the risk of protesters trying to disrupt the event. Police would have to clear many blocks around the statue to secure it.
How about Gettysburg? Trump could do his own Gettysburg address (in the swing state of Pennsylvania too). Hopefully he’ll refrain from saying something complimentary about the Confederacy if he’s tightly scripted.


hotair--2020-08-05--Another riot was declared in Portland last night (Update: Here's why that truck took off)

A riot was declared in Portland early Wednesday morning .
It was the second since federal police agreed to leave the city .
The target of the latest riot activity was the Portland Police Association office .
Protesters broke in through the back door and tried to set the building on fire : A riot was declared in the early hours of Wednesday after demonstrators gathered across Portland on Tuesday and later marched to the Portland Police Association building where some set fires and barricaded public roadways for the 68th night of protests against systemic racism and police… Upon reaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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… The riot was declared about an hour later once a group of protesters breached the PPA building , causing damage and setting fire to the building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left the area by 3:30 a.m .
The crowd marched to the PPA building and immediately started trying to figure out how to break in : Arson is the goal but I think this dumpster fire is a pretty good metaphor for these rioters : The rioters did eventually break into the back door of the PPA and attempt to set a fire inside .
Portland police published this photo of the damage to the door : It appears the building was targeted in advance : While all of this was happening , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going on last night .
Protesters set up barricades in the street : But the visual highlight of the night took place when a protester tried to stop a pickup truck at one of the makeshift barricades .
The protester zooms in from the right side of the frame and puts his motorcycle on the ground in front of the truck to prevent it from advancing .
The truck driver , clearly looking to escape the mob , sped forward , dragging the bike down the street in a shower of sparks : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ No one was hit by the truck and the driver was cooperative when interviewed by officers.
” Here ’ s another angle : Last week I suggested that it was unlikely the mob would be able to take the win ( when federal police agreed to leave the city ) and tone down the violence : Getting rid of federal officers was never really the point .
These nightly protests/riots were happening for weeks before the federal reinforcements showed up .
In fact , the feds showed up because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave ( eventually ) doesn ’ t mean this is over .
These were never pro-federalism protests they were anti-police protests .
Replacing federal police with state police shouldn ’ t make much difference to people whose stated goal is to defund police .
Since then , they got two good news cycles out of not trying to burn anything down .
But that appears to be all they could manage .
Since then we ’ ve had two riots declared in less than a week , the one early this morning and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just about getting rid of the federal police .
This is Antifa looking for an excuse to attack anything connected to the police .
Update : I missed this earlier but there ’ s another angle on the truck that shows why it took off so fast .
Someone was slashing his tires .

A riot was declared in Portland early Wednesday morning. It was the second since federal police agreed to leave the city. The target of the latest riot activity was the Portland Police Association office. Protesters broke in through the back door and tried to set the building on fire:
A riot was declared in the early hours of Wednesday after demonstrators gathered across Portland on Tuesday and later marched to the Portland Police Association building where some set fires and barricaded public roadways for the 68th night of protests against systemic racism and police… 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… The riot was declared about an hour later once a group of protesters breached the PPA building, causing damage and setting fire to the building. The majority of the crowd had left the area by 3:30 a.m.
The crowd marched to the PPA building and immediately started trying to figure out how to break in:
Somebody asked if anyone had a crowbar (the entrance is boarded up). Crowd seemed momentarily unsure of what to do next, now chants have resumed. pic.twitter.com/SQe4YXs6SZ — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 5, 2020
Arson is the goal but I think this dumpster fire is a pretty good metaphor for these rioters:
Dumpster on fire in the middle of the street. pic.twitter.com/pvitMDPZqt — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 5, 2020
The rioters did eventually break into the back door of the PPA and attempt to set a fire inside. Portland police published this photo of the damage to the door:
It appears the building was targeted in advance:
Without federal offices to fight, #antifa have moved on to attacking other buildings that belong to Portland Police (what they were doing before feds came). The past two nights they targeted the SE building. Tonight they’re going to north Portland, close to the north precinct. pic.twitter.com/WusSRw3ZYa — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 5, 2020
While all of this was happening, there was a lot of other chaos going on last night. Protesters set up barricades in the street:
Antifa rioters blockade street near the SE Portland Police building. They steal benches from a nearby a restaurant to use as barricades. They end up trashing the street & leaving that there for others to clean, like last time. #PortlandRiots pic.twitter.com/aFGVGKaJ1o — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 4, 2020
Shots were fired, apparently at a car.
The moment shots were fired during the antifa riot in North Portland overnight. #PortlandRiots https://t.co/596uEv53Jn — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 5, 2020
But the visual highlight of the night took place when a protester tried to stop a pickup truck at one of the makeshift barricades. The protester zooms in from the right side of the frame and puts his motorcycle on the ground in front of the truck to prevent it from advancing. The truck driver, clearly looking to escape the mob, sped forward, dragging the bike down the street in a shower of sparks:
Pickup sped through crowd and rammed through the fence, sparks flying. pic.twitter.com/0zumuvzNKC — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 5, 2020
The police description of the night notes, “No one was hit by the truck and the driver was cooperative when interviewed by officers.” Here’s another angle:
Last week I suggested that it was unlikely the mob would be able to take the win (when federal police agreed to leave the city) and tone down the violence:
Getting rid of federal officers was never really the point. These nightly protests/riots were happening for weeks before the federal reinforcements showed up. In fact, the feds showed up because of the nightly violence. So having the feds leave (eventually) doesn’t mean this is over. These were never pro-federalism protests they were anti-police protests. Replacing federal police with state police shouldn’t make much difference to people whose stated goal is to defund police.
Since then, they got two good news cycles out of not trying to burn anything down. But that appears to be all they could manage. Since then we’ve had two riots declared in less than a week, the one early this morning and one Saturday night. This was never just about getting rid of the federal police. This is Antifa looking for an excuse to attack anything connected to the police.
Update: I missed this earlier but there’s another angle on the truck that shows why it took off so fast. Someone was slashing his tires.


hotair--2020-08-05--Cartoon strip pulled from newspapers, Cartoonist refuses to apologize to critics

Award-winning cartoonist Bianca Xunise finds herself in a controversy over one of her cartoon strips .
The angry mob tried to cancel her and she refuses to play along .
Xunise is offering up no apologies for her work .
The second Black woman to be nationally syndicated in the U.S. — one of three Black women syndicated today , Xunise ’ s cartoons are typically dark humor .
She drew a cartoon about face masks and when it was published , the complaints rolled in .
The cartoon shows a Black woman ( her ) walking past a White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wearing a face mask and an “ I Can ’ t Breathe ” t-shirt .
The White woman looks at her and says , “ If you can ’ t breathe , then take that silly mask off !
” Looks like just a dumb joke , right ?
At first glance , yes .
However , the cartoonist had a more nuanced message in mind .
She ’ s a social justice warrior , which her work reflects , so that should have been expected by her audience .
Mostly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gothic-style of artwork .
This isn ’ t Peanuts , y ’ all .
The comic strip was called inappropriate and offensive and it was removed from several newspapers .
The comic is provided by Six Chix , a rotating team of creators that provides comics for over 120 newspapers .
One newspaper ran an apology in place of the comic .
The newspapers are being accused of censorship now and of running away from potentially offending White readers .
There is a more nuanced message in the cartoon , you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , or something .
Xunise was pointing out that White people trivialize the inconvenience of wearing a face mask by conflating it with oppression .
And , it was a dunk on liberal White people who regularly call others racist .
So , there ’ s an explanation for you .
Looking at you , liberal White people who feel superior to everyone else .
Tea Fougner , editorial director at King Features , the comic strip ’ s syndicate , confirmed to NBC News that angry responses to the strip resulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from publication entirely .
While the company is not allowed to share the names of its clients , Fougner said , an apology was printed at an undisclosed newspaper in the comic ’ s usual spot later in the week .
“ We have notified the syndicate that provides the comic that we will no longer be running Six Chix in our newspaper as a result , ” the apology read .
“ We ’ ve also requested an apology from them .
Our apologies for a cartoon that reflected the exact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a newspaper.
” The part about an apology being issued in one newspaper didn ’ t sit well with the cartoonist .
She ’ s not apologizing .
She ’ s right .
It is censorship and she is perfectly entitled to not issue an apology for her work .
The newspapers who picked up the syndicated cartoon strip knew what they were getting .
Not every comic strip is going to appeal to every newspaper reader .
Her cartoons veer into politics so , at any given time , at least half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not appreciate her message .
Fougner is speaking up for Xunise and points to the fact that the comic strip combines two timely issues – the plague and the BLM movement , in her own way .
Usually , when the outrage mob strikes , liberal artists are the first to cave and apologize for whatever offense that they created .
The newspapers running the comic strip wanted to run a woke comic strip .
That ’ s what they got .
Instead of apologizing to their readers , the newspapers took the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a controversial comic strip .
The hypocrisy now is that the newspapers feign surprise that an offensive comic would be published .
They knew what they were getting when they signed off on running it .
This is such a 2020 kind of controversy .
No one will ever be woke enough to please everyone .
Cancel culture is a creation of the far left who demand uniformity in thought and speech .
Let them live with it .
Why are White liberals surprised that Black social justice warriors call them out for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Liberal White people don ’ t see their own racism , that ’ s why .
And , they sure don ’ t like it pointed out to them .

Award-winning cartoonist Bianca Xunise finds herself in a controversy over one of her cartoon strips. The angry mob tried to cancel her and she refuses to play along. Xunise is offering up no apologies for her work.
The second Black woman to be nationally syndicated in the U.S. — one of three Black women syndicated today, Xunise’s cartoons are typically dark humor. She drew a cartoon about face masks and when it was published, the complaints rolled in. The cartoon shows a Black woman (her) walking past a White woman in a grocery store. She is wearing a face mask and an “I Can’t Breathe” t-shirt. The White woman looks at her and says, “If you can’t breathe, then take that silly mask off!”
Here it is, the comic that launched 1000 angry responses. Please clap pic.twitter.com/Cy42h8mlMB — desperately seeking serotonin ✨ (@biancaxunise) July 28, 2020
Looks like just a dumb joke, right? At first glance, yes. However, the cartoonist had a more nuanced message in mind. She’s a social justice warrior, which her work reflects, so that should have been expected by her audience. Mostly, her comics reflect her depressed personality with a gothic-style of artwork. This isn’t Peanuts, y’all. The comic strip was called inappropriate and offensive and it was removed from several newspapers. The comic is provided by Six Chix, a rotating team of creators that provides comics for over 120 newspapers. One newspaper ran an apology in place of the comic.
The newspapers are being accused of censorship now and of running away from potentially offending White readers. There is a more nuanced message in the cartoon, you see, and people are just not getting it, or something. Xunise was pointing out that White people trivialize the inconvenience of wearing a face mask by conflating it with oppression. And, it was a dunk on liberal White people who regularly call others racist.
Ok now to explain this comic because everyone has been getting it wrong. It’s easy to assume that the white woman talking to me is a racist, that may or may not be true but that is not the point. The point is how white people see issues that effect black peoples as trivial. (1/3) — desperately seeking serotonin ✨ (@biancaxunise) July 28, 2020
The whole mask debate has been compared to oppression which I find incredibly offensive. The fact that white peoples want to claim oppression now for having to do their civic duty of protecting others is not the black struggle whatsoever. (2/3) — desperately seeking serotonin ✨ (@biancaxunise) July 28, 2020
Yt ppl have assumed for generations that racism is simply about our sensitivity & not a systemic issue. Furthermore I want this comic to challenge liberal whites who assume that every white person they feel superior over is racist. This is just a random white woman, idk her (3/3) — desperately seeking serotonin ✨ (@biancaxunise) July 28, 2020
So, there’s an explanation for you. Looking at you, liberal White people who feel superior to everyone else.
Tea Fougner, editorial director at King Features, the comic strip’s syndicate, confirmed to NBC News that angry responses to the strip resulted in some newspapers dropping “Six Chix” from publication entirely. While the company is not allowed to share the names of its clients, Fougner said, an apology was printed at an undisclosed newspaper in the comic’s usual spot later in the week. “We have notified the syndicate that provides the comic that we will no longer be running Six Chix in our newspaper as a result,” the apology read. “We’ve also requested an apology from them. Our apologies for a cartoon that reflected the exact opposite of what we stand for as a newspaper.”
The part about an apology being issued in one newspaper didn’t sit well with the cartoonist. She’s not apologizing.
So apparently the angry responses got my comic dropped from some newspapers and an apology that I did not approve of is running in its place. For the record I do not apologize for this comic and this is censorship. https://t.co/rfIAMP6wO9 pic.twitter.com/TcLwcxJS1o — desperately seeking serotonin ✨ (@biancaxunise) July 30, 2020
She’s right. It is censorship and she is perfectly entitled to not issue an apology for her work. The newspapers who picked up the syndicated cartoon strip knew what they were getting. Not every comic strip is going to appeal to every newspaper reader. Her cartoons veer into politics so, at any given time, at least half of the newspaper’s readers will not appreciate her message. Fougner is speaking up for Xunise and points to the fact that the comic strip combines two timely issues – the plague and the BLM movement, in her own way.
“Bianca created the July 28, 2020, ‘Six Chix’ cartoon to be a joke commenting on how Black issues are often disregarded as a personal problem and not a systemic issue,” Fougner said. “She is shedding light on two pandemics right now: one on race and another on COVID-19, and both are not being taken seriously while they are destroying lives.”
Usually, when the outrage mob strikes, liberal artists are the first to cave and apologize for whatever offense that they created. The newspapers running the comic strip wanted to run a woke comic strip. That’s what they got. Instead of apologizing to their readers, the newspapers took the squishy response and simply got rid of a controversial comic strip. The hypocrisy now is that the newspapers feign surprise that an offensive comic would be published. They knew what they were getting when they signed off on running it.
Xunise added that the comic went through two checkpoints: one with her editors and another with the newspaper editors that made the final decision to publish it. “The editors at whatever newspaper it lands at should’ve read the comics and flagged it if they got offended,” Xunise said. “I’m just an artist; that’s your job.”
This is such a 2020 kind of controversy. No one will ever be woke enough to please everyone. Cancel culture is a creation of the far left who demand uniformity in thought and speech. Let them live with it. Why are White liberals surprised that Black social justice warriors call them out for their own racism? You know why. Liberal White people don’t see their own racism, that’s why. And, they sure don’t like it pointed out to them.


hotair--2020-08-05--Report: Biden allies believe VP choice is down to Kamala Harris and Susan Rice

That was my guess in last night ’ s post too .
The reporting lately has made it seem as though there ’ s a final three — Harris , Rice , and Karen Bass — but if Bass ’ s Castro baggage hasn ’ t already buried her , the oppo that ’ s been dropped in the past 24 hours will finish her off .
Politico reported that she warmly eulogized a former top official in the U.S. Communist Party as a “ friend and mentor ” a few years ago .
Today Politico dinged her again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opening of a Scientologist church in 2010 was a lie .
I spoke there because the church was in my state assembly district , Bass had claimed .
The church wasn ’ t in her district , it turns out .
Even if Biden wanted to spend the rest of the campaign answering questions about whether his VP is a pinko , which he doesn ’ t , Bass ’ s bungling response to the dirt that ’ s been dug up on her shows she ’ s not ready for primetime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick .
And then there were two : Confidants of Joe Biden believe his choices for vice president have narrowed to Sen. Kamala Harris and Susan Rice — and would be surprised if he picks anyone else .
The state of play : This is a snapshot of the nearly unanimous read that we get from more than a dozen people close to him… Rice is getting a big bounce from Obama people who claim her presence on the ticket would guarantee the enthusiastic presence of both Barack and Michelle Obama on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down to a popularity contest with Obama alumni , Rice has an edge — and Rice allies point to her White House experience .
It ’ s not just Team Obama that has its fingers crossed for Susan Rice .
She has a cheering section of sorts on the right as well : Joe Biden still may be undecided about whom to pick for a running mate , but Donald Trump ’ s team knows exactly whom it wants : Susan Rice .
Trump ’ s aides and allies accuse Rice — without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of helping cover up crimes for two of the president ’ s favorite foils , Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton , making her just the kind of “ deep state ” villain who could fire up his MAGA base .
“ She is absolutely our No .
1 draft pick , ” a Trump campaign official said .
“ I can ’ t think of anyone that is more polarizing who would fire up the base than Susan Rice , ” former congressman turned Fox News personality Jason Chaffetz said .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an odd pick .
Biden ’ s strategy to this point has been to lull the electorate as much as possible , knowing that that makes it much harder for Trump to reprise his “ lesser of two evils ” strategy from 2016 .
Deprive swing voters of grounds to dislike him and GOP base voters of grounds to turn out against him and he ’ s hard to beat .
Choosing Rice could wake those groups up .
It ’ s also strange that he ’ d consider Rice at a moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finishing up an investigation into the Russiagate probe .
Even if Rice turns out not to be a major player in their findings , having two Obama administration alums on the Democratic ticket instead of one potentially deepens Biden ’ s exposure to any electoral backlash .
With Rice on the ticket , it ’ s easier for Trump to claim that the Obama White House tried to sabotage his presidency from the start and now they ’ re trying to implement a full restoration , up to and including Susan Rice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Several news outlets are reporting that Biden wants a lower-profile governing partner without any presidential ambitions of their own , an atypical approach for a party looking to anoint new generational talent for the future.
” Right , one of the arguments for Biden this year among Democrats is that he ’ ll probably serve only one term , thus acting as a “ bridge ” to the next generation of Democratic leaders .
Among the people who ’ ve made that argument is , uh , Joe Biden .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination will be a free-for-all : Rice will be a contender , but with a thin record and an expertise in foreign rather than domestic policy she wouldn ’ t be a strong one .
Harris as VP would be more formidable .
Does Biden , a centrist , want a free-for-all four years from now , knowing how a leftist candidate might easily prevail ?
Or does he want to steer the party towards a more establishment choice by anointing Harris now ?
He can influence the direction of Democrats depending upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a harder strategic decision for Biden than I ’ ve made it seem .
The core message of his campaign is that America needs to undo the Trump presidency and revert to politics as it was circa 2015 .
Viewed that way , Rice is a logical choice : Let ’ s reinstate the Obama presidency to the fullest extent we can constitutionally by elevating VP Biden to the Oval Office and elevating NSA Rice to VP .
But Biden ’ s also been at pains to reassure Berniebros and the rest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just be neoliberal business as usual if he ’ s elected .
He intends to put the country on a more progressive track , if not as progressive as Sanders would have .
In that case , his VP selection calls for someone new , not an Obama retread .
Although , if the point is to signal a new leftward direction for Democrats and America , Warren is the logical pick , not a calculating squish like Harris .
But Biden needs an African-American woman and Warren doesn ’ t qualify .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rice and Harris , I think the farther ends of the political spectrum on both sides would prefer Rice .
As noted above — and below — she ’ s more ripe for attacks by Republicans .
And progressives would probably view her as mildly preferable to Harris precisely because she ’ s more beatable in the 2024 primary .
In the end I think Biden will throw up his hands and choose the “ safe ” pick , Harris .
She ’ ll do fine in a debate against Pence , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duty between now and Election Day .
Exit quotation from Varad Mehta : “ A process that excludes Amy Klobuchar but ends with Susan Rice as a finalist is a bad one .
”

That was my guess in last night’s post too. The reporting lately has made it seem as though there’s a final three — Harris, Rice, and Karen Bass — but if Bass’s Castro baggage hasn’t already buried her, the oppo that’s been dropped in the past 24 hours will finish her off. Politico reported that she warmly eulogized a former top official in the U.S. Communist Party as a “friend and mentor” a few years ago. Today Politico dinged her again, noting that her excuse for speaking at the opening of a Scientologist church in 2010 was a lie. I spoke there because the church was in my state assembly district, Bass had claimed. The church wasn’t in her district, it turns out.
Even if Biden wanted to spend the rest of the campaign answering questions about whether his VP is a pinko, which he doesn’t, Bass’s bungling response to the dirt that’s been dug up on her shows she’s not ready for primetime. She won’t be the pick.
And then there were two:
Confidants of Joe Biden believe his choices for vice president have narrowed to Sen. Kamala Harris and Susan Rice — and would be surprised if he picks anyone else. The state of play: This is a snapshot of the nearly unanimous read that we get from more than a dozen people close to him… Rice is getting a big bounce from Obama people who claim her presence on the ticket would guarantee the enthusiastic presence of both Barack and Michelle Obama on the campaign trail. If the contest comes down to a popularity contest with Obama alumni, Rice has an edge — and Rice allies point to her White House experience.
It’s not just Team Obama that has its fingers crossed for Susan Rice. She has a cheering section of sorts on the right as well:
Joe Biden still may be undecided about whom to pick for a running mate, but Donald Trump’s team knows exactly whom it wants: Susan Rice. Trump’s aides and allies accuse Rice — without delving too deeply into the evidence — of helping cover up crimes for two of the president’s favorite foils, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, making her just the kind of “deep state” villain who could fire up his MAGA base. “She is absolutely our No. 1 draft pick,” a Trump campaign official said.
“I can’t think of anyone that is more polarizing who would fire up the base than Susan Rice,” former congressman turned Fox News personality Jason Chaffetz said. That’s one reason she’d be an odd pick. Biden’s strategy to this point has been to lull the electorate as much as possible, knowing that that makes it much harder for Trump to reprise his “lesser of two evils” strategy from 2016. Deprive swing voters of grounds to dislike him and GOP base voters of grounds to turn out against him and he’s hard to beat. Choosing Rice could wake those groups up.
It’s also strange that he’d consider Rice at a moment when John Durham and Bill Barr are finishing up an investigation into the Russiagate probe. Even if Rice turns out not to be a major player in their findings, having two Obama administration alums on the Democratic ticket instead of one potentially deepens Biden’s exposure to any electoral backlash. With Rice on the ticket, it’s easier for Trump to claim that the Obama White House tried to sabotage his presidency from the start and now they’re trying to implement a full restoration, up to and including Susan Rice.
Josh Kraushaar makes a fair point too: “Several news outlets are reporting that Biden wants a lower-profile governing partner without any presidential ambitions of their own, an atypical approach for a party looking to anoint new generational talent for the future.” Right, one of the arguments for Biden this year among Democrats is that he’ll probably serve only one term, thus acting as a “bridge” to the next generation of Democratic leaders. Among the people who’ve made that argument is, uh, Joe Biden. If he chooses Rice, the 2024 Democratic nomination will be a free-for-all: Rice will be a contender, but with a thin record and an expertise in foreign rather than domestic policy she wouldn’t be a strong one. Harris as VP would be more formidable. Does Biden, a centrist, want a free-for-all four years from now, knowing how a leftist candidate might easily prevail? Or does he want to steer the party towards a more establishment choice by anointing Harris now? He can influence the direction of Democrats depending upon whom he chooses.
That’s a harder strategic decision for Biden than I’ve made it seem. The core message of his campaign is that America needs to undo the Trump presidency and revert to politics as it was circa 2015. Viewed that way, Rice is a logical choice: Let’s reinstate the Obama presidency to the fullest extent we can constitutionally by elevating VP Biden to the Oval Office and elevating NSA Rice to VP. But Biden’s also been at pains to reassure Berniebros and the rest of the left that it won’t just be neoliberal business as usual if he’s elected. He intends to put the country on a more progressive track, if not as progressive as Sanders would have. In that case, his VP selection calls for someone new, not an Obama retread.
Although, if the point is to signal a new leftward direction for Democrats and America, Warren is the logical pick, not a calculating squish like Harris. But Biden needs an African-American woman and Warren doesn’t qualify.
If the choice really is down to Rice and Harris, I think the farther ends of the political spectrum on both sides would prefer Rice. As noted above — and below — she’s more ripe for attacks by Republicans. And progressives would probably view her as mildly preferable to Harris precisely because she’s more beatable in the 2024 primary. In the end I think Biden will throw up his hands and choose the “safe” pick, Harris. She’ll do fine in a debate against Pence, which is really the VP’s only duty between now and Election Day. Exit quotation from Varad Mehta: “A process that excludes Amy Klobuchar but ends with Susan Rice as a finalist is a bad one.”


hotair--2020-08-05--Biden reverses on cognitive tests: "Why the hell would I take a test?"

How did CNN report this moment ?
“ Biden clarifies that he has not taken cognitive test , ” their headline reads .
Actually , it ’ s a full flip-flop ; Biden claimed in June that he ’ d been “ constantly ” tested on cognition .
Now , however , it ’ s akin to taking a drug test , or something : “ No , I haven ’ t taken a test .
Why the hell would I take a test ?
” Biden said during an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists and National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set to air in full on Thursday .
“ Come on , man .
That ’ s like saying you , before you got on this program , you take a test where you ’ re taking cocaine or not .
What do you think ?
Huh ?
Are you a junkie ?
” Biden said , becoming testy with the reporter who asked whether he had taken a cognitive test .
“ Testy ” ?
Did Biden really just challenge CBS reporter Errol Barnett to prove he ’ s not a junkie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think that was Biden ’ s point .
The problem is that it ’ s impossible to tell what Biden ’ s point is , except that he ’ s changed his mind on taking cognition tests , and that they are somehow like random drug testing in his fevered brain .
What about the claim Biden makes about Trump not being able to “ figure out the difference between an elephant and a lion ” ?
That ’ s tough to figure out too .
It might have had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Guardian a couple of weeks ago , except that was about a rhino , not a lion : If you ’ re lucky enough to not have any cognitive impairment , this part is also easy .
There are three drawings – a lion , rhino and camel .
As mentioned , there are a few versions of the test with very minor differences – for example , the test Fox News showed during the interview had an elephant on it ( you can see it here ) , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This has led some of Trump ’ s critics to baselessly claim that he can ’ t tell the difference between the two .
While Biden claims he ’ s “ so forward looking to have an opportunity to sit with the president , or stand with the president in debates , ” Team Biden tried doing a clean-up on Aisle 78 on Biden ’ s clear contradiction of his claim in June : At a campaign event in June , when asked by a reporter if he has been tested for any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s “ been tested and I ’ m constantly tested ” as it relates to his cognitive abilities .
Biden ’ s advisers say he was referring to the everyday rigors of a campaign .
“ I can hardly wait to compare my cognitive capability to the cognitive capability of the man I ’ m running against , ” Biden said then .
“ Clarifies , ” eh ?
The only clarity that comes from this response is that Biden ’ s either lying , or he ’ s forgetting what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neither option makes Biden look good , but his anger combined with his disjointed response suggest that Biden should be taking cognitive tests , maybe on a daily basis .
Maybe someone should test the campaign runners , too .
Their claim about “ everyday rigors of a campaign ” makes no sense at all with Biden .
He hasn ’ t budged out of his basement for more than a couple of days this summer , and hasn ’ t held a press conference in two months .
Donald Trump might not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he ’ s in front of the press on a daily basis again and out campaigning in public .
This is the response of a cranky , tired old man who ’ s in over his head .
Small wonder they ’ re hiding Biden in the basement .
Come on , man .

How did CNN report this moment? “Biden clarifies that he has not taken cognitive test,” their headline reads. Actually, it’s a full flip-flop; Biden claimed in June that he’d been “constantly” tested on cognition. Now, however, it’s akin to taking a drug test, or something:
BIDEN: "No, I haven't taken a test. Why the hell would I take a test? C'mon man. That's like saying you, before you got in this program, if you take a test where you're taking cocaine or not, what do you think huh? Are you a junkie?" pic.twitter.com/f6UMPJq381 — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 5, 2020
“No, I haven’t taken a test. Why the hell would I take a test?” Biden said during an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists and National Association of Hispanic Journalists that’s set to air in full on Thursday. “Come on, man. That’s like saying you, before you got on this program, you take a test where you’re taking cocaine or not. What do you think? Huh? Are you a junkie?” Biden said, becoming testy with the reporter who asked whether he had taken a cognitive test.
“Testy”? Did Biden really just challenge CBS reporter Errol Barnett to prove he’s not a junkie? Naaah … or at least I don’t think that was Biden’s point. The problem is that it’s impossible to tell what Biden’s point is, except that he’s changed his mind on taking cognition tests, and that they are somehow like random drug testing in his fevered brain.
What about the claim Biden makes about Trump not being able to “figure out the difference between an elephant and a lion”? That’s tough to figure out too. It might have had something to do with a claim debunked by the Guardian a couple of weeks ago, except that was about a rhino, not a lion:
If you’re lucky enough to not have any cognitive impairment, this part is also easy. There are three drawings – a lion, rhino and camel. As mentioned, there are a few versions of the test with very minor differences – for example, the test Fox News showed during the interview had an elephant on it (you can see it here), but the latest test has a rhino instead. This has led some of Trump’s critics to baselessly claim that he can’t tell the difference between the two.
While Biden claims he’s “so forward looking to have an opportunity to sit with the president, or stand with the president in debates,” Team Biden tried doing a clean-up on Aisle 78 on Biden’s clear contradiction of his claim in June:
At a campaign event in June, when asked by a reporter if he has been tested for any sort of cognitive decline, Biden said he’s “been tested and I’m constantly tested” as it relates to his cognitive abilities. Biden’s advisers say he was referring to the everyday rigors of a campaign. “I can hardly wait to compare my cognitive capability to the cognitive capability of the man I’m running against,” Biden said then.
“Clarifies,” eh? The only clarity that comes from this response is that Biden’s either lying, or he’s forgetting what he claimed just two months ago. Neither option makes Biden look good, but his anger combined with his disjointed response suggest that Biden should be taking cognitive tests, maybe on a daily basis.
Maybe someone should test the campaign runners, too. Their claim about “everyday rigors of a campaign” makes no sense at all with Biden. He hasn’t budged out of his basement for more than a couple of days this summer, and hasn’t held a press conference in two months. Donald Trump might not be the most articulate of politicians, but he’s in front of the press on a daily basis again and out campaigning in public.
This is the response of a cranky, tired old man who’s in over his head. Small wonder they’re hiding Biden in the basement. Come on, man.


hotair--2020-08-05--Trump will provide full disclosure on UFOs... if Lou Dobbs asks him to

It ’ s a bit too soon for me to begin taking a victory lap over my speculation that the President might decide to offer full disclosure regarding government knowledge of UFOs as some sort of October surprise .
We ’ re not there yet .
But another interesting piece of the puzzle may have dropped into place last night .
Lou Dobbs was hosting his usual show on the Fox Business channel and he had the President on the phone as his guest .
( This isn ’ t unusual as the two are reportedly good friends . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , the topic took a sudden turn from the usual political banter .
Dobbs pitched “ the question ” to Donald Trump .
That would be the question that everyone in the ufology field is always hoping to hear .
He asked if the President was going to put more resources into UFO research and offer the public full transparency .
Trump may have been laughing while giving his answer , but I ’ m not entirely sure he was joking .
( Newsweek ) President Donald Trump has pledged allegiance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vowing to do “ whatever ” the Fox Business host asks .
Trump made the remarks during a Tuesday interview with Dobbs , one of the president ’ s most outspoken admirers .
Dobbs invoked a popular right-wing conspiracy theory by praising Trump for being “ transparent ” despite the efforts of a supposed “ deep state ” working against him before asking him about whether he would release new information about UFOs .
“ A lot of my friends are very concerned about what the federal government is doing with regards to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask you… are you going to commit more resources to exploring UFOs and open the documents to the public ?
” Dobbs asked .
“ Well I think you ’ re probably… in this country , you ’ re the UFO expert , ” replied Trump .
“ So , I ’ m going to be guided by the great Lou Dobbs .
And I will tell you that I ’ ll do whatever you ask me to do , including total transparency.
” Listen for yourself and see what you think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be easy to write this off as just some joking around between friends , and perhaps that ’ s all it will turn out to be .
That ’ s certainly one interpretation after hearing how the President was chuckling through much of his answer and how he flattered Dobbs as being “ the UFO expert.
” But if you listen to it a second time , Dobbs really doesn ’ t start laughing until Trump does .
Unless he was trying to pull off a straight-faced bit of schtick , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in the topic .
And Dobbs has brought it up in the past as well .
Dobbs finishes by saying that he ’ ll be calling on the President soon to discuss the issue further .
It ’ s only after Trump laughs a bit after the first sentence of his answer that Dobbs starts laughing along with him .
The idea that a sitting President would “ do whatever ” a cable news host says is rather preposterous , but this is 2020 and it ’ s Trump ’ s presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But let me get down to the serious part of the analysis here .
I ’ m betting that President Trump didn ’ t intend this as some sort of firm campaign promise or policy announcement .
But as we ’ ve discussed here before , Donald Trump is constantly monitoring the media ’ s coverage of him and he tracks popular themes being covered .
The UFO topic has been all over the news lately and now one of his most trusted news show hosts has asked him about it on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the headlines he generated when his son asked him about it on Father ’ s Day .
The wheels have to be turning in Donald Trump ’ s head by now .
This is a popular subject .
People want to know about it .
And he is perhaps in one of the best positions of anyone in the world to deliver .
We all know how much Donald Trump likes to be the guy to deliver the big win or the bread and circuses that the crowds adore .
Despite his earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being particularly interested in the UAP question , I wouldn ’ t be in the least bit shocked if he ’ s already set up a meeting to have someone brief him more fully and help figure out if this is something he can use .
With both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the mainstream media digging around for information , this is now a legitimate topic that Trump could use to his advantage .
And given the state of the presidential race , if there ’ s an advantage on the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Donald Trump is probably the most likely one to grab it that I could imagine .
Will we all close out 2020 owing Lou Dobbs a huge debt of gratitude ?
In any event , everyone with a good contact for Lou should get him on the phone immediately .
H needs to give the President his marching orders at once .

It’s a bit too soon for me to begin taking a victory lap over my speculation that the President might decide to offer full disclosure regarding government knowledge of UFOs as some sort of October surprise. We’re not there yet. But another interesting piece of the puzzle may have dropped into place last night. Lou Dobbs was hosting his usual show on the Fox Business channel and he had the President on the phone as his guest. (This isn’t unusual as the two are reportedly good friends.) Near the end of the interview, however, the topic took a sudden turn from the usual political banter. Dobbs pitched “the question” to Donald Trump. That would be the question that everyone in the ufology field is always hoping to hear. He asked if the President was going to put more resources into UFO research and offer the public full transparency. Trump may have been laughing while giving his answer, but I’m not entirely sure he was joking. (Newsweek)
President Donald Trump has pledged allegiance to “UFO expert” Lou Dobbs, vowing to do “whatever” the Fox Business host asks. Trump made the remarks during a Tuesday interview with Dobbs, one of the president’s most outspoken admirers. Dobbs invoked a popular right-wing conspiracy theory by praising Trump for being “transparent” despite the efforts of a supposed “deep state” working against him before asking him about whether he would release new information about UFOs. “A lot of my friends are very concerned about what the federal government is doing with regards to UFOs, so if I could just ask you… are you going to commit more resources to exploring UFOs and open the documents to the public?” Dobbs asked. “Well I think you’re probably… in this country, you’re the UFO expert,” replied Trump. “So, I’m going to be guided by the great Lou Dobbs. And I will tell you that I’ll do whatever you ask me to do, including total transparency.”
Listen for yourself and see what you think about the tone being taken here.
Donald Trump: "Well, I think you're the — probably in this country — you're the UFO expert, so I'm going to be totally guided by the great Lou Dobbs…I'll do whatever you ask me to do" pic.twitter.com/o9rzBaC8aY — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) August 4, 2020
It would be easy to write this off as just some joking around between friends, and perhaps that’s all it will turn out to be. That’s certainly one interpretation after hearing how the President was chuckling through much of his answer and how he flattered Dobbs as being “the UFO expert.” But if you listen to it a second time, Dobbs really doesn’t start laughing until Trump does. Unless he was trying to pull off a straight-faced bit of schtick, he sort of sounded like he was actually interested in the topic. And Dobbs has brought it up in the past as well. Dobbs finishes by saying that he’ll be calling on the President soon to discuss the issue further.
It’s only after Trump laughs a bit after the first sentence of his answer that Dobbs starts laughing along with him. The idea that a sitting President would “do whatever” a cable news host says is rather preposterous, but this is 2020 and it’s Trump’s presidency. I’ve heard weirder things.
But let me get down to the serious part of the analysis here. I’m betting that President Trump didn’t intend this as some sort of firm campaign promise or policy announcement. But as we’ve discussed here before, Donald Trump is constantly monitoring the media’s coverage of him and he tracks popular themes being covered. The UFO topic has been all over the news lately and now one of his most trusted news show hosts has asked him about it on the air. This comes after all the headlines he generated when his son asked him about it on Father’s Day.
The wheels have to be turning in Donald Trump’s head by now. This is a popular subject. People want to know about it. And he is perhaps in one of the best positions of anyone in the world to deliver. We all know how much Donald Trump likes to be the guy to deliver the big win or the bread and circuses that the crowds adore. Despite his earlier denials of being a believer or even being particularly interested in the UAP question, I wouldn’t be in the least bit shocked if he’s already set up a meeting to have someone brief him more fully and help figure out if this is something he can use.
With both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the mainstream media digging around for information, this is now a legitimate topic that Trump could use to his advantage. And given the state of the presidential race, if there’s an advantage on the table that’s ready to be grabbed, Donald Trump is probably the most likely one to grab it that I could imagine. Will we all close out 2020 owing Lou Dobbs a huge debt of gratitude? In any event, everyone with a good contact for Lou should get him on the phone immediately. H needs to give the President his marching orders at once.


hotair--2020-08-05--NYC Mayor: No, we didn't have a permit for the BLM murals, but you still need one

The Mayor of the Big Apple hasn ’ t been having a particularly good week .
First , his Health Commissioner turned in his notice , blasting Hizzoner ’ s failed handling of the COVID-19 disaster on the way out the door .
And now the media has resurrected the questions surrounding Bill de Blasio ’ s decision to help paint gigantic Black Lives Matter murals on the streets of all five boroughs while so far failing to approve requests for any other such political speech on the city ’ s asphalt .
You see , the Mayor didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the artwork before rolling up his sleeves and sloshing some paint around .
But he ’ s insisting that anyone else wishing to do so will have to go through the usual channels .
How does he explain this inconsistency ?
Easy .
Shut up , he explained .
( Daily Wire ) New York City mayor Bill de Blasio admitted Monday that he did not follow proper permitting procedure when he ordered city workers to paint Black Lives Matter murals in each of the city ’ s five bureaus , the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city at legal risk and opening the door for more political speech in the form of street art .
On Monday , the mayor claimed that the city has not turned down requests to paint street murals , but said that there is a “ process ” for applying to create public art .
“ We haven ’ t said ‘ no ’ to people , we ’ ve said , ‘ If you want to apply , you can apply , but there ’ s a process , ’ ” De Blasio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Mayor , he did offer a bit more of an explanation than that to the New York Post .
He said “ That is something that again transcends all normal realities because we are at a moment of history when that had to be said and done , that ’ s a decision I made .
But the normal process continues for anyone who wants to apply.
” Did you catch what Hizzoner was saying there ?
This is a “ moment in history ” and a Man of Destiny like Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with piddling things like municipal laws or codes .
He is too busy saving the world to be stuck at his desk filling out request forms .
He was called to action .
But if any of you other suckers want to go expressing yourselves on the mean streets of New York , you ’ re going to have to go through the normal process , get a permit and pay a fee .
Is this guy a mayor or a monarch ?
The Mayor ’ s claim about not having said ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubious at best .
While he may not have said no , he also hasn ’ t said yes .
And plenty of people have applied for permits now that the streets have been designated as appropriate locations for political speech in the form of giant block letters .
One group that supports Donald Trump , Women for America First , has been waiting for almost two months for an answer to their permit application and has now taken the city to court over the delay .
The office of the Public Transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side as well .
Without offering any sort of legal justification , they claimed that “ the city is able to make unilateral decisions on individual requests.
” But in the case of the Mayor , there wasn ’ t any request on the record .
He just decided to do it as if he were the King .
Perhaps that ’ s how the world works in his head .
And at least thus far , there ’ s nobody willing to put a leash on him .

The Mayor of the Big Apple hasn’t been having a particularly good week. First, his Health Commissioner turned in his notice, blasting Hizzoner’s failed handling of the COVID-19 disaster on the way out the door. And now the media has resurrected the questions surrounding Bill de Blasio’s decision to help paint gigantic Black Lives Matter murals on the streets of all five boroughs while so far failing to approve requests for any other such political speech on the city’s asphalt. You see, the Mayor didn’t bother getting a permit approved for the artwork before rolling up his sleeves and sloshing some paint around. But he’s insisting that anyone else wishing to do so will have to go through the usual channels. How does he explain this inconsistency? Easy. Shut up, he explained. (Daily Wire)
New York City mayor Bill de Blasio admitted Monday that he did not follow proper permitting procedure when he ordered city workers to paint Black Lives Matter murals in each of the city’s five bureaus, the New York Post reports, potentially putting the city at legal risk and opening the door for more political speech in the form of street art. On Monday, the mayor claimed that the city has not turned down requests to paint street murals, but said that there is a “process” for applying to create public art. “We haven’t said ‘no’ to people, we’ve said, ‘If you want to apply, you can apply, but there’s a process,’” De Blasio told reporters.
To be fair to the Mayor, he did offer a bit more of an explanation than that to the New York Post. He said “That is something that again transcends all normal realities because we are at a moment of history when that had to be said and done, that’s a decision I made. But the normal process continues for anyone who wants to apply.”
Did you catch what Hizzoner was saying there? This is a “moment in history” and a Man of Destiny like Bill de Blasio can’t be bothered with piddling things like municipal laws or codes. He is too busy saving the world to be stuck at his desk filling out request forms. He was called to action.
But if any of you other suckers want to go expressing yourselves on the mean streets of New York, you’re going to have to go through the normal process, get a permit and pay a fee. Is this guy a mayor or a monarch?
The Mayor’s claim about not having said ‘no’ to anyone else is also dubious at best. While he may not have said no, he also hasn’t said yes. And plenty of people have applied for permits now that the streets have been designated as appropriate locations for political speech in the form of giant block letters. One group that supports Donald Trump, Women for America First, has been waiting for almost two months for an answer to their permit application and has now taken the city to court over the delay.
The office of the Public Transportation Commissioner is taking the Mayor’s side as well. Without offering any sort of legal justification, they claimed that “the city is able to make unilateral decisions on individual requests.” But in the case of the Mayor, there wasn’t any request on the record. He just decided to do it as if he were the King. Perhaps that’s how the world works in his head. And at least thus far, there’s nobody willing to put a leash on him.


hotair--2020-08-05--A win for AOC? BLM activist ends Dem dynasty in St. Louis

The Squad may end up adding another member in November .
Supporting Medicare for All and being the son of the founder of the Congressional Black Caucus wasn ’ t progressive enough for longtime incumbent William Lacy Clay to hold into his House seat in yesterday ’ s primaries .
Clay went down to defeat in his primary challenge yesterday from Black Lives Matter activist Cori Bush : Clay , 64 , is the third Democrat this cycle to lose his seat to a challenger more plugged in with the party ’ s most progressive wing .
Clay ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and focused on civil rights issues throughout his ten terms in Congress .
His father , William L. Clay , was a co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus .
Both candidates supported progressive causes like the Green New Deal and “ Medicare for All.
” But Bush argued that it was time for a change and criticized Clay for taking campaign contributions from political action committees and corporations .
Those points resonated in the majority-Black 1st District , where a national reckoning on police relations with Black people was sparked by the 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown in Ferguson , Clay ’ s hometown .
The surprise isn ’ t so much that Clay lost , but that Clay got challenged in the first place .
Clay sounds like an almost perfect Bernie Sanders acolyte .
Why did progressives bother to challenge him at all ?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ challenge to Joe Crowley at least made some ideological sense , but all this does is pick off one of the leading African-American members of the House for not much change at all — except to reduce the influence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clay , the scion of a storied Black Missouri political dynasty in his 10th term in Congress , had tried to make the campaign a referendum on not only Ms. Bush ’ s suitability for elected office but also the progressive movement behind her .
He carried out a series of dark , personal attacks in the campaign ’ s final days to try to halt Ms. Bush ’ s momentum and described her as a “ prop ” of out-of-town interests seeking to divide the Democratic Party along racial lines .
Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic power structure , earning endorsements from Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Senator Kamala Harris of California and groups like Planned Parenthood .
These days , that kind of resumé doesn ’ t get you far , not even in a D+29 district .
Combine that with Clay ’ s support of the progressive agenda , and it starts becoming clear that progressive activists aren ’ t making these primary-challenge decisions based on ideology as much as their ability to gain power .
In that sense , Justice Democrats — the same group that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up an easy win .
They took a victory lap last night : Late Tuesday night , it was Justice Democrats , which helped groom Ms. Bush and other successful progressive challengers , that was celebrating .
“ If you don ’ t know , now you know : The Squad is here to stay , and it ’ s growing , ” said Alexandra Rojas , the group ’ s executive director .
It doesn ’ t look like it ’ s shrinking , at least so far .
Rashida Tlaib has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early vote counting in Michigan , although it ’ s far too early yet to call that race , thanks to a massive amount of mail-in ballots .
Ilhan Omar faces voters in MN-05 next week , and it looks like Ayanna Pressley is running alone in Massachusetts ’ September 1 primary .
But even if The Squad grew by one this time , it did so by essentially eating its own .
That ’ s many things , but it ’ s hardly progress , and it ’ s likely to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Democrats and AOC .

The Squad may end up adding another member in November. Supporting Medicare for All and being the son of the founder of the Congressional Black Caucus wasn’t progressive enough for longtime incumbent William Lacy Clay to hold into his House seat in yesterday’s primaries. Clay went down to defeat in his primary challenge yesterday from Black Lives Matter activist Cori Bush:
Clay, 64, is the third Democrat this cycle to lose his seat to a challenger more plugged in with the party’s most progressive wing. Clay’s defeat stands out because he is Black and focused on civil rights issues throughout his ten terms in Congress. His father, William L. Clay, was a co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus. Both candidates supported progressive causes like the Green New Deal and “Medicare for All.” But Bush argued that it was time for a change and criticized Clay for taking campaign contributions from political action committees and corporations. Those points resonated in the majority-Black 1st District, where a national reckoning on police relations with Black people was sparked by the 2014 protests over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Clay’s hometown.
The surprise isn’t so much that Clay lost, but that Clay got challenged in the first place. Clay sounds like an almost perfect Bernie Sanders acolyte. Why did progressives bother to challenge him at all? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ challenge to Joe Crowley at least made some ideological sense, but all this does is pick off one of the leading African-American members of the House for not much change at all — except to reduce the influence of the district’s voters:
Mr. Clay, the scion of a storied Black Missouri political dynasty in his 10th term in Congress, had tried to make the campaign a referendum on not only Ms. Bush’s suitability for elected office but also the progressive movement behind her. He carried out a series of dark, personal attacks in the campaign’s final days to try to halt Ms. Bush’s momentum and described her as a “prop” of out-of-town interests seeking to divide the Democratic Party along racial lines. Mr. Clay highlighted his own ties to the Democratic power structure, earning endorsements from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Kamala Harris of California and groups like Planned Parenthood.
These days, that kind of resumé doesn’t get you far, not even in a D+29 district. Combine that with Clay’s support of the progressive agenda, and it starts becoming clear that progressive activists aren’t making these primary-challenge decisions based on ideology as much as their ability to gain power. In that sense, Justice Democrats — the same group that vaulted AOC into office — can ring up an easy win. They took a victory lap last night:
Late Tuesday night, it was Justice Democrats, which helped groom Ms. Bush and other successful progressive challengers, that was celebrating. “If you don’t know, now you know: The Squad is here to stay, and it’s growing,” said Alexandra Rojas, the group’s executive director.
It doesn’t look like it’s shrinking, at least so far. Rashida Tlaib has a 2:1 lead over Brenda Jones in early vote counting in Michigan, although it’s far too early yet to call that race, thanks to a massive amount of mail-in ballots. Ilhan Omar faces voters in MN-05 next week, and it looks like Ayanna Pressley is running alone in Massachusetts’ September 1 primary. But even if The Squad grew by one this time, it did so by essentially eating its own. That’s many things, but it’s hardly progress, and it’s likely to make other House Democrats even less happy with Justice Democrats and AOC.


hotair--2020-08-06--What is NY AG's "major national announcement" today about?

If you tune in to any of the major cable news networks later this morning you ’ re likely to see a spectacle of some sort .
We ’ ve been promised that at 11:30 eastern time , New York State Attorney General Letitia James is going to deliver a “ major national announcement ” on a subject which is apparently too hush-hush , top-secret , and totally awesome to let us know about in advance .
Does that sound exciting ?
Well… then you ’ re probably a liberal or a NeverTrumper of some flavor .
If it sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General to do , with tones of some sort of Barnum and Bailey circus atmosphere , then you ’ ve probably been paying attention to New York politics for more than five minutes .
The Washington Examiner has the few details that are known thus far .
New York Attorney General Letitia James said she will deliver a “ major national announcement ” on Thursday .
A statement released Wednesday evening said the announcement will happen at her office at 11:30 a.m .
The subject of the announcement was not immediately clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pony show should be obvious .
State AGs are , at least under the old conventions of law enforcement , supposed to focus their attention on the needs of their own state .
They don ’ t cover national issues , leaving such matters for the Attorney General of the United States to handle .
But this is 2020 and we ’ re talking about Letitia James here .
She ran for office on a promise to “ RESIST ” the Bad Orange Man and has made no secret of her plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor ’ s mansion or the White House at some point .
So what ’ s this about ?
There are two choices .
The most obvious one that probably leaps to mind is that she ’ s about to unveil yet another “ case ” against President Trump , some member of his family , one of his associates or his business dealings in New York City .
She ’ s also hinted recently that there could be an investigation brewing into alleged false statements by the President relating to a policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York .
But that ’ s not definitely what ’ s going on here .
A couple of our local bloggers in New York have suggested the same thing that Yashar Ali tweeted about last night .
This could be yet another stab at the National Rifle Association , with possible ties to the recent announcement of Remington Arms ( located in Ilion , NY ) going back into bankruptcy .
James has long seen the NRA as a ripe target for some great public relations through potentially inappropriate legal witch hunts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ years now that were clearly designed to end the NRA ’ s ability to apply for loans , obtain insurance or otherwise conduct any business in New York State .
So to see James ’ office going after them yet again would be as unsurprising as yet another “ Resist Trump ” investigation .
The timing of this couldn ’ t be more obvious .
We ’ re on the verge of both major party ’ s conventions ( such as they are ) and we ’ re into the final ninety days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AG knows that anything that ’ s bad news for Trump specifically or conservatives in general will be eaten up like gelato on a hot summer day by the media .
What a great time for a circus act such as this , eh ?
But the substance of the announcement isn ’ t nearly as offputting as the Monty Hall atmosphere surrounding it .
What kind of serious law enforcement official pulls this sort of magician ’ s trick just to gin up the ratings and attract more clicks ?
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either in place or ready to begin and it ’ s of interest to the public , you just release the information and get on with your job .
Sadly , Letitia James clearly believes in the Buzzfeed theory of communicating with the public from her office .
Stay tuned !
I ’ ll be announcing five things about Trump or the NRA tomorrow and you won ’ t believe number three !

If you tune in to any of the major cable news networks later this morning you’re likely to see a spectacle of some sort. We’ve been promised that at 11:30 eastern time, New York State Attorney General Letitia James is going to deliver a “major national announcement” on a subject which is apparently too hush-hush, top-secret, and totally awesome to let us know about in advance. Does that sound exciting? Well… then you’re probably a liberal or a NeverTrumper of some flavor. If it sounds like an odd thing for a state Attorney General to do, with tones of some sort of Barnum and Bailey circus atmosphere, then you’ve probably been paying attention to New York politics for more than five minutes. The Washington Examiner has the few details that are known thus far.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said she will deliver a “major national announcement” on Thursday. A statement released Wednesday evening said the announcement will happen at her office at 11:30 a.m. The subject of the announcement was not immediately clear.
The inappropriate nature of this dog and pony show should be obvious. State AGs are, at least under the old conventions of law enforcement, supposed to focus their attention on the needs of their own state. They don’t cover national issues, leaving such matters for the Attorney General of the United States to handle. But this is 2020 and we’re talking about Letitia James here. She ran for office on a promise to “RESIST” the Bad Orange Man and has made no secret of her plans to upgrade her situation to either the Governor’s mansion or the White House at some point.
So what’s this about? There are two choices. The most obvious one that probably leaps to mind is that she’s about to unveil yet another “case” against President Trump, some member of his family, one of his associates or his business dealings in New York City. She’s also hinted recently that there could be an investigation brewing into alleged false statements by the President relating to a policy covering international travel, possibly excluding New York.
But that’s not definitely what’s going on here. A couple of our local bloggers in New York have suggested the same thing that Yashar Ali tweeted about last night. This could be yet another stab at the National Rifle Association, with possible ties to the recent announcement of Remington Arms (located in Ilion, NY) going back into bankruptcy.
I keep seeing rather ridiculous speculation about the announcement the New York Attorney General is making tomorrow. As I said, it’s not related to the president or his family. Per three sources familiar with the announcement, it’s related to the NRA https://t.co/6O12QmJeEy — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) August 6, 2020
James has long seen the NRA as a ripe target for some great public relations through potentially inappropriate legal witch hunts. There have been efforts underway for several years now that were clearly designed to end the NRA’s ability to apply for loans, obtain insurance or otherwise conduct any business in New York State. So to see James’ office going after them yet again would be as unsurprising as yet another “Resist Trump” investigation.
The timing of this couldn’t be more obvious. We’re on the verge of both major party’s conventions (such as they are) and we’re into the final ninety days before the election. And the NY AG knows that anything that’s bad news for Trump specifically or conservatives in general will be eaten up like gelato on a hot summer day by the media. What a great time for a circus act such as this, eh?
But the substance of the announcement isn’t nearly as offputting as the Monty Hall atmosphere surrounding it. What kind of serious law enforcement official pulls this sort of magician’s trick just to gin up the ratings and attract more clicks? If you have something of importance that’s either in place or ready to begin and it’s of interest to the public, you just release the information and get on with your job. Sadly, Letitia James clearly believes in the Buzzfeed theory of communicating with the public from her office. Stay tuned! I’ll be announcing five things about Trump or the NRA tomorrow and you won’t believe number three!