hotair--2020-10-23--Texas Supreme Court allows drive-thru voting to continue in Harris County

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a pilot program for drive-thru voting can continue in Harris County ( Houston ) .
The state and county Republican parties and a Houston conservative activist sought to halt the voter option of drive-thru voting in ten locations throughout the county .
The all-Republican Texas Supreme Court denied the request .
It should be noted that the state Supreme Court did not , however , rule on the legality of drive-thru voting , only that it may continue .
Local Democrats hoped that a ruling on the program ’ s legality would also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t happen .
Only one justice dissented with the decision , stating that Harris County Clerk Christopher Hollins had exceeded his authority in creating the drive-thru option .
He said , “ thousands of ballots continue to be cast through what is likely an unauthorized voting procedure.
” The actions of the county clerk have been the subject of several lawsuits this election cycle .
He was appointed in June to the position and is a Democrat activist .
He was stopped by the Texas Supreme Court from mailing out applications for mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county , something that has never been done before .
Texas is one of the few states that only allows mail-in voting if the voter meets specific requirements .
There is no universal mail-in voting in Texas .
The drive-thru voting sites are tented and manned by poll workers .
The voter is checked in by the poll worker , including presenting his or her identification and then handed an electronic voting machine to cast a ballot while still in their car .
This option is to allow older voters and disabled voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can take advantage of it , though , and so far more than 70,000 ballots have been cast through this option during the first two weeks of early voting .
There have been complaints that the sites are mostly concentrated in heavily Democrat areas of the county and some suburbs and more Republican areas are being left out .
This is a little ironic considering that Democrats had a hissy fit when the governor declared that each county can have only one drop-off location for mail-in ballots .
The argument from Democrats is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far of a distance to use the drop-off box .
Well , the same can be said of some areas of the county about drive-thru voting yet not a peep is heard from Democrats about that .
On Thursday , Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo , the Harris County CEO and not a ‘ real ’ judge , sent a letter to Governor Abbott asking him to guarantee the validity of votes cast via drive-thru voting locations .
She is pleased with the Texas Supreme Court ’ s ruling and calls voters “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjective if you ask me .
This is America where we hold free elections on a regular basis .
She makes it sound as though Harris County is in her native country , Colombia , for heaven ’ s sake .
The 30-year-old county executive often speaks in dramatic terms .
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo , in a tweet , called the court ’ s decision “ a victory for democracy , for the thousands of courageous voters who have participated , even in the face of suppression attempts , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law.
” Earlier Thursday , Hidalgo asked Abbott in a letter to confirm that drive-thru voting is legal , amid worries the high court would block the voting method , throwing the legality of about 73,000 ballots already collected into question .
Hidalgo said the governor ’ s input was needed because Harris County officials unsuccessfully had sought an answer from Secretary of State Ruth Hughs earlier .
Both Hidalgo and Hollins are concerned that the drive-thru ballots will be invalidated if the Texas Supreme Court rules drive-thru voting illegal .
Harris County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has this voting option .
As I said , it is a pilot program .
The state ’ s Republican Party claims it is against Texas election laws and therefore illegal .
The party claims that Hollins acted outside of his authority when he established the program .
Ironically , Hollins calls Republican objections “ partisan politics ” and a form of voter suppression .
To hear Democrats in Texas talk , the evil Republicans are suppressing votes .
The proof is in the numbers , though , and Texas has an all-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is still over a week to go in early voting .
Everyone expects Election Day will bring out a large turn-out , too .
Voters in both parties are highly motivated and voting in this election .
The governor extended early voting by a week , there are curbside voting options besides the drive-thru locations , and voters may vote in any polling location during early voting in Harris County , not just their normal polling location .
And , if requirements are met , a voter can use a mail-in ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complain about voter suppression in Texas , I just laugh at them .
By Hollins doing the same against Republicans , he is the one playing partisan politics .
He , like Hidalgo , is young and eager to fundamentally change the county , as activist Democrats say .
So far , more than 900,000 votes have been cast in Harris County .
That is more than the entire 2010 and 2014 elections .

The Texas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a pilot program for drive-thru voting can continue in Harris County (Houston). The state and county Republican parties and a Houston conservative activist sought to halt the voter option of drive-thru voting in ten locations throughout the county. The all-Republican Texas Supreme Court denied the request.
It should be noted that the state Supreme Court did not, however, rule on the legality of drive-thru voting, only that it may continue. Local Democrats hoped that a ruling on the program’s legality would also be handed down but that didn’t happen. Only one justice dissented with the decision, stating that Harris County Clerk Christopher Hollins had exceeded his authority in creating the drive-thru option. He said, “thousands of ballots continue to be cast through what is likely an unauthorized voting procedure.” The actions of the county clerk have been the subject of several lawsuits this election cycle. He was appointed in June to the position and is a Democrat activist. He was stopped by the Texas Supreme Court from mailing out applications for mail-in ballots to every registered voter in the county, something that has never been done before. Texas is one of the few states that only allows mail-in voting if the voter meets specific requirements. There is no universal mail-in voting in Texas.
The drive-thru voting sites are tented and manned by poll workers. The voter is checked in by the poll worker, including presenting his or her identification and then handed an electronic voting machine to cast a ballot while still in their car. This option is to allow older voters and disabled voters an easier voting option. Any voter can take advantage of it, though, and so far more than 70,000 ballots have been cast through this option during the first two weeks of early voting. There have been complaints that the sites are mostly concentrated in heavily Democrat areas of the county and some suburbs and more Republican areas are being left out. This is a little ironic considering that Democrats had a hissy fit when the governor declared that each county can have only one drop-off location for mail-in ballots. The argument from Democrats is that some voters have to drive too far of a distance to use the drop-off box. Well, the same can be said of some areas of the county about drive-thru voting yet not a peep is heard from Democrats about that.
On Thursday, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, the Harris County CEO and not a ‘real’ judge, sent a letter to Governor Abbott asking him to guarantee the validity of votes cast via drive-thru voting locations. She is pleased with the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling and calls voters “courageous”, which is an odd adjective if you ask me. This is America where we hold free elections on a regular basis. She makes it sound as though Harris County is in her native country, Colombia, for heaven’s sake. The 30-year-old county executive often speaks in dramatic terms.
Today Judge Hidalgo sent a letter to Governor Abbott urging him to guarantee the validity of votes cast via drive-thru voting locations. Read the letter here: https://t.co/KHXtp4dijO pic.twitter.com/3ItlNbGaO6 — Office of Judge Lina Hidalgo (@HarrisCoJudge) October 22, 2020
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, in a tweet, called the court’s decision “a victory for democracy, for the thousands of courageous voters who have participated, even in the face of suppression attempts, and it’s a fair interpretation of the law.” Earlier Thursday, Hidalgo asked Abbott in a letter to confirm that drive-thru voting is legal, amid worries the high court would block the voting method, throwing the legality of about 73,000 ballots already collected into question. Hidalgo said the governor’s input was needed because Harris County officials unsuccessfully had sought an answer from Secretary of State Ruth Hughs earlier.
Both Hidalgo and Hollins are concerned that the drive-thru ballots will be invalidated if the Texas Supreme Court rules drive-thru voting illegal. Harris County is the only county in Texas that has this voting option. As I said, it is a pilot program. The state’s Republican Party claims it is against Texas election laws and therefore illegal. The party claims that Hollins acted outside of his authority when he established the program. Ironically, Hollins calls Republican objections “partisan politics” and a form of voter suppression.
Hollins praised the court’s decision Thursday, adding that voters had raved about their drive-thru voting experiences. “It is unprecedented to have such clear partisan politics attempt to undercut the voting operations of a single county, a county that has provided its voting electorate with more voting access than ever before,” he said in a statement.
To hear Democrats in Texas talk, the evil Republicans are suppressing votes. The proof is in the numbers, though, and Texas has an all-time high number of votes cast already and there is still over a week to go in early voting. Everyone expects Election Day will bring out a large turn-out, too. Voters in both parties are highly motivated and voting in this election. The governor extended early voting by a week, there are curbside voting options besides the drive-thru locations, and voters may vote in any polling location during early voting in Harris County, not just their normal polling location. And, if requirements are met, a voter can use a mail-in ballot. Every time I hear a Democrat complain about voter suppression in Texas, I just laugh at them. By Hollins doing the same against Republicans, he is the one playing partisan politics. He, like Hidalgo, is young and eager to fundamentally change the county, as activist Democrats say. So far, more than 900,000 votes have been cast in Harris County. That is more than the entire 2010 and 2014 elections.


hotair--2020-10-23--Former Hunter business partner: I've got the smoking guns, and I'm going to the FBI

Last night ’ s debate stepped on this news late yesterday , but it ’ s still worth noting .
Tony Bobulinski called a press conference in the evening to announce that he will take information to the FBI and to the Senate to corroborate reporting on Hunter Biden ’ s connections to China and one of its state-owned entities .
Bobulinski contradicted Joe Biden ’ s many assertions that he had never been involved in his son ’ s businesses , and says that he can provide first-hand testimony that Joe was read into the business plan , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Kim Strassel has a good rundown of the alleged Sinohawk/CEFC China Energy scheme at the Wall Street Journal : Mr. Bobulinski ’ s text messages show he was recruited for the project by James Gilliar , a Hunter associate .
Mr. Gilliar explains in a December 2015 text that there will be a deal between the Chinese and “ one of the most prominent families from the U.S. ” A month later he introduces Rob Walker , also “ a partner of Biden.
” In March 2016 , Mr. Gilliar tells Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is shaping up to be “ the Goldmans of China.
” Mr. Gilliar promises that same month to “ develop ” the terms of a deal “ with hunter.
” Note that in 2015-16 , Joe Biden was still vice president .
As the deal takes shape in 2017 , Mr. Bobulinski begins to question what Hunter will contribute besides his name , and worries that he was “ kicked out of US Navy for cocaine use.
” Mr. Gilliar acknowledges “ skill sets [ sic ] missing ” and observes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He explains that “ in brand [ Hunter is ] imperative but right know [ sic ] he ’ s not essential for adding input.
” Mr. Bobulinski writes that he appreciates “ the name/leverage being used ” but thinks the economic “ upside ” should go to the team doing the actual work .
Mr. Gilliar reminds him that those on the Chinese side “ are intelligence so they understand the value added.
” This dispute almost derails the deal .
Hunter is hardly visible through most of the work , until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He brings in his uncle Jim Biden for a stake .
( Mr. Gilliar in a text message soothes Mr. Bobulinski with a promise that Jim ’ s addition “ strengthens our USP ” —unique selling proposition— “ to the Chinese as it looks like a truly family business.
” ) Hunter in texts and emails wants offices in three U.S. cities , “ significant ” travel budgets , a stipend for Jim Biden , a job for an assistant , and more-frequent distributions of any gains .
As for annual pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he expects “ a hell of a lot more than 850 ” thousand dollars a year ( the amount Mr. Bobulinski , the CEO , is getting ) , since his ex-wife will take nearly all of it .
… CEFC was closely entwined with the Chinese government and military until it went bankrupt , following U.S. charges of money laundering .
There is no question CEFC was buying Hunter for influence .
Joe Biden claims he has never discussed his son ’ s business .
Yet a May 2017 “ expectations ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the equity in the venture and holding another 10 % for “ the big guy ” —who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden .
Note , however , that by May 2017 there wasn ’ t much influence left to buy .
Biden had left office , and while it was expected that he might consider a presidential run , it wasn ’ t yet a certainty .
Biden had zero influence in the executive branch at that point , although he still had some cachet as an eminence grise among Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in May 2017 in Congress .
If what Bobulinski claims is true , Hunter ’ s alleged greediness may have stalled the deal until it no longer became valuable to the Chinese government organs that wanted to use it to pull strings in Washington .
Besides , in May 2017 , Joe Biden could have entered the deal directly without any conflict of interest .
If he was planning another run for the presidency , it would have been a political issue , but not a legal issue .
Strassel wisely emphasizes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former vice president is running on trust and good judgment .
The Hunter tale is at best the story of a wayward son and indulgent father .
At worst , it is an example of the entire Biden clan cashing in on its name with a U.S. rival .
As Mr. Biden refuses to answer questions about this case , voters will have to make up their own minds .
But given Hunter ’ s exploits in China , Ukraine , Kazakhstan and elsewhere , much more is yet to come—in the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Biden presidency .
Indeed , if what Bobulinski claims can be independently verified and authenticated .
We have a good idea that it can be by Joe Biden ’ s rebuttals on everything except authenticity , which even normally friendly media outlets have begun to notice .
But it would not have been illegal to do business in this manner and then divest all interests in it once Joe began running for office again , as long as all other legal requirements in reporting and taxes were met .
Reportedly , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer to share what he has with investigators .
Senator Ron Johnson has also expressed interest in the material as chair of the Homeland Security Committee .
If there ’ s fire to this smoke , we should know at some point , and keep an open mind until then , and don ’ t jump to conclusions on facts not yet in evidence .

Last night’s debate stepped on this news late yesterday, but it’s still worth noting. Tony Bobulinski called a press conference in the evening to announce that he will take information to the FBI and to the Senate to corroborate reporting on Hunter Biden’s connections to China and one of its state-owned entities. Bobulinski contradicted Joe Biden’s many assertions that he had never been involved in his son’s businesses, and says that he can provide first-hand testimony that Joe was read into the business plan, “at least at a high level”:
Kim Strassel has a good rundown of the alleged Sinohawk/CEFC China Energy scheme at the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Bobulinski’s text messages show he was recruited for the project by James Gilliar, a Hunter associate. Mr. Gilliar explains in a December 2015 text that there will be a deal between the Chinese and “one of the most prominent families from the U.S.” A month later he introduces Rob Walker, also “a partner of Biden.” In March 2016, Mr. Gilliar tells Mr. Bobulinski the Chinese entity is CEFC, which is shaping up to be “the Goldmans of China.” Mr. Gilliar promises that same month to “develop” the terms of a deal “with hunter.” Note that in 2015-16, Joe Biden was still vice president. As the deal takes shape in 2017, Mr. Bobulinski begins to question what Hunter will contribute besides his name, and worries that he was “kicked out of US Navy for cocaine use.” Mr. Gilliar acknowledges “skill sets [sic] missing” and observes that Hunter “has a few demons.” He explains that “in brand [Hunter is] imperative but right know [sic] he’s not essential for adding input.” Mr. Bobulinski writes that he appreciates “the name/leverage being used” but thinks the economic “upside” should go to the team doing the actual work. Mr. Gilliar reminds him that those on the Chinese side “are intelligence so they understand the value added.” This dispute almost derails the deal. Hunter is hardly visible through most of the work, until final contract negotiations ramp up in mid-May. He brings in his uncle Jim Biden for a stake. (Mr. Gilliar in a text message soothes Mr. Bobulinski with a promise that Jim’s addition “strengthens our USP”—unique selling proposition—“to the Chinese as it looks like a truly family business.”) Hunter in texts and emails wants offices in three U.S. cities, “significant” travel budgets, a stipend for Jim Biden, a job for an assistant, and more-frequent distributions of any gains. As for annual pay, he explains in an email that he expects “a hell of a lot more than 850” thousand dollars a year (the amount Mr. Bobulinski, the CEO, is getting), since his ex-wife will take nearly all of it. … CEFC was closely entwined with the Chinese government and military until it went bankrupt, following U.S. charges of money laundering. There is no question CEFC was buying Hunter for influence. Joe Biden claims he has never discussed his son’s business. Yet a May 2017 “expectations” document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for “the big guy”—who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden.
Note, however, that by May 2017 there wasn’t much influence left to buy. Biden had left office, and while it was expected that he might consider a presidential run, it wasn’t yet a certainty. Biden had zero influence in the executive branch at that point, although he still had some cachet as an eminence grise among Democrats, who … were also out of power in May 2017 in Congress. If what Bobulinski claims is true, Hunter’s alleged greediness may have stalled the deal until it no longer became valuable to the Chinese government organs that wanted to use it to pull strings in Washington.
Besides, in May 2017, Joe Biden could have entered the deal directly without any conflict of interest. If he was planning another run for the presidency, it would have been a political issue, but not a legal issue. Strassel wisely emphasizes the political problem at the end:
The former vice president is running on trust and good judgment. The Hunter tale is at best the story of a wayward son and indulgent father. At worst, it is an example of the entire Biden clan cashing in on its name with a U.S. rival. As Mr. Biden refuses to answer questions about this case, voters will have to make up their own minds. But given Hunter’s exploits in China, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and elsewhere, much more is yet to come—in the next week and a half and potentially in a Biden presidency.
Indeed, if what Bobulinski claims can be independently verified and authenticated. We have a good idea that it can be by Joe Biden’s rebuttals on everything except authenticity, which even normally friendly media outlets have begun to notice. But it would not have been illegal to do business in this manner and then divest all interests in it once Joe began running for office again, as long as all other legal requirements in reporting and taxes were met.
Reportedly, the FBI has taken Bobulinski up on his offer to share what he has with investigators. Senator Ron Johnson has also expressed interest in the material as chair of the Homeland Security Committee. If there’s fire to this smoke, we should know at some point, and keep an open mind until then, and don’t jump to conclusions on facts not yet in evidence.


hotair--2020-10-23--Yeah, looks like Rudy got a bad rap for that "Borat" scene

Pretty clearly , he thought he was being seduced .
As you ’ ll see , she touches his knee , she suggests they move to the bedroom for a drink , then the mics start coming off presumably so as not to record what ’ s about to happen .
She even ends up removing his mic instead of having him do it , which leaves her hands fumbling around near his belt .
But I do think he was tucking his shirt in when he slid his hands down his pants .
In fact , to my eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit of chicanery to make it seem like he was fiddling down there longer than he really was .
Pay attention to the cuts .
When his hands first disappear , we ’ re watching him from behind the actress .
Then suddenly we ’ re watching him in the mirror , fiddling .
Then we ’ re watching him still fiddling from behind the actress again .
I think it ’ s the same two or three seconds of footage shown from two different angles to make it appear that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really was .
I told you we ’ d end up scrutinizing this like the Zapruder film .
Rudy lucked out by having Sacha Baron Cohen burst in when he did , notes Paul Waldman .
Had that scene gone on for another minute or two , it could have been far more compromising .
If she had told him to take off his pants , would he have done it ?
But look at it from Cohen ’ s perspective .
It would have been irresponsible to leave a young woman alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for even a second longer than the scene warranted .
The world has too many Weinsteins .
That doesn ’ t mean Rudy ’ s one , but I wouldn ’ t gamble on a famous , powerful older man used to getting what he wants comporting himself with propriety if left alone in a bedroom with a flirtatious twentysomething .
What we ’ re left with is a scene that ’ s superficially funny but depressing underneath , in two ways .
An old man is being humiliated sexually as a form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lawyer is walking right into a glaringly obvious honey trap set by some eastern European woman whom he ’ s just met .

Pretty clearly, he thought he was being seduced. As you’ll see, she touches his knee, she suggests they move to the bedroom for a drink, then the mics start coming off presumably so as not to record what’s about to happen. She even ends up removing his mic instead of having him do it, which leaves her hands fumbling around near his belt.
But I do think he was tucking his shirt in when he slid his hands down his pants. In fact, to my eye, the film’s editors used a bit of chicanery to make it seem like he was fiddling down there longer than he really was.
Pay attention to the cuts. When his hands first disappear, we’re watching him from behind the actress. Then suddenly we’re watching him in the mirror, fiddling. Then we’re watching him still fiddling from behind the actress again. I think it’s the same two or three seconds of footage shown from two different angles to make it appear that he was doing it for longer than he really was.
I told you we’d end up scrutinizing this like the Zapruder film.
Here’s the full Rudy Giuliani clip from Borat. Judge for yourself…https://t.co/CQHzI23GFb — Rex Chapman🏇🏼 (@RexChapman) October 23, 2020
Rudy lucked out by having Sacha Baron Cohen burst in when he did, notes Paul Waldman. Had that scene gone on for another minute or two, it could have been far more compromising. If she had told him to take off his pants, would he have done it?
But look at it from Cohen’s perspective. It would have been irresponsible to leave a young woman alone with a horny man in a room for even a second longer than the scene warranted. The world has too many Weinsteins. That doesn’t mean Rudy’s one, but I wouldn’t gamble on a famous, powerful older man used to getting what he wants comporting himself with propriety if left alone in a bedroom with a flirtatious twentysomething.
What we’re left with is a scene that’s superficially funny but depressing underneath, in two ways. An old man is being humiliated sexually as a form of entertainment. And the president’s lawyer is walking right into a glaringly obvious honey trap set by some eastern European woman whom he’s just met.
Here’s Cohen leveraging the media fuss about Giuliani’s hands-down-the-pants cameo.


hotair--2020-10-23--If you don't know what "coyotes" mean in border control ...

… then perhaps you shouldn ’ t comment on immigration .
Apparently , many people — including journalists and commentators — lost their minds last night when Donald Trump used a common term for human smugglers on the southern border .
Welker asked a tough but fair question about the outcome of Trump ’ s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy on hundreds of children .
As Trump explained , smugglers often use children as cover for their operations .
He uses the term “ coyotes , ” which confused a great many people who haven ’ t paid attention to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to talk about immigration .
We ’ re going to talk about immigration , now , gentlemen , and we ’ re going to talk about families within this context .
Mr. President , your administration separated children from their parents at the border , at least 4000 kids , You ’ ve since reversed your zero tolerance policy , but the United States can ’ t locate the parents of more than 500 children .
So how will these families ever be reunited ?
Trump : Children are brought here by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cartels , and they ’ re brought here and it ’ s easy to use them to get into our country .
We now have a stronger border as we ’ ve ever had .
We ’ re over 400 miles of brand new wall , you see the numbers , and we let people in , but they have to come in legally .
Welker : But how will you reunite these kids with their families ?
58:48 Trump : Let me just say .
They built cages .
You know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cages .
And then they had a picture in the newspaper .
There was a picture of these horrible cages and they said , ‘ Look at these cages , President Trump built them.
’ And then it was determined they were built in 2014 .
That was him .
Welker : Do you have a plan to reunite the kids ?
59:08 Trump : Yes , we ’ re working on a very — we ’ re trying very hard .
But a lot of these kids come up without the parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coyotes and through gangs .
There is literally nothing unusual about the term “ coyotes , ” although Vox had to write an explainer about it two years ago for its audience .
Even so , it looks like a number of people missed that edition of Vox , including people who get paid to analyze public issues or advocate on them : As well as , er … at least one elected official : Other news outlets , like Uproxx , International Business Times , and other blue-checks on Twitter reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media over the use of the term “ coyotes ” for human smugglers .
IBT treats it as a Trump-coined term : “ Coyote ” is a term for human smugglers along the U.S.-Mexico border , though the term is rarely used .
Trump would later twice repeat the coyote comment .
Trump had made the comment about coyotes before .
“ A nation without borders is not a nation at all , ” Trump said in 2018 .
“ Without borders , we have the reign of chaos , crime , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coyotes.
” It ’ s not a rarely-used term at all , nor is it unique to Trump .
The slang term has been in use for years , if not decades , to describe the industrial-level human smuggling at the border .
We have references to coyotes in the smuggling context going all the way back to 2006 , almost at the launch of Hot Air .
Jim Geraghty points out this morning that the media has used this term for decades before that , and that the term is common use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anyone who followed this issue with any sort of diligence at all would not have thought the reference strange at all .
Neither Welker nor Joe Biden objected to the term , in fact , showing how common it is .
Biden did push back on the idea that coyotes smuggled these specific children into the country : It ’ s not entirely clear who brought these particular 500-plus kids into the country , though .
Adults have used unrelated or more distantly related children as a cover to get released after capture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before and after Trump ’ s zero-tolerance approach .
That is what ’ s complicating the reunification efforts now , as John Daniel Davidson notes at The Federalist : The report claims that “ the parents of 545 children still can ’ t be found , ” but that ’ s not quite right .
The NPR report omitted a statement issued by Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Chase Jennings explaining that in fact the vast majority of these parents have been found but have refused reunification with their children , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ custody .
“ In the current litigation , for example , out of the parents of 485 children whom Plaintiffs ’ counsel has been able to contact , they ’ ve yet to identify a single family that wants their child reunited with them in their country of origin , ” Jennings said .
Why would these parents refuse to be reunited with their children ?
Because their children are in the United States , and they are in their country of origin , most likely Guatemala , Honduras , or El Salvador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children to go back there , they want them in the United States .
Many of these parents paid exorbitant amounts of money to get their children smuggled into the U.S. , sometimes with adults posing as parents , sometimes unaccompanied and with a larger group of migrants .
The whole point was to get their kids into the U.S. by any means necessary , even if it meant being separated .
Indeed , that ’ s often how “ unaccompanied minors ” show up on the border ; their parents pay smugglers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring them across illegally , between the legal ports of entry , as part of an agreement with the cartel that controls a particular stretch of the border .
It ’ s a good explanation , but it ’ s likely lost on those who think Trump was referring to literal coyotes in this answer , or comparing the parents to dogs .
The problem of “ coyotes ” in human trafficking is such a basic point in border security that ignorance of the term is basically a disqualifier from the debate .

… then perhaps you shouldn’t comment on immigration. Apparently, many people — including journalists and commentators — lost their minds last night when Donald Trump used a common term for human smugglers on the southern border. Welker asked a tough but fair question about the outcome of Trump’s zero-tolerance border enforcement policy on hundreds of children. As Trump explained, smugglers often use children as cover for their operations.
He uses the term “coyotes,” which confused a great many people who haven’t paid attention to this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1952AODLJ0
Welker: We’re going to talk about immigration. We’re going to talk about immigration, now, gentlemen, and we’re going to talk about families within this context. Mr. President, your administration separated children from their parents at the border, at least 4000 kids, You’ve since reversed your zero tolerance policy, but the United States can’t locate the parents of more than 500 children. So how will these families ever be reunited? Trump: Children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels, and they’re brought here and it’s easy to use them to get into our country. We now have a stronger border as we’ve ever had. We’re over 400 miles of brand new wall, you see the numbers, and we let people in, but they have to come in legally. Welker: But how will you reunite these kids with their families? 58:48 Trump: Let me just say. They built cages. You know, they used to say I built the cages. And then they had a picture in the newspaper. There was a picture of these horrible cages and they said, ‘Look at these cages, President Trump built them.’ And then it was determined they were built in 2014. That was him. Welker: Do you have a plan to reunite the kids? 59:08 Trump: Yes, we’re working on a very — we’re trying very hard. But a lot of these kids come up without the parents, they come over through cartels and the coyotes and through gangs.
There is literally nothing unusual about the term “coyotes,” although Vox had to write an explainer about it two years ago for its audience. Even so, it looks like a number of people missed that edition of Vox, including people who get paid to analyze public issues or advocate on them:
https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/1319511968252891137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1319511968252891137%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_2%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthefederalist.com%2F2020%2F10%2F23%2Fif-you-dont-know-that-coyotes-are-human-smugglers-shut-up-about-the-border%2F
As well as, er … at least one elected official:
Chief Deputy Whip of Georgia House Democrats. https://t.co/ph3cBc6Nkz — Larry O'Connor (@LarryOConnor) October 23, 2020
Other news outlets, like Uproxx, International Business Times, and other blue-checks on Twitter reported on the “shocked reactions” on social media over the use of the term “coyotes” for human smugglers. IBT treats it as a Trump-coined term:
“Coyote” is a term for human smugglers along the U.S.-Mexico border, though the term is rarely used. Trump would later twice repeat the coyote comment. Trump had made the comment about coyotes before. “A nation without borders is not a nation at all,” Trump said in 2018. “Without borders, we have the reign of chaos, crime, and — believe it or not — coyotes.”
It’s not a rarely-used term at all, nor is it unique to Trump. The slang term has been in use for years, if not decades, to describe the industrial-level human smuggling at the border. We have references to coyotes in the smuggling context going all the way back to 2006, almost at the launch of Hot Air. Jim Geraghty points out this morning that the media has used this term for decades before that, and that the term is common use among people involved in border issues:
It is not a new term, or one that is exclusively used locally. A New York Times article from May 21, 1973, declared, “In return for his half of the bribe money, the immigration officer allowed the investigator to use his two best coyotes—a Spanish term applied to Mexicans hired to find countrymen willing to pay to get the United States.” In the New York Times archives, 360 articles have used the term “coyote” and “immigration.”
Anyone who followed this issue with any sort of diligence at all would not have thought the reference strange at all. Neither Welker nor Joe Biden objected to the term, in fact, showing how common it is. Biden did push back on the idea that coyotes smuggled these specific children into the country:
These 500 plus kids came with parents. They separated them at the border to make it a disincentive to come to begin with. Big real tough, really strong. And guess what? They cannot — it’s not coyotes that bring them over, their parents were with them. They got separated from their parents.
It’s not entirely clear who brought these particular 500-plus kids into the country, though. Adults have used unrelated or more distantly related children as a cover to get released after capture inside the US, which was policy before and after Trump’s zero-tolerance approach. That is what’s complicating the reunification efforts now, as John Daniel Davidson notes at The Federalist:
The report claims that “the parents of 545 children still can’t be found,” but that’s not quite right. The NPR report omitted a statement issued by Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Chase Jennings explaining that in fact the vast majority of these parents have been found but have refused reunification with their children, which is why the children are still in DHS custody. “In the current litigation, for example, out of the parents of 485 children whom Plaintiffs’ counsel has been able to contact, they’ve yet to identify a single family that wants their child reunited with them in their country of origin,” Jennings said. Why would these parents refuse to be reunited with their children? Because their children are in the United States, and they are in their country of origin, most likely Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador. They don’t want their children to go back there, they want them in the United States. Many of these parents paid exorbitant amounts of money to get their children smuggled into the U.S., sometimes with adults posing as parents, sometimes unaccompanied and with a larger group of migrants. The whole point was to get their kids into the U.S. by any means necessary, even if it meant being separated. Indeed, that’s often how “unaccompanied minors” show up on the border; their parents pay smugglers, called “coyotes,” to bring them across illegally, between the legal ports of entry, as part of an agreement with the cartel that controls a particular stretch of the border.
It’s a good explanation, but it’s likely lost on those who think Trump was referring to literal coyotes in this answer, or comparing the parents to dogs. The problem of “coyotes” in human trafficking is such a basic point in border security that ignorance of the term is basically a disqualifier from the debate.


hotair--2020-10-23--More Biden: C'mon, no one lost their private insurance under ObamaCare

There ’ s malarkey , and then there ’ s recycled malarkey .
In what had been one of Joe Biden ’ s few better moments of last night ’ s debate , the former VP suddenly offered up a rehash of the Obama administration ’ s biggest lies about its signature health-care policy .
Biden insisted that no one would lose their private insurance under his health care plan — which already sounded ominously familiar — and then topped that by claiming that no one lost their private insurance under ObamaCare either : Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden falsely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private insurance plans because of Obamacare .
“ The reason why I had such a fight with 20 candidates for the nomination was I support private insurance , ” he said .
“ Not one single person with private insurance would lose their insurance under my plan , nor did they under Obamacare .
They did not lose their insurance unless they chose they wanted to go to something else.
” This is a bald-faced lie , and a well-known bald-faced lie at that .
That pledge from Barack Obama was such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 Lie of the Year .
By the end of that year , four million Americans got forced off their existing insurance plans , and two million more would suffer the same fate the next year : “ If you like your health care plan , you can keep it , ” President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law .
But the promise was impossible to keep .
So this fall , as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans , the public realized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This isn ’ t even in dispute .
It was so glaringly obvious that Obama himself had to go on NBC News to apologize on camera in an interview with Chuck Todd .
Did Biden forget this … or did he think everyone else forgot it ?
David Harsanyi thinks it ’ s the latter , and that Biden learned that from 47 years of media cocooning : It was one of the most significant political lies in recent history , leveled during one of our most contentious policy debates .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private plans , Obamacare would almost certainly have been defeated .
Worse , the Obama administration knew that somewhere between 40 percent to 67 percent of Americans in the individual market would lose existing policies .
Indeed , tens of millions of Americans would be thrown off their preferred private plans .
I ’ ve never even seen a serious person deny that Obama misled voters on the issue .
Even Obama , when it no longer mattered , admitted as much , saying , “ I am sorry that they are finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they got from me.
” … Perhaps Biden has been so sheltered by media coverage he believes he can say anything he wants .
Biden again falsely claimed that he hadn ’ t called the China travel ban “ xenophobic ” and that he hadn ’ t called for a ban on fracking , and once again “ factcheckers ” were backing him up .
So maybe he ’ s got a point .
On the latter point , media firefighters are already coming to Biden ’ s rescue .
This question actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had picked up a bit of momentum in arguing — correctly — that Trump still didn ’ t have a plan for replacing ObamaCare .
But for anyone paying attention , the Lie of the Year wasn ’ t the only rehash Biden used in that debate .
While professing his intent to defend private insurance , he also put the original plan to force them out at the center of his new , revamped BidenCare proposal .
That would be the “ public option , ” which got forced out of ObamaCare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The “ public option ” is a government-subsidized plan that would compete against insurers in the ObamaCare markets , undercutting them on price as the government pours subsidies into its coverage .
It would , in short order , end up pushing insurers out of those markets , which means millions more people would lose their private health insurance , whether they choose to do so or not .
The government plan would end up as the only option , and eventually employers will end up pushing workers onto those markets as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markets .
In other words , Biden was full of malarkey on this answer .
And don ’ t expect the media factcheckers to come close to the scope of it .

There’s malarkey, and then there’s recycled malarkey. In what had been one of Joe Biden’s few better moments of last night’s debate, the former VP suddenly offered up a rehash of the Obama administration’s biggest lies about its signature health-care policy. Biden insisted that no one would lose their private insurance under his health care plan — which already sounded ominously familiar — and then topped that by claiming that no one lost their private insurance under ObamaCare either:
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden falsely claimed Thursday that no one lost their private insurance plans because of Obamacare. “The reason why I had such a fight with 20 candidates for the nomination was I support private insurance,” he said. “Not one single person with private insurance would lose their insurance under my plan, nor did they under Obamacare. They did not lose their insurance unless they chose they wanted to go to something else.”
This is a bald-faced lie, and a well-known bald-faced lie at that. That pledge from Barack Obama was such a failure that PolitiFact chose it as its 2013 Lie of the Year. By the end of that year, four million Americans got forced off their existing insurance plans, and two million more would suffer the same fate the next year:
“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law. But the promise was impossible to keep. So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.
This isn’t even in dispute. It was so glaringly obvious that Obama himself had to go on NBC News to apologize on camera in an interview with Chuck Todd. Did Biden forget this … or did he think everyone else forgot it?
David Harsanyi thinks it’s the latter, and that Biden learned that from 47 years of media cocooning:
It was one of the most significant political lies in recent history, leveled during one of our most contentious policy debates. If Americans knew they might lose their preferred private plans, Obamacare would almost certainly have been defeated. Worse, the Obama administration knew that somewhere between 40 percent to 67 percent of Americans in the individual market would lose existing policies. Indeed, tens of millions of Americans would be thrown off their preferred private plans. I’ve never even seen a serious person deny that Obama misled voters on the issue. Even Obama, when it no longer mattered, admitted as much, saying, “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.” … Perhaps Biden has been so sheltered by media coverage he believes he can say anything he wants. Biden again falsely claimed that he hadn’t called the China travel ban “xenophobic” and that he hadn’t called for a ban on fracking, and once again “factcheckers” were backing him up. So maybe he’s got a point.
On the latter point, media firefighters are already coming to Biden’s rescue.
This question actually started off well for Biden. He had picked up a bit of momentum in arguing — correctly — that Trump still didn’t have a plan for replacing ObamaCare. But for anyone paying attention, the Lie of the Year wasn’t the only rehash Biden used in that debate. While professing his intent to defend private insurance, he also put the original plan to force them out at the center of his new, revamped BidenCare proposal.
That would be the “public option,” which got forced out of ObamaCare in 2009 because of its Trojan-horse qualities. The “public option” is a government-subsidized plan that would compete against insurers in the ObamaCare markets, undercutting them on price as the government pours subsidies into its coverage. It would, in short order, end up pushing insurers out of those markets, which means millions more people would lose their private health insurance, whether they choose to do so or not. The government plan would end up as the only option, and eventually employers will end up pushing workers onto those markets as well as insurers simply exit the health-care markets.
In other words, Biden was full of malarkey on this answer. And don’t expect the media factcheckers to come close to the scope of it.


hotair--2020-10-23--Hoo boy: Biden pledges to "transition from the oil industry"

Kiss Pennsylvania goodbye , and adios to Texas and Ohio too .
At the end of last night ’ s debate , Joe Biden had begun to show signs that he was having trouble keeping up .
This , however , was a massive unforced error that suddenly corroborated everything Donald Trump had warned about the Biden-Harris ticket and its environmental extremism .
Trump basically pushes Biden into admitting that he ’ d “ transition from the oil industry ” in his presidency , after months of double-talk around energy production : Biden had gotten less coherent on energy policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first , he denied that he ever opposed fracking , which is a flat-out lie that Trump himself exposed immediately after the debate .
Biden then backed down to say that he only opposed fracking on federal land , which is also untrue but it concedes a lot of ground , literally speaking .
Most of the oil- and gas-rich fields have to get accessed on federal land , thanks to decades of seizure of that territory from the states , which makes that a distinction without a difference .
This , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden in the same answer pledged to bring us to “ zero emissions ” by 2025 .
The US has finally become a net exporter of energy by unleashing production through fracking and greater access to federal land .
That production level allows prices to remain low , which is an absolute necessity for any economic recovery .
Ending fracking and drilling on federal land will make us dependent on imports once again and to the price shocks that result from conflict abroad .
The nation experienced a few such shocks during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Joe Biden assured us — falsely — that we couldn ’ t drill our way to energy independence .
The Trump administration quickly showed that we can , and that we did .
Biden ’ s pledge , if fulfilled , would have a number of secondary effects , and not just to the economy .
Our energy independence has made us much less tied to foreign producers , which in turn gives us much more flexibility in foreign policy .
A move to destroy American energy production would benefit Russia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more valuable on the open and black markets .
It would reduce our leverage even among allies like Saudi Arabia and Iraq , and recreate more problems in dealing with the collapsed Venezuelan regime .
All of those effects make the risk of military conflicts go up substantially .
So for a number of reasons , “ this is a big statement , ” as Trump said and Biden echoed .
It ’ s a big mistake , and not just for Biden ’ s prospects either .
This will hurt down-ballot Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio , and even more in Texas , where Democrats entertained fantasies of turning the state blue .
Expect this answer to get hammered over and over again in the final ten days of the campaign .

Kiss Pennsylvania goodbye, and adios to Texas and Ohio too. At the end of last night’s debate, Joe Biden had begun to show signs that he was having trouble keeping up. This, however, was a massive unforced error that suddenly corroborated everything Donald Trump had warned about the Biden-Harris ticket and its environmental extremism.
Trump basically pushes Biden into admitting that he’d “transition from the oil industry” in his presidency, after months of double-talk around energy production:
Joe Biden says he will "transition from the oil industry" pic.twitter.com/0TgtYhhLEZ — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 23, 2020
Biden had gotten less coherent on energy policy as the debate wore on. At first, he denied that he ever opposed fracking, which is a flat-out lie that Trump himself exposed immediately after the debate. Biden then backed down to say that he only opposed fracking on federal land, which is also untrue but it concedes a lot of ground, literally speaking. Most of the oil- and gas-rich fields have to get accessed on federal land, thanks to decades of seizure of that territory from the states, which makes that a distinction without a difference.
This, however, is even worse, especially since Biden in the same answer pledged to bring us to “zero emissions” by 2025. The US has finally become a net exporter of energy by unleashing production through fracking and greater access to federal land. That production level allows prices to remain low, which is an absolute necessity for any economic recovery. Ending fracking and drilling on federal land will make us dependent on imports once again and to the price shocks that result from conflict abroad. The nation experienced a few such shocks during the Obama administration, when both Barack Obama and Joe Biden assured us — falsely — that we couldn’t drill our way to energy independence. The Trump administration quickly showed that we can, and that we did.
Biden’s pledge, if fulfilled, would have a number of secondary effects, and not just to the economy. Our energy independence has made us much less tied to foreign producers, which in turn gives us much more flexibility in foreign policy. A move to destroy American energy production would benefit Russia and Iran tremendously, making their exports much more valuable on the open and black markets. It would reduce our leverage even among allies like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and recreate more problems in dealing with the collapsed Venezuelan regime. All of those effects make the risk of military conflicts go up substantially.
So for a number of reasons, “this is a big statement,” as Trump said and Biden echoed. It’s a big mistake, and not just for Biden’s prospects either. This will hurt down-ballot Democrats in oil-producing swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, and even more in Texas, where Democrats entertained fantasies of turning the state blue. Expect this answer to get hammered over and over again in the final ten days of the campaign.


hotair--2020-10-24--Ivanka and Jared Kushner threaten to sue The Lincoln Project over Times Square billboard ads

The Lincoln Project is being threatened with a lawsuit for their latest attack .
This time the professional grifters took on Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner .
Two side-by-side giant billboards in Times Square have a message – Ivanka and Jared don ’ t care about the American people even during the coronavirus pandemic .
Ivanka and Jared are pushing back against The Lincoln Project .
The billboards are meant to be an attack on their response to the coronavirus .
One billboard ad shows Ivanka Trump gesturing to some coronavirus death statistics while broadly smiling .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a selfie she took while holding a can of Goya beans to show her support of the Hispanic family-owned company .
The company ’ s CEO attended a White House event and spoke favorably of President Trump and his administration ’ s economic policies .
He also worked with President Obama ’ s administration but because he spoke favorably of Trump , he must be canceled .
So , The Lincoln Project is doing the same by dragging Ivanka into the fray .
The other billboard ad targets an alleged quote made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article , attributed to an anonymous source , of course .
The billboard includes a row of body bags next to a smiling Kushner , besides the out-of-context quote .
Kushner was speaking about Gov .
Cuomo ’ s botched response to the coronavirus in New York and Jared said , “ [ New Yorkers ] are going to suffer and that ’ s their problem.
” Part of the Jared quote used in the billboard did appear in a Sept. 17 Vanity Fair article about an alleged March 21 White House meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector group about the nation ’ s coronavirus response .
But the quote attributed to Kushner was fed to the magazine by an anonymous attendee , and the version in the ad lacks the original context .
“ Cuomo didn ’ t pound the phones hard enough to get PPE for his state… .
His people are going to suffer and that ’ s their problem , ” the original quote attributed to Kushner read in the story .
The private sector group — consisting of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs , business executives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government to take the lead on directing PPE across the country , Vanity Fair report had said .
Context is everything , which The Lincoln Project grifters know , many of whom have long histories of running political campaigns .
You remember the administrations of President McCain and President Romney , right ?
If Biden wins the election in November , they and other Never Trumpers in the media will likely have a rude awakening when they discover that Democrats don ’ t want them either .
For now , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those state of the art kitchens in their mountain homes aren ’ t going to pay for themselves , amirite ?
Millions of dollars have been raised by the PAC and most of it goes right into their own pockets .
Over 90 % of the money donated has gone to businesses and groups directly tied to the members of The Lincoln Project .
Grifters gon na grift .
So , Trump family lawyer Marc Kasowitz sent a letter to the PAC advising it of the intention to file a lawsuit unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Lincoln Project ’ s response was standard for its brand – tough talk and bluster .
The group is all about pain because they have felt it for four long years , being out in the political wilderness with their gravy train no longer running with Establishment Republicans .
Do the Kushners have a case ?
Jonathan Turley thinks they might but it is a tough road ahead if a lawsuit is filed .
Jared has more chance of success than Ivanka .
He calls the billboards “ callous ” and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to their regular vicious attacks .
The Trump lawyer asserting that Ivanka didn ’ t make that gesture used in the doctored photo probably would not be enough in court .
Turley says that most people don ’ t believe Ivanka would mock death statistics and that this is a political parody .
Ivanka ’ s claim would be the most challenging to maintain in court .
The image is taken from a selfie she tweeted in July in which she gestured toward a can of Goya black beans to show support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of the image could be defended as political commentary and parody .
Courts tend to avoid curtailing political speech , even when it is obnoxious or unfair .
Yet , the Supreme Court has shown that there are limits to opinion as a defense as in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. , 497 U.S. 1 ( 1990 ) .
In that case , there was another inflammatory allegation stemming from a public meeting .
An Ohio high school wrestling coach sued over an opinion column alleging that he had lied under oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was tantamount to an allegation of perjury .
The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that the assertion in the newspaper column was opinion .
The Court however rejected the defense in the case in 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist .
The Court noted that “ expressions of ‘ opinion ’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact ” and may inflict “ as much damage to reputation ” as factual claims .
Moreover , some opinions are based on assertions that are “ sufficiently factual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or false.
” Jared ’ s case is the better one .
The quote originally appeared in Vanity Fair and has obviously been taken out of context .
It also is a quote from an anonymous source .
The claim by Kushner is stronger .
Kasowitz objected that “ Of course , Mr. Kushner never made any such statement.
” The line does appear both edited and misleading .
The Jared quote appears to be taken from a Sept. 17 Vanity Fair article about an alleged March 21 White House meeting between Kushner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the nation ’ s coronavirus response .
First , the quote is based on an anonymous source from a publication that is decidedly anti-Trump .
That could be important since reckless disregard can be based on the reliance on an uncertain or unreliable source .
Since the Lincoln Project had presumably no independent source , this could pull Vanity Fair into the mix .
Putting aside the source , the quote itself is misrepresented .
The article was on a meeting of business figures with Kushner on PPE orders for the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo didn ’ t pound the phones hard enough to get PPE for his state… .
His people are going to suffer and that ’ s their problem.
” That is an entirely different meaning .
Unlike the Ivanka billboard , the Kushner billboard could be taken as a factual statement about dead New Yorkers .
It is designed to trigger anger and resentment against Kushner based on a statement that is falsely presented .
As such , it could be a case for defamation and false light .
Turley concludes that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissible.
” There are two things I ’ m willing to bet on – The Lincoln Project will not yield to legal pressure ( the group includes Kellyanne ’ s husband George Conway , a lawyer himself ) and the Trump family will pursue lawsuits .
On we go .
Ten more days until Election Day .

The Lincoln Project is being threatened with a lawsuit for their latest attack. This time the professional grifters took on Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner. Two side-by-side giant billboards in Times Square have a message – Ivanka and Jared don’t care about the American people even during the coronavirus pandemic. Ivanka and Jared are pushing back against The Lincoln Project. The billboards are meant to be an attack on their response to the coronavirus.
One billboard ad shows Ivanka Trump gesturing to some coronavirus death statistics while broadly smiling. The photo appears to be an altered version of a selfie she took while holding a can of Goya beans to show her support of the Hispanic family-owned company. The company’s CEO attended a White House event and spoke favorably of President Trump and his administration’s economic policies. He also worked with President Obama’s administration but because he spoke favorably of Trump, he must be canceled. So, The Lincoln Project is doing the same by dragging Ivanka into the fray.
The other billboard ad targets an alleged quote made by Jared Kushner in a Vanity Fair article, attributed to an anonymous source, of course. The billboard includes a row of body bags next to a smiling Kushner, besides the out-of-context quote. Kushner was speaking about Gov. Cuomo’s botched response to the coronavirus in New York and Jared said, “[New Yorkers] are going to suffer and that’s their problem.”
Part of the Jared quote used in the billboard did appear in a Sept. 17 Vanity Fair article about an alleged March 21 White House meeting between Kushner and an ad hoc private sector group about the nation’s coronavirus response. But the quote attributed to Kushner was fed to the magazine by an anonymous attendee, and the version in the ad lacks the original context. “Cuomo didn’t pound the phones hard enough to get PPE for his state…. His people are going to suffer and that’s their problem,” the original quote attributed to Kushner read in the story. The private sector group — consisting of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, business executives, and venture capitalists — had been lobbying the federal government to take the lead on directing PPE across the country, Vanity Fair report had said.
Context is everything, which The Lincoln Project grifters know, many of whom have long histories of running political campaigns. You remember the administrations of President McCain and President Romney, right? If Biden wins the election in November, they and other Never Trumpers in the media will likely have a rude awakening when they discover that Democrats don’t want them either. For now, they are just useful idiots for the left. Those state of the art kitchens in their mountain homes aren’t going to pay for themselves, amirite? Millions of dollars have been raised by the PAC and most of it goes right into their own pockets. Over 90% of the money donated has gone to businesses and groups directly tied to the members of The Lincoln Project. Grifters gonna grift.
So, Trump family lawyer Marc Kasowitz sent a letter to the PAC advising it of the intention to file a lawsuit unless the billboards are taken down immediately.
The letter threatens to sue the Lincoln Project unless it “immediately” removes the ads, calling the billboards “false, malicious, and defamatory.” “Of course, Mr. Kushner never made any such statement, Ms. Trump never made any such gesture, and the Lincoln Project’s representations that they did are an outrageous and shameful libel,” Kasowitz wrote. “If these billboard ads are not immediately removed, we will sue you for what will doubtless be enormous compensatory and punitive damages,” the letter continued.
The Lincoln Project’s response was standard for its brand – tough talk and bluster. The group is all about pain because they have felt it for four long years, being out in the political wilderness with their gravy train no longer running with Establishment Republicans.
Later Friday, the PAC responded, “It is unsurprising that an administration that has never had any regard or understanding of our Constitution would try to trample on our first amendment rights.” The response continued, “But we fully intend on making this civics lesson as painful as possible.”
Do the Kushners have a case? Jonathan Turley thinks they might but it is a tough road ahead if a lawsuit is filed. Jared has more chance of success than Ivanka. He calls the billboards “callous” and the PAC may have added “openly defamatory” to their regular vicious attacks. The Trump lawyer asserting that Ivanka didn’t make that gesture used in the doctored photo probably would not be enough in court. Turley says that most people don’t believe Ivanka would mock death statistics and that this is a political parody.
Ivanka’s claim would be the most challenging to maintain in court. The image is taken from a selfie she tweeted in July in which she gestured toward a can of Goya black beans to show support for the company. However, the use of the image could be defended as political commentary and parody. Courts tend to avoid curtailing political speech, even when it is obnoxious or unfair. Yet, the Supreme Court has shown that there are limits to opinion as a defense as in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). In that case, there was another inflammatory allegation stemming from a public meeting. An Ohio high school wrestling coach sued over an opinion column alleging that he had lied under oath at a public hearing, saying that it was tantamount to an allegation of perjury. The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that the assertion in the newspaper column was opinion. The Court however rejected the defense in the case in 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Court noted that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact” and may inflict “as much damage to reputation” as factual claims. Moreover, some opinions are based on assertions that are “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.”
Jared’s case is the better one. The quote originally appeared in Vanity Fair and has obviously been taken out of context. It also is a quote from an anonymous source.
The claim by Kushner is stronger. Kasowitz objected that “Of course, Mr. Kushner never made any such statement.” The line does appear both edited and misleading. The Jared quote appears to be taken from a Sept. 17 Vanity Fair article about an alleged March 21 White House meeting between Kushner and an ad hoc private sector group about the nation’s coronavirus response. First, the quote is based on an anonymous source from a publication that is decidedly anti-Trump. That could be important since reckless disregard can be based on the reliance on an uncertain or unreliable source. Since the Lincoln Project had presumably no independent source, this could pull Vanity Fair into the mix. Putting aside the source, the quote itself is misrepresented. The article was on a meeting of business figures with Kushner on PPE orders for the pandemic. Kushner is quoted as saying “Cuomo didn’t pound the phones hard enough to get PPE for his state…. His people are going to suffer and that’s their problem.” That is an entirely different meaning. Unlike the Ivanka billboard, the Kushner billboard could be taken as a factual statement about dead New Yorkers. It is designed to trigger anger and resentment against Kushner based on a statement that is falsely presented. As such, it could be a case for defamation and false light.
Turley concludes that the cases are not “frivolous nor easily dismissible.” There are two things I’m willing to bet on – The Lincoln Project will not yield to legal pressure (the group includes Kellyanne’s husband George Conway, a lawyer himself) and the Trump family will pursue lawsuits. On we go. Ten more days until Election Day.


hotair--2020-10-24--Pennsylvania court dumps voter signature requirements on ballots

Pennsylvania election law contains a requirement that absentee ballots must be signed by the voter so that the signature can be checked against the one they have on file .
If the signatures do not match , the ballot is rejected .
Or at least it used to be that way .
But as of this week , thanks to a decision by the state supreme court , that ’ s no longer the case .
Kathy Boockvar , the Secretary of State ( well , Secretary of the Commonwealth , technically ) went to court to challenge that law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots being used in this year ’ s election .
The Trump campaign and Pennsylvania Republicans disagreed , leading to this week ’ s showdown .
In a surprisingly unanimous ruling , the justices decreed that no ballots would be rejected solely on the basis of the signatures not matching .
( National Review ) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots from voters in the battleground state may not be rejected due to signature comparisons alone .
In the unanimous ruling , the court said that ballots may not be tossed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signature on their ballot does not resemble their signature on their voter registration form .
“ County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees , or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons , ” the two Republican justices and five Democratic justices wrote in their decision .
I ’ ll be among the first to admit that there are plenty of problems with signature requirements in election law .
For one thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change over the years .
Earlier this year when a similar question came up , I went back and looked at my own signature on some very old documents in our files from when I was discharged from the military .
I compared that to some legal documents I ’ d signed this year and kept copies of .
The two signatures looked absolutely nothing alike .
Further , the people they have comparing signatures at the Board of Elections offices aren ’ t exactly forensic specialists in handwriting .
But with all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking why it ’ s apparently so easy for one executive branch official to dismiss a law passed by the legislature at the drop of a hat .
That law has been on the books for ages ( for better or worse ) and if it was flawed , the legislature could have taken the matter up at any time to amend or eliminate the requirement , but they didn ’ t .
They left it on the books and it was used in virtually every election in the modern era .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirement and the law didn ’ t have a codicil at the end saying unless it becomes burdensome or inconvenient to do so .
Someone will also need to explain how this decision impacts elections both in the past and in the future .
Does the court ’ s decision mean that all of the ballots that were rejected in the past must now be counted ?
When the election of 2022 rolls around , will the law simply go back into effect ?
Or has the ruling effectively struck it down ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gift for supporters of massive mail-in voting if you ask me .
There are laws like this on the books all over the nation and I can ’ t find a single instance where such a law has been declared unconstitutional .
And if the law passes constitutional muster and was duly enacted by the legislature , then only the legislature should be able to remove it .
I ’ ll be curious to see if GOP appeals this ruling .
If the Supreme Court were to agree that the law is flawed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all around the country .

Pennsylvania election law contains a requirement that absentee ballots must be signed by the voter so that the signature can be checked against the one they have on file. If the signatures do not match, the ballot is rejected. Or at least it used to be that way. But as of this week, thanks to a decision by the state supreme court, that’s no longer the case. Kathy Boockvar, the Secretary of State (well, Secretary of the Commonwealth, technically) went to court to challenge that law in anticipation of unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots being used in this year’s election. The Trump campaign and Pennsylvania Republicans disagreed, leading to this week’s showdown. In a surprisingly unanimous ruling, the justices decreed that no ballots would be rejected solely on the basis of the signatures not matching. (National Review)
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots from voters in the battleground state may not be rejected due to signature comparisons alone. In the unanimous ruling, the court said that ballots may not be tossed over concerns that the voter’s signature on their ballot does not resemble their signature on their voter registration form. “County boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons,” the two Republican justices and five Democratic justices wrote in their decision.
I’ll be among the first to admit that there are plenty of problems with signature requirements in election law. For one thing, people’s signatures tend to change over the years. Earlier this year when a similar question came up, I went back and looked at my own signature on some very old documents in our files from when I was discharged from the military. I compared that to some legal documents I’d signed this year and kept copies of. The two signatures looked absolutely nothing alike. Further, the people they have comparing signatures at the Board of Elections offices aren’t exactly forensic specialists in handwriting.
But with all that said, it’s worth asking why it’s apparently so easy for one executive branch official to dismiss a law passed by the legislature at the drop of a hat. That law has been on the books for ages (for better or worse) and if it was flawed, the legislature could have taken the matter up at any time to amend or eliminate the requirement, but they didn’t. They left it on the books and it was used in virtually every election in the modern era. The order to compare signatures was an accepted requirement and the law didn’t have a codicil at the end saying unless it becomes burdensome or inconvenient to do so.
Someone will also need to explain how this decision impacts elections both in the past and in the future. Does the court’s decision mean that all of the ballots that were rejected in the past must now be counted? When the election of 2022 rolls around, will the law simply go back into effect? Or has the ruling effectively struck it down?
This just seems like an awfully convenient gift for supporters of massive mail-in voting if you ask me. There are laws like this on the books all over the nation and I can’t find a single instance where such a law has been declared unconstitutional. And if the law passes constitutional muster and was duly enacted by the legislature, then only the legislature should be able to remove it. I’ll be curious to see if GOP appeals this ruling. If the Supreme Court were to agree that the law is flawed, that could immediately affect election laws all around the country.


hotair--2020-10-24--Is Trump doing better than expected with black male voters?

Let me say up front that I have no doubt Biden is going to win a strong majority of the black vote , as every Democrat has in my lifetime .
Still , there ’ s some evidence Democrats are a bit nervous about what is happening with black male voters in the final weeks of this election .
Yesterday the Washington Post pointed out something President Trump said to Joe Biden in this week ’ s final debate : “ Tens of thousands of Black men , mostly , in jail .
And you know what ?
They remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s happening with the voting right now , they remember that you treated them very , very badly .
Just take a look at what ’ s happening out there , ” Trump said .
Black voters overwhelmingly back the Democratic Party in presidential elections , more than any other group — especially Black women .
But while the large majority of Black men are also voting for the vice president to America ’ s first Black president , some data shows Trump is on track to perform as well — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters this year , compared with 2016 .
Nearly 1 in 5 Black men approve of the job Trump is doing , according to a recent Gallup survey .
And about 10 percent of Black men are leaning toward Trump , according to the latest Pew Research data… A big surprise of 2016 exit polls for many Americans was the revelation that Trump won the highest percentage of Black male voters ( 13 percent ) of any GOP candidate in recent history .
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by far won the majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Trump ’ s stronger-than-expected performance with the demographic revealed that the president was in better standing with Black men than many expected .
There ’ s real concern Trump could do as well or better this time out .
Yesterday the LA Times published a story about the worry among Democrats that Biden could blow his lead in critical states and concern about a dip in support from black voters was part of that .
There is a legitimate case for jittery nerves .
The national polling averages that show Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gap in the swing states essential to win a 270-vote Electoral College majority .
A slight shift in voters ’ mood in those places could mean the difference between a Biden blowout and Trump eking out another narrow victory even as he loses the popular vote — as he did to Clinton four years ago… So intense is the hand-wringing that even the smallest sign of a glitch on the campaign trail is confronted with an urgency unheard of in the last presidential election .
A recent dip in Biden ’ s support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as reflected in a UCLA poll , moved Democratic operatives to reassess their work in places including Milwaukee , Detroit and Philadelphia… Even as the Biden campaign and allied groups are hyper-focused on mobilizing swing state Black voters , recent polling data from UCLA hasn ’ t calmed their nerves .
It showed Trump making slight inroads with Black voters younger than 45 , with 21 % signaling support for the president , double his share in 2016 .
“ At this point , everything worries me , ” Finney said .
CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that both candidates seemed to be competing for black voters .
Finally , for the sake of completeness , I ’ ll mention this Rasmussen tweet about results from their daily poll : I don ’ t think those numbers are realistic , nor do I think that kind of change is likely to happen over a week .
That said , I do think it ’ s true that Trump ’ s ceiling among black male voters could actually be higher than people assume .
There was a Hill-Harris X poll published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of black voters surveyed saying they preferred Trump over any Democratic nominee , which was a strong result .
When the numbers were broken out by sex , Trump had just 7 % preference with black women but a surprising 32 % with black men .
Again , that doesn ’ t mean that ’ s where Trump is now .
The Pew and Gallup surveys mentioned above suggest otherwise .
My point is only that the best Trump could do with black male voters may be higher than people assume .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Democrats seem genuinely worried about it .
Finally , I think we ’ ve seen the nerves about that expressed in other ways recently .
When rapper Ice Cube announced that he ’ d been working with the Trump administration on a plan to pour resources into black communities , a lot of his fans freaked out .
Ice Cube ’ s response was not that he was ready to vote for Trump but that the Trump administration had been willing to listen when he called while the Biden camp basically said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week there was another blow up involving rapper 50 Cent , who posted a clip from Fox News and suggested he didn ’ t want to pay the kind of taxes Joe Biden was going to create .
His ex-girlfriend Chelsea Handler jokingly offered to sleep with him to change his mind .
To be clear , I ’ m not saying that black voters are being guided in their decision making by rappers .
I don ’ t think most people care what celebrities say about how to vote .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents shows some jitters about the idea that Trump might catch on with a segment of the black population .
I ’ m not ready to make any big predictions about whether Trump will do better or worse with black voters this time than he did last time but it ’ s an interesting thing to watch as we get close to election day .

Let me say up front that I have no doubt Biden is going to win a strong majority of the black vote, as every Democrat has in my lifetime. Still, there’s some evidence Democrats are a bit nervous about what is happening with black male voters in the final weeks of this election. Yesterday the Washington Post pointed out something President Trump said to Joe Biden in this week’s final debate:
“Tens of thousands of Black men, mostly, in jail. And you know what? They remember it, because if you look at what’s happening with the voting right now, they remember that you treated them very, very badly. Just take a look at what’s happening out there,” Trump said. Black voters overwhelmingly back the Democratic Party in presidential elections, more than any other group — especially Black women. But while the large majority of Black men are also voting for the vice president to America’s first Black president, some data shows Trump is on track to perform as well — if not better — with Black male voters this year, compared with 2016. Nearly 1 in 5 Black men approve of the job Trump is doing, according to a recent Gallup survey. And about 10 percent of Black men are leaning toward Trump, according to the latest Pew Research data… A big surprise of 2016 exit polls for many Americans was the revelation that Trump won the highest percentage of Black male voters (13 percent) of any GOP candidate in recent history. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by far won the majority of Black male voters (82 percent). But Trump’s stronger-than-expected performance with the demographic revealed that the president was in better standing with Black men than many expected.
There’s real concern Trump could do as well or better this time out. Yesterday the LA Times published a story about the worry among Democrats that Biden could blow his lead in critical states and concern about a dip in support from black voters was part of that.
There is a legitimate case for jittery nerves. The national polling averages that show Biden with a double-digit lead obscure a narrower gap in the swing states essential to win a 270-vote Electoral College majority. A slight shift in voters’ mood in those places could mean the difference between a Biden blowout and Trump eking out another narrow victory even as he loses the popular vote — as he did to Clinton four years ago… So intense is the hand-wringing that even the smallest sign of a glitch on the campaign trail is confronted with an urgency unheard of in the last presidential election. A recent dip in Biden’s support among young Black and Latino voters, as reflected in a UCLA poll, moved Democratic operatives to reassess their work in places including Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia… Even as the Biden campaign and allied groups are hyper-focused on mobilizing swing state Black voters, recent polling data from UCLA hasn’t calmed their nerves. It showed Trump making slight inroads with Black voters younger than 45, with 21% signaling support for the president, double his share in 2016. “At this point, everything worries me,” Finney said.
CBS also did a story this week acknowledging that both candidates seemed to be competing for black voters. Finally, for the sake of completeness, I’ll mention this Rasmussen tweet about results from their daily poll:
Morning Reader Data Points: National Daily Black Likely Voter Job Approval For @POTUS – October 19-23, 2020 Mon 10/19 – 25%
Tue 10/20 – 24%
Wed 10/21 – 31%
Thu 10/22 – 37%
Fri 10/23 – 46% — Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 23, 2020
I don’t think those numbers are realistic, nor do I think that kind of change is likely to happen over a week. That said, I do think it’s true that Trump’s ceiling among black male voters could actually be higher than people assume. There was a Hill-Harris X poll published a year ago that showed 15% of black voters surveyed saying they preferred Trump over any Democratic nominee, which was a strong result. When the numbers were broken out by sex, Trump had just 7% preference with black women but a surprising 32% with black men.
Again, that doesn’t mean that’s where Trump is now. The Pew and Gallup surveys mentioned above suggest otherwise. My point is only that the best Trump could do with black male voters may be higher than people assume. And as the LA Times pointed out, some Democrats seem genuinely worried about it.
Finally, I think we’ve seen the nerves about that expressed in other ways recently. When rapper Ice Cube announced that he’d been working with the Trump administration on a plan to pour resources into black communities, a lot of his fans freaked out. Ice Cube’s response was not that he was ready to vote for Trump but that the Trump administration had been willing to listen when he called while the Biden camp basically said let’s talk later.
This week there was another blow up involving rapper 50 Cent, who posted a clip from Fox News and suggested he didn’t want to pay the kind of taxes Joe Biden was going to create. His ex-girlfriend Chelsea Handler jokingly offered to sleep with him to change his mind.
To be clear, I’m not saying that black voters are being guided in their decision making by rappers. I don’t think most people care what celebrities say about how to vote. But I do think the reaction to those two incidents shows some jitters about the idea that Trump might catch on with a segment of the black population.
I’m not ready to make any big predictions about whether Trump will do better or worse with black voters this time than he did last time but it’s an interesting thing to watch as we get close to election day.


hotair--2020-10-24--Seattle LGBTQ Commission wants their lesbian mayor to resign

Sometimes you just can ’ t win for losing , or so it seems .
LGBT activists widely hailed the 2016 election of Jenny Durkan as the next mayor of Seattle as a significant moment as she was only the second openly gay candidate to take the office and the first woman to do so in nearly a century .
But things haven ’ t been running exactly smoothly in Seattle since the riots began and not everyone is happy with her now .
That ’ s understandable , considering the chaos and unrest in the streets that she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I ’ m guessing that not many people expected Seattle ’ s LGBTQ Commission to chime in and call for her to step down .
And yet that ’ s precisely what happened this week .
( Free Beacon ) Seattle ’ s LGBTQ Commission demanded Wednesday that the city ’ s first openly lesbian mayor resign .
In a letter , the commission claimed Mayor Jenny Durkan ’ s ( D. ) resignation is “ necessary ” to address the “ human rights violations that have occurred in our city during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is supposed to advise the mayor and other city officials on policies affecting the gay community , argued that Durkan failed to engage with it in discussions regarding police funding and homelessness .
There isn ’ t any sort of automatic official action in store as a result of this announcement .
The commission doesn ’ t have any actual authority or governmental powers , serving only an advisory role for the Mayor , the City Council and the various municipal departments .
Also , there wasn ’ t even a broad consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ split 6-5 on the vote with one abstention .
It ’ s also not entirely clear why the LGBTQ Commission was weighing in on this subject when you look at their list of complaints .
Their charter calls for them to advise the mayor on policy issues specific to the LBGT community , but this complaint cites the Mayor ’ s failure to cut the Police Department by 50 % as they recommended , insufficient help for the homeless and her supposed “ undermining of the Black community.
” That last bit refers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 million worth of investments into “ Black , indigenous , and people of color communities.
” Activists had wanted the investments targeted only toward Black communities .
( Because… to hell with the Hispanic , Asian and Indigenous People ’ s communities I guess ? )
The point I ’ m getting at here is that the Commission seems to be paddling well outside of their lane on this one .
None of the issues cited seem to be specific to anything to do with the LGBT community .
I suppose there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their say , but the vote might have been more appropriately taken by other groups if they ’ re really that unhappy .
If you ’ re really in the camp of those who want to defund or simply abolish the police , I suppose Durkan has made a few moves that could have upset you .
She recently vetoed the City Council ’ s plan to defund the police to an even greater degree .
Of course , the Seattle Police have been making some serious progress towards abolishing themselves in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left the force this year , with most citing budget cuts and a lack of support from City Hall as their reason for doing so .
This isn ’ t all that dissimilar to the situation that Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler finds himself in now .
He ’ s unabashedly liberal/socialist and has been as far to the left as one could imagine , but that still hasn ’ t been enough to satisfy his critics as his city has similarly slid into chaos .
He ’ s now trailing in the polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporter of Antifa and is a big fan of Stalin and Mao to boot .
When a lesbian mayor is being shoved toward the exits by her own LGBTQ Commission for not trashing the police sufficiently while crime in her city spirals out of control , we ’ ve really reached a new phase in the country ’ s shift towards being some sort of Bizarro World caricature of America .
And yet , here we are .
How ’ s everyone doing on their 2020 Bingo cards ?
I imagine nearly all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by now .

Sometimes you just can’t win for losing, or so it seems. LGBT activists widely hailed the 2016 election of Jenny Durkan as the next mayor of Seattle as a significant moment as she was only the second openly gay candidate to take the office and the first woman to do so in nearly a century. But things haven’t been running exactly smoothly in Seattle since the riots began and not everyone is happy with her now. That’s understandable, considering the chaos and unrest in the streets that she’s supposed to be keeping safe, but I’m guessing that not many people expected Seattle’s LGBTQ Commission to chime in and call for her to step down. And yet that’s precisely what happened this week. (Free Beacon)
Seattle’s LGBTQ Commission demanded Wednesday that the city’s first openly lesbian mayor resign. In a letter, the commission claimed Mayor Jenny Durkan’s (D.) resignation is “necessary” to address the “human rights violations that have occurred in our city during her tenure.” The group, which is supposed to advise the mayor and other city officials on policies affecting the gay community, argued that Durkan failed to engage with it in discussions regarding police funding and homelessness.
There isn’t any sort of automatic official action in store as a result of this announcement. The commission doesn’t have any actual authority or governmental powers, serving only an advisory role for the Mayor, the City Council and the various municipal departments. Also, there wasn’t even a broad consensus on the commission. The twelve members split 6-5 on the vote with one abstention.
It’s also not entirely clear why the LGBTQ Commission was weighing in on this subject when you look at their list of complaints. Their charter calls for them to advise the mayor on policy issues specific to the LBGT community, but this complaint cites the Mayor’s failure to cut the Police Department by 50% as they recommended, insufficient help for the homeless and her supposed “undermining of the Black community.” That last bit refers to Durkan’s delivery of $100 million worth of investments into “Black, indigenous, and people of color communities.” Activists had wanted the investments targeted only toward Black communities. (Because… to hell with the Hispanic, Asian and Indigenous People’s communities I guess?)
The point I’m getting at here is that the Commission seems to be paddling well outside of their lane on this one. None of the issues cited seem to be specific to anything to do with the LGBT community. I suppose there’s no harm in giving them their say, but the vote might have been more appropriately taken by other groups if they’re really that unhappy.
If you’re really in the camp of those who want to defund or simply abolish the police, I suppose Durkan has made a few moves that could have upset you. She recently vetoed the City Council’s plan to defund the police to an even greater degree. Of course, the Seattle Police have been making some serious progress towards abolishing themselves in the meantime. Well over 100 cops have left the force this year, with most citing budget cuts and a lack of support from City Hall as their reason for doing so.
This isn’t all that dissimilar to the situation that Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler finds himself in now. He’s unabashedly liberal/socialist and has been as far to the left as one could imagine, but that still hasn’t been enough to satisfy his critics as his city has similarly slid into chaos. He’s now trailing in the polls to a candidate who is an open supporter of Antifa and is a big fan of Stalin and Mao to boot.
When a lesbian mayor is being shoved toward the exits by her own LGBTQ Commission for not trashing the police sufficiently while crime in her city spirals out of control, we’ve really reached a new phase in the country’s shift towards being some sort of Bizarro World caricature of America. And yet, here we are. How’s everyone doing on their 2020 Bingo cards? I imagine nearly all of the squares must be filled in by now.