hotair--2020-09-08--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Bolton balks, media crocks, Biden's blocks, polling knocks, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
What should we make of The Atlantic ’ s story about Donald Trump ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ create narratives — even when contradicted by on-the-record sources and documentary data ?
• We ’ ll also talk about Joe Biden , Kamala Harris , and the latest in polling with Andrew as well as Lidblog ’ s Jeff Dunetz !
Why is Harris “ proud ” of a man accused of sexual assault and violating a restraining order ?
We ’ ll discuss all this and more , including evidence that “ law and order ” could be a winning message in 2020 .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. What should we make of The Atlantic’s story about Donald Trump? How are media using anonymous sources to create narratives — even when contradicted by on-the-record sources and documentary data?
We’ll also talk about Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the latest in polling with Andrew as well as Lidblog’s Jeff Dunetz! Why is Harris “proud” of a man accused of sexual assault and violating a restraining order? We’ll discuss all this and more, including evidence that “law and order” could be a winning message in 2020.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-09-08--Box checked: GOP floats $500 billion "skinny" Phase 4 COVID-19 relief bill

This only counts as progress for record-keeping purposes , but it ’ s worth noting nonetheless .
Facing an impasse with Democrats on Capitol Hill , Senate Republicans want to force a vote on a so-called “ skinny ” Phase 4 relief bill , consisting of only $ 500 billion more in targeted stimulus and unemployment benefits .
It spends more than that , but absorbs unspent funds in previous bills to bring down the new cost of the package .
Mitch McConnell wants to get 51 votes in the Senate — not to pass the bill , but to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans will introduce their new coronavirus relief bill Tuesday and are eyeing a vote later this week , after weeks of stalled negotiations between the White House and Democratic leaders over an aid package .
The new , more narrow GOP proposal will provide $ 300 in increased weekly federal unemployment benefits through Dec. 27 , additional money for the Paycheck Protection Program and liability protections for schools and businesses as they try to reopen , a top priority for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) .
The cost of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the measure also proposes rescinding hundreds of billions in previously appropriated funds to hold down the costs .
Playing off the “ skinny ” label , Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer argued that McConnell ’ s new bill has an eating disorder : That ’ s precisely the purpose it serves .
By the same token , that ’ s precisely the purpose that Pelosi ’ s $ 3.4 trillion “ HEROES ” Act served too .
That never had a prayer of passing in the Senate , and both Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They passed it in order to argue that meany Republicans were obstructing aid to the unemployed , health-care workers , and stimulus grants to ordinary ‘ Murricans .
So yes , Mitch McConnell will play the same game with this bill now to blame the meany Democrats for blocking aid to the same ordinary ‘ Murricans .
Resolved : both sides are equally shameless .
McConnell might end up having a more effective argument after the expiration of the CARES Act at the end of July failed to result in the economic collapse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regardless , it ’ s still just inside-the-beltway posturing that has almost nothing to do with ordinary ‘ Murricans , and everything to do with manipulating the institutions that serve ‘ Murricans for their own political gain .
Even though that ’ s an old story , it ’ s still amazing to see two parties with everything to gain by spending imaginary money weeks before an election fail to come up with a compromise that suits them both .
It ’ s idiotic , of course , but still amazing .

This only counts as progress for record-keeping purposes, but it’s worth noting nonetheless. Facing an impasse with Democrats on Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans want to force a vote on a so-called “skinny” Phase 4 relief bill, consisting of only $500 billion more in targeted stimulus and unemployment benefits. It spends more than that, but absorbs unspent funds in previous bills to bring down the new cost of the package.
Mitch McConnell wants to get 51 votes in the Senate — not to pass the bill, but to force Democrats to obstruct it:
Senate Republicans will introduce their new coronavirus relief bill Tuesday and are eyeing a vote later this week, after weeks of stalled negotiations between the White House and Democratic leaders over an aid package. The new, more narrow GOP proposal will provide $300 in increased weekly federal unemployment benefits through Dec. 27, additional money for the Paycheck Protection Program and liability protections for schools and businesses as they try to reopen, a top priority for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The cost of the package is estimated at $500 billion, but the measure also proposes rescinding hundreds of billions in previously appropriated funds to hold down the costs.
Playing off the “skinny” label, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer argued that McConnell’s new bill has an eating disorder:
Even before the Republican plan was introduced, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) panned the “emaciated” GOP proposal, saying in a joint statement that it is “headed nowhere” and only intended to help vulnerable Senate Republicans with a “check the box vote.”
That’s precisely the purpose it serves. By the same token, that’s precisely the purpose that Pelosi’s $3.4 trillion “HEROES” Act served too. That never had a prayer of passing in the Senate, and both Pelosi and Schumer knew that full well. They passed it in order to argue that meany Republicans were obstructing aid to the unemployed, health-care workers, and stimulus grants to ordinary ‘Murricans.
So yes, Mitch McConnell will play the same game with this bill now to blame the meany Democrats for blocking aid to the same ordinary ‘Murricans. Resolved: both sides are equally shameless. McConnell might end up having a more effective argument after the expiration of the CARES Act at the end of July failed to result in the economic collapse predicted by Democrats on Capitol Hill. Regardless, it’s still just inside-the-beltway posturing that has almost nothing to do with ordinary ‘Murricans, and everything to do with manipulating the institutions that serve ‘Murricans for their own political gain.
Even though that’s an old story, it’s still amazing to see two parties with everything to gain by spending imaginary money weeks before an election fail to come up with a compromise that suits them both. It’s idiotic, of course, but still amazing.


hotair--2020-09-08--1,000 people double-voted in the Georgia primary using mail-in ballots

About 10 days ago the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that there were voting irregularities in Long County , an area west of Savannah , that called into question a tight race for Long County probate judge .
The incumbent filed a lawsuit after he apparently lost the race by 9 votes to a challenger .
But Jake Evans , the incumbent ’ s attorney , said seven people had voted twice , some by turning in an absentee ballot and then voting in person .
“ It ’ s a crazy story .
I don ’ t even know how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think double-voting was possible , ” Evans said .
Today , Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said that statewide 1,000 Georgians voted twice in the June 9 primary election : These voters returned absentee ballots and then also showed up to vote on election day June 9 , Raffensperger said .
County election officials are able to stop double-voting most of the time , but they weren ’ t able to catch everyone .
“ A double voter knows exactly what they ’ re doing , diluting the votes of each and every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Raffensperger said during a press conference at the state Capitol .
“ Those that make the choice to game the system are breaking the law .
And as secretary of state , I will not tolerate it.
” … Double-voting didn ’ t change the outcome of any races in the primary , Raffensperger said .
According to Raffensperger , as many as 150,000 people who requested absentee ballots went to the polls on election day .
In most cases that was because they never received the ballots they had requested , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned an absentee ballot , which is a felony .
A spokesman for the Democratic Party said , “ It is clear that rather than do his job of promoting the safety and security of our voting process , the secretary of state is instead pushing the GOP ’ s voting conspiracy theories and disinformation.
” During his speech announcing the findings today , Raffensperger suggested that historically only about 5 % of votes were cast by absentee ballot but in the recent primary that figure was closer to 50 percent .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have requested mail-in ballots for the November election creating a lot of potential for this kind of fraud .
If convicted , people who double vote face a minimum of 1 year in prison .
However , Raffensperger said he would be turning over the information he has uncovered to local DAs and to the States Attorney for prosecution .
Here ’ s the full announcement plus a Q & A that followed :

About 10 days ago the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that there were voting irregularities in Long County, an area west of Savannah, that called into question a tight race for Long County probate judge. The incumbent filed a lawsuit after he apparently lost the race by 9 votes to a challenger. But Jake Evans, the incumbent’s attorney, said seven people had voted twice, some by turning in an absentee ballot and then voting in person. “It’s a crazy story. I don’t even know how it happened. I didn’t even think double-voting was possible,” Evans said.
Today, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said that statewide 1,000 Georgians voted twice in the June 9 primary election:
These voters returned absentee ballots and then also showed up to vote on election day June 9, Raffensperger said. County election officials are able to stop double-voting most of the time, but they weren’t able to catch everyone. “A double voter knows exactly what they’re doing, diluting the votes of each and every voter that follows the law,” Raffensperger said during a press conference at the state Capitol. “Those that make the choice to game the system are breaking the law. And as secretary of state, I will not tolerate it.”… Double-voting didn’t change the outcome of any races in the primary, Raffensperger said.
According to Raffensperger, as many as 150,000 people who requested absentee ballots went to the polls on election day. In most cases that was because they never received the ballots they had requested, but in 1,000 cases these individuals had already returned an absentee ballot, which is a felony.
A spokesman for the Democratic Party said, “It is clear that rather than do his job of promoting the safety and security of our voting process, the secretary of state is instead pushing the GOP’s voting conspiracy theories and disinformation.”
During his speech announcing the findings today, Raffensperger suggested that historically only about 5% of votes were cast by absentee ballot but in the recent primary that figure was closer to 50 percent. And as of now, about 900,000 people have requested mail-in ballots for the November election creating a lot of potential for this kind of fraud.
If convicted, people who double vote face a minimum of 1 year in prison. However, Raffensperger said he would be turning over the information he has uncovered to local DAs and to the States Attorney for prosecution. Here’s the full announcement plus a Q&A that followed:


hotair--2020-09-08--A liberal wonders: why aren't we talking about gun control?

All through the primary season , from the beginning of 2019 up until late this spring , the Democratic platform appeared to have at least one plank firmly embedded in its center .
Gun control was going to be a hot topic .
Mass shootings absorbed the news last year ( at least if they involved a White person shooting one or more persons of color , anyway ) .
Loopholes needed to be closed .
“ Assault rifles ” and extended magazines needed to be banned .
Scary looking weapons needed to be confiscated .
But then , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sound effect ringing in everyone ’ s ears , it mysteriously stopped .
You barely hear a peep out of any Democrat about the subject .
So what happened ?
That ’ s the question being posed this week by Bill Scher at Real Clear Politics .
Particularly following the killings in Kenosha and Portland over the past couple of weeks , shouldn ’ t liberals be beating the drum louder than ever and calling for tougher gun laws as we grind through the final weeks of the election season ?
Why aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chiefly , because the presidential candidates aren ’ t talking about guns .
Donald Trump is busy blaming Joe Biden and Democratic mayors for failing to crack down on rioting and looting , while Biden is blaming Trump for fueling divisiveness .
Biden , as the candidate with a long record of supporting gun control , is the one you might expect to emphasize the issue .
But he apparently does not see the political gain in doing so .
Biden wants to frame the election as a choice between a uniter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is constantly polarizing America , and a challenger who will remind Americans of our common purpose .
He can ’ t easily run as a de-polarizer and stress gun control , because the gun debate inflames our cultural polarization .
To a certain extent , that reason is obviously part of the answer , though hardly all of it .
The political winds blow in the direction of the hot air coming from the candidates ’ mouths and that of their surrogates out on the campaign trail .
Biden doesn ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s only input on the subject is that we need a lot more guns in circulation .
It doesn ’ t make for fertile ground in terms of pushing the gun-grabbing agenda .
But that ’ s not the entire reason by a long shot .
Scher further argues that the shootings in Kenosha and Portland aren ’ t the type that gets the media hyped up to talk about gun control .
What usually drives the conversation , according to the author , are mass shootings .
When you have one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another White person in the middle of a riot , that doesn ’ t put anyone in mind of further governmental abridgment of Second Amendment rights .
I ’ ll even grant Scher that point , at least to a degree .
Those weren ’ t the “ flashy ” sort of shootings that bring the inner gun-grabber out in most liberals .
But he ’ s missing the boat by ignoring the more obvious answer .
While most Democrats may be wrong on the issue , their political strategists aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confiscation just as we ’ re seeing one record-setting month of gun sales exceeded by another is a bad strategy .
And we ’ re not just talking about the usual flurry of sales that take place when it looks like a Democrat might be taking over the White House .
People are concerned .
More correctly , at least in many cases , people are frightened .
The nation ’ s cities are being consumed by riots and arson .
Citizens sitting in public simply minding their own business are being harassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The unrest is , in some cases , already pushing out of the downtown areas of the cities and into the suburbs .
People want to be able to protect their homes and their families and many are realizing they may need a firearm to do that .
Some are liberals who may have previously supported gun control measures and are now shocked to realize how hard it is to buy firearms that they were promised by Democrats were easier to obtain than chewing gum .
With much of the country in such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris have been forced to address the violence in the streets .
And this is no time to for them to be reminding people of their previous promises to confiscate firearms and disarm the lawful .
In fact , that could cost them more votes than they can afford to lose .
So at least until the riots recede ( assuming they do ) we ’ ll continue to hear the sounds of crickets from the Democrats when it comes to gun-grabbing .

All through the primary season, from the beginning of 2019 up until late this spring, the Democratic platform appeared to have at least one plank firmly embedded in its center. Gun control was going to be a hot topic. Mass shootings absorbed the news last year (at least if they involved a White person shooting one or more persons of color, anyway). Loopholes needed to be closed. “Assault rifles” and extended magazines needed to be banned. Scary looking weapons needed to be confiscated. But then, as if there was some cosmic-level record scratching sound effect ringing in everyone’s ears, it mysteriously stopped. You barely hear a peep out of any Democrat about the subject.
So what happened? That’s the question being posed this week by Bill Scher at Real Clear Politics. Particularly following the killings in Kenosha and Portland over the past couple of weeks, shouldn’t liberals be beating the drum louder than ever and calling for tougher gun laws as we grind through the final weeks of the election season?
Why aren’t we talking about guns? Chiefly, because the presidential candidates aren’t talking about guns. Donald Trump is busy blaming Joe Biden and Democratic mayors for failing to crack down on rioting and looting, while Biden is blaming Trump for fueling divisiveness. Biden, as the candidate with a long record of supporting gun control, is the one you might expect to emphasize the issue. But he apparently does not see the political gain in doing so. Biden wants to frame the election as a choice between a uniter and a divider, between an incumbent who is constantly polarizing America, and a challenger who will remind Americans of our common purpose. He can’t easily run as a de-polarizer and stress gun control, because the gun debate inflames our cultural polarization.
To a certain extent, that reason is obviously part of the answer, though hardly all of it. The political winds blow in the direction of the hot air coming from the candidates’ mouths and that of their surrogates out on the campaign trail. Biden doesn’t feel like talking about gun control and Trump’s only input on the subject is that we need a lot more guns in circulation. It doesn’t make for fertile ground in terms of pushing the gun-grabbing agenda. But that’s not the entire reason by a long shot.
Scher further argues that the shootings in Kenosha and Portland aren’t the type that gets the media hyped up to talk about gun control. What usually drives the conversation, according to the author, are mass shootings. When you have one or two White people being shot by another White person in the middle of a riot, that doesn’t put anyone in mind of further governmental abridgment of Second Amendment rights. I’ll even grant Scher that point, at least to a degree. Those weren’t the “flashy” sort of shootings that bring the inner gun-grabber out in most liberals.
But he’s missing the boat by ignoring the more obvious answer. While most Democrats may be wrong on the issue, their political strategists aren’t stupid. Beginning to talk about gun confiscation just as we’re seeing one record-setting month of gun sales exceeded by another is a bad strategy. And we’re not just talking about the usual flurry of sales that take place when it looks like a Democrat might be taking over the White House.
People are concerned. More correctly, at least in many cases, people are frightened. The nation’s cities are being consumed by riots and arson. Citizens sitting in public simply minding their own business are being harassed and threatened by liberal street mobs. The unrest is, in some cases, already pushing out of the downtown areas of the cities and into the suburbs. People want to be able to protect their homes and their families and many are realizing they may need a firearm to do that. Some are liberals who may have previously supported gun control measures and are now shocked to realize how hard it is to buy firearms that they were promised by Democrats were easier to obtain than chewing gum.
With much of the country in such a mood, even Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been forced to address the violence in the streets. And this is no time to for them to be reminding people of their previous promises to confiscate firearms and disarm the lawful. In fact, that could cost them more votes than they can afford to lose. So at least until the riots recede (assuming they do) we’ll continue to hear the sounds of crickets from the Democrats when it comes to gun-grabbing.


hotair--2020-09-08--Miami Herald: Don't look now, but Trump has a lead among Miami-Dade Latinos

It ’ s not the first indication that Joe Biden may have a vulnerability in the Hispanic vote , but it might be the most stunning .
Donald Trump trails Biden in Miami-Dade County , according to a new poll from the Miami Herald , but no one expects Trump to win there anyway .
He ’ s far closer to Biden than he was to Hillary Clinton while winning Florida anyway , however , and one reason is that Trump now splits Latinos , 48/47 — a sign that Biden may well lose the Sunshine State , and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after getting trounced in Miami-Dade County by Hillary Clinton , President Donald Trump has increased his odds of victory in his must-win home state on Nov. 3 by improving his standing in Florida ’ s most populous county , according to a poll by Bendixen & Amandi International and the Miami Herald .
The poll of 500 likely Miami-Dade voters , released Tuesday , found Trump far behind Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 38 % to 55 % in Miami-Dade , where Democrats typically need to run up the score in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , he lost Miami-Dade to Hillary Clinton by 30 points — about 290,000 votes — but won the state by 1.2 % of the total vote .
“ Run up the score ” is exactly what Biden will need to do in Miami-Dade , and in Broward , to have any hope of competing against Trump in the state .
Hillary Clinton succeeded in Miami-Dade but fell short anyway , and Clinton won Hispanics 62/35 statewide in 2016 .
Trump won Cuban-Americans by thirteen points four years ago , but they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now : But the poll found the former vice president splitting Hispanic voters with Trump , with Trump at 47 % and Biden at 46 % .
Those numbers — based on smaller polling subsets with larger margins of error — are driven by Trump ’ s increased support among conservative leaning Cuban-Americans , who supported Trump over Biden in the poll by a crushing 38 points .
Just eight years ago , those voters roughly split their votes between Republican nominee Mitt Romney and former President Barack Obama .
“ Democrats are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they won in the past , which could very well make a difference in a state as tight as Florida , ” said Amandi , whose firm produced Spanish-language ads for the 2012 Obama campaign .
At this point , it ’ s not so much that it will make a difference as that it will make for the same outcome .
The big question that Biden ’ s campaign will have to answer is whether this is a phenomenon limited to Florida and the state ’ s Cuban-American demo , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least one other Latino demo seems to be giving Biden problems in Florida too , raising that question another degree or so in importance ( translation via Google ) : In Florida , one of the key states in the US elections , the Venezuelan vote could tip the balance in favor of Donald Trump .
7 out of 10 nationals with the right to vote would do so for the current president , according to an exclusive survey by the Public Opinion Research Laboratory ( PORL ) of the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diario .
The poll revealed that both Trump and Republicans rank highly even among Democratic Party affiliate [ d voters ] .
Although the number of Venezuelans registered to vote ( approximately 50,000 ) is lower than other Latino communities such as the Cuban ( 650,000 ) , the Colombian ( 190,000 ) or the Haitian ( 187,000 ) , its incidence may be significant due to the parity of the elections of Florida .
In the 2016 election , for example , Trump defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton by a difference of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this occasion , the Venezuelan vote could bring trends closer or even define the election in this state .
… Martínez analyzed the results of the PORL survey on the political preferences of fellow citizens with respect to the United States and Venezuela .
The trends or definition of the outcome would favor President Trump .
Among those who are registered to vote , 66 % say they will vote for him .
While 34 % say they will vote for the Democratic candidate Joe Biden .
Speaking of translations , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting : If this is just limited to Florida and its specific Latino communities , then Biden won ’ t have much to worry about , other than needing to make up the loss of Florida ’ s trove of Electoral College votes .
If this starts extending into the Southwest and further up the Atlantic coast — particularly in Virginia — then Biden ’ s in real trouble , and perhaps Democrats down-ticket as well .
This bears watching in particular as cities continue to experience chaos over Black Lives Matter protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hispanic voters who also live in those areas might start resenting the progressives ’ efforts to make their communities less safe and start voting accordingly .

It’s not the first indication that Joe Biden may have a vulnerability in the Hispanic vote, but it might be the most stunning. Donald Trump trails Biden in Miami-Dade County, according to a new poll from the Miami Herald, but no one expects Trump to win there anyway. He’s far closer to Biden than he was to Hillary Clinton while winning Florida anyway, however, and one reason is that Trump now splits Latinos, 48/47 — a sign that Biden may well lose the Sunshine State, and not by a small amount:
Four years after getting trounced in Miami-Dade County by Hillary Clinton, President Donald Trump has increased his odds of victory in his must-win home state on Nov. 3 by improving his standing in Florida’s most populous county, according to a poll by Bendixen & Amandi International and the Miami Herald. The poll of 500 likely Miami-Dade voters, released Tuesday, found Trump far behind Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 38% to 55% in Miami-Dade, where Democrats typically need to run up the score in order to compete in statewide races. … In 2016, he lost Miami-Dade to Hillary Clinton by 30 points — about 290,000 votes — but won the state by 1.2% of the total vote.
“Run up the score” is exactly what Biden will need to do in Miami-Dade, and in Broward, to have any hope of competing against Trump in the state. Hillary Clinton succeeded in Miami-Dade but fell short anyway, and Clinton won Hispanics 62/35 statewide in 2016. Trump won Cuban-Americans by thirteen points four years ago, but they are abandoning Biden by a much wider amount now:
But the poll found the former vice president splitting Hispanic voters with Trump, with Trump at 47% and Biden at 46%. Those numbers — based on smaller polling subsets with larger margins of error — are driven by Trump’s increased support among conservative leaning Cuban-Americans, who supported Trump over Biden in the poll by a crushing 38 points. Just eight years ago, those voters roughly split their votes between Republican nominee Mitt Romney and former President Barack Obama. “Democrats are potentially leaving Cuban votes on the table that they won in the past, which could very well make a difference in a state as tight as Florida,” said Amandi, whose firm produced Spanish-language ads for the 2012 Obama campaign.
At this point, it’s not so much that it will make a difference as that it will make for the same outcome. The big question that Biden’s campaign will have to answer is whether this is a phenomenon limited to Florida and the state’s Cuban-American demo, or a wider problem with Hispanics nationwide. At least one other Latino demo seems to be giving Biden problems in Florida too, raising that question another degree or so in importance (translation via Google):
In Florida, one of the key states in the US elections, the Venezuelan vote could tip the balance in favor of Donald Trump. 7 out of 10 nationals with the right to vote would do so for the current president, according to an exclusive survey by the Public Opinion Research Laboratory (PORL) of the University of North Florida (UNF) for El Diario . The poll revealed that both Trump and Republicans rank highly even among Democratic Party affiliate[d voters]. Although the number of Venezuelans registered to vote (approximately 50,000) is lower than other Latino communities such as the Cuban (650,000), the Colombian (190,000) or the Haitian (187,000), its incidence may be significant due to the parity of the elections of Florida. In the 2016 election, for example, Trump defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton by a difference of just over 130,000 votes. Therefore, on this occasion, the Venezuelan vote could bring trends closer or even define the election in this state. … Martínez analyzed the results of the PORL survey on the political preferences of fellow citizens with respect to the United States and Venezuela. The trends or definition of the outcome would favor President Trump. Among those who are registered to vote, 66% say they will vote for him. While 34% say they will vote for the Democratic candidate Joe Biden.
Speaking of translations, this tidbit from the Herald poll seems very interesting:
“Two-thirds of all respondents [in Miami-Dade, Florida] who chose to conduct their interviews in Spanish support Trump” https://t.co/f1mmAzZ9WK — Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) September 8, 2020
If this is just limited to Florida and its specific Latino communities, then Biden won’t have much to worry about, other than needing to make up the loss of Florida’s trove of Electoral College votes. If this starts extending into the Southwest and further up the Atlantic coast — particularly in Virginia — then Biden’s in real trouble, and perhaps Democrats down-ticket as well. This bears watching in particular as cities continue to experience chaos over Black Lives Matter protests and police pull back in urban areas. Hispanic voters who also live in those areas might start resenting the progressives’ efforts to make their communities less safe and start voting accordingly.


hotair--2020-09-08--Biden: I'd get a COVID vaccine tomorrow even if it cost me the election

A little necessary damage control forced upon him by his running mate ’ s recent half-gaffe about vaccines .
If the sound ’ s too low to make out what he said , here ’ s a transcript .
I think the person who tweeted this mistook his point , though .
He ’ s not saying he ’ d take the vaccine for himself , i.e .
get the shot , even if it cost him the election .
I think he means he ’ d produce the vaccine for America if it were within his power to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Kamala Harris told CNN a few days ago that she wouldn ’ t get vaccinated based solely on Trump ’ s say-so that it was safe to do so .
She was making a point about his motives : If there ’ s any politician in America who ’ d rush out an unproven vaccine before the election in order to help himself politically , it ’ s him .
“ I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reliability of whatever he ’ s talking about , ” she said on Sunday .
“ I will not take his word for it.
” Is she right not to trust him ?
Well… Facing one of the most critical moments in its tenure since it was founded over a hundred years ago , officials inside the FDA say the tension is palpable .
A number of sources familiar with the internal workings told CNN the responsibility feels immense and the environment is akin to that of a pressure cooker .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Stephen Hahn was forced to apologize for an overhyped plasma announcement , subsequently removed a newly installed communications aide and found himself on the receiving end of criticism from the West Wing… In meetings focused on vaccine development throughout the spring and summer , Trump has consistently pressed officials to speed up their timeline for developing a vaccine , administration officials said , saying the President appeared intent on being able to deliver at least the solid promise of an effective vaccine by the time he faces reelection .
Those efforts have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Trump has repeatedly complained that some officials at federal health agencies are actively working to stymie his reelection chances by slow-walking announcements that might project forward momentum .
It was pressure from “ the top ” that allegedly led the CDC recently to downplay testing for potential asymptomatic carriers , a move that makes zero sense medically but lots of sense politically for a president who grumbles constantly about widespread testing pushing up the country ’ s confirmed case count .
Likewise , it seemed an amazing coincidence that the FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Republican convention , less than 24 hours after Trump complained about a “ deep state ” at the agency supposedly slow-walking COVID progress to hurt him politically .
The medicine *is* being politicized here , rather overtly .
Watch him yesterday scolding Harris for her alleged “ anti-vaccine ” rhetoric , bearing in mind that Trump himself is a vaccine skeptic of longstanding , to the country ’ s misfortune .
He all but declares that there ’ s an “ October surprise ” in the making .
Harris isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just suspicious of how far he might be willing to go to announce an untested vaccine had been approved .
“ Yes .
I trust Dr. Fauci , ” she told CNN when asked if Fauci ’ s recommendation would help convince her about a vaccine .
She added that she “ would trust the word of public health experts and scientists , but not Donald Trump.
” She ’ s not alone .
Ed mentioned this data in an earlier post but it ’ s worth noting again : The reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the last thing the country needs is further encouragement to distrust authority figures on all things COVID , especially with respect to the vaccine .
Instead of warning people not to trust Trump , she should have simply taken him out of the equation .
“ It doesn ’ t matter what Trump says or doesn ’ t say about the quality of the vaccine , ” she could have told CNN .
“ It only matters what medical professionals say .
Thousands of scientists will be able to review the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase three files .
Their verdict should be trusted.
” To the extent anyone ’ s interpreting what she said to CNN as tantamount to “ Don ’ t get the shot if Trump says it ’ s safe , ” that ’ s bad .
The idea of him foisting some snake-oil vaccine on the country to produce a pre-election poll bounce has always been silly , though , in that newspapers and cable news outlets would be instantly overflowing with experts warning people that the product ’ s not ready for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on balance , probably quite a lot .
That ’ s not to say he won ’ t pressure the FDA to approve something for emergency use prematurely anyway — he ’ s constantly sabotaging his own best interests — but the Democratic nightmare scenario in which he pushes a bogus vaccine and gets reelected because of it is farcical .
The real risk is that he ’ d pressure the FDA to push something out prematurely , a thousand doctors would howl that the data is inconclusive , and then once a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too skeptical to get it .
I want to believe that Stephen Hahn and the agency wouldn ’ t do that , especially after the beating they took among colleagues for approving plasma prematurely , but we ’ ll see .
In all likelihood the last two weeks of the election will be filled with Trump tweeting openly at the FDA to approve something and then accusing them of being chockablock with Democrats trying to engineer a Biden victory when they don ’ t .

A little necessary damage control forced upon him by his running mate’s recent half-gaffe about vaccines.
News: Joe Biden says while Trump is undermining confidence in a COVID vaccine—he WOULD take a vaccine tomorrow if it was available as “we need a vaccine and we need it now.” pic.twitter.com/E9x5QbDYbk — Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) September 7, 2020
If the sound’s too low to make out what he said, here’s a transcript. I think the person who tweeted this mistook his point, though. He’s not saying he’d take the vaccine for himself, i.e. get the shot, even if it cost him the election. I think he means he’d produce the vaccine for America if it were within his power to do so even if it cost him the election.
Asked by @BoKnowsNews if he’d take a COVID vaccine before the election, Joe Biden said he would “want to see what the scientists said.” Biden then added, “If I could get a vaccine tomorrow, I’d do it. If it cost me the election, I’d do it.” pic.twitter.com/a0xlniozlM — Sarah Mucha (@sarahmucha) September 7, 2020
Kamala Harris told CNN a few days ago that she wouldn’t get vaccinated based solely on Trump’s say-so that it was safe to do so. She was making a point about his motives: If there’s any politician in America who’d rush out an unproven vaccine before the election in order to help himself politically, it’s him. “I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about,” she said on Sunday. “I will not take his word for it.” Is she right not to trust him? Well…
Facing one of the most critical moments in its tenure since it was founded over a hundred years ago, officials inside the FDA say the tension is palpable. A number of sources familiar with the internal workings told CNN the responsibility feels immense and the environment is akin to that of a pressure cooker. In the last week alone, FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn was forced to apologize for an overhyped plasma announcement, subsequently removed a newly installed communications aide and found himself on the receiving end of criticism from the West Wing… In meetings focused on vaccine development throughout the spring and summer, Trump has consistently pressed officials to speed up their timeline for developing a vaccine, administration officials said, saying the President appeared intent on being able to deliver at least the solid promise of an effective vaccine by the time he faces reelection. Those efforts have only scaled up as Election Day nears, and Trump has repeatedly complained that some officials at federal health agencies are actively working to stymie his reelection chances by slow-walking announcements that might project forward momentum.
It was pressure from “the top” that allegedly led the CDC recently to downplay testing for potential asymptomatic carriers, a move that makes zero sense medically but lots of sense politically for a president who grumbles constantly about widespread testing pushing up the country’s confirmed case count. Likewise, it seemed an amazing coincidence that the FDA finally authorized convalescent plasma on the eve of the Republican convention, less than 24 hours after Trump complained about a “deep state” at the agency supposedly slow-walking COVID progress to hurt him politically. The medicine *is* being politicized here, rather overtly.
Watch him yesterday scolding Harris for her alleged “anti-vaccine” rhetoric, bearing in mind that Trump himself is a vaccine skeptic of longstanding, to the country’s misfortune. He all but declares that there’s an “October surprise” in the making.
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1303025907490344961
Harris isn’t “anti-vaccine,” she’s just suspicious of how far he might be willing to go to announce an untested vaccine had been approved. “Yes. I trust Dr. Fauci,” she told CNN when asked if Fauci’s recommendation would help convince her about a vaccine. She added that she “would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump.” She’s not alone. Ed mentioned this data in an earlier post but it’s worth noting again:
Coverage of Harris's vaccine answer keeps treating it like a gaffe, but polling has found big support for the "hm, might be fishy if Trump has a vaccine right before the election" take. Swing voters don't think Trump is honest. https://t.co/V8ulB0C2ec pic.twitter.com/hC7HFov13f — Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) September 8, 2020
The reason her comments count as a half-gaffe is that the last thing the country needs is further encouragement to distrust authority figures on all things COVID, especially with respect to the vaccine. Instead of warning people not to trust Trump, she should have simply taken him out of the equation. “It doesn’t matter what Trump says or doesn’t say about the quality of the vaccine,” she could have told CNN. “It only matters what medical professionals say. Thousands of scientists will be able to review the data of whichever vaccine candidate emerges from the phase three files. Their verdict should be trusted.” To the extent anyone’s interpreting what she said to CNN as tantamount to “Don’t get the shot if Trump says it’s safe,” that’s bad.
The idea of him foisting some snake-oil vaccine on the country to produce a pre-election poll bounce has always been silly, though, in that newspapers and cable news outlets would be instantly overflowing with experts warning people that the product’s not ready for primetime. That would hurt Trump politically on balance, probably quite a lot. That’s not to say he won’t pressure the FDA to approve something for emergency use prematurely anyway — he’s constantly sabotaging his own best interests — but the Democratic nightmare scenario in which he pushes a bogus vaccine and gets reelected because of it is farcical. The real risk is that he’d pressure the FDA to push something out prematurely, a thousand doctors would howl that the data is inconclusive, and then once a vaccine *does* past muster Americans will be too skeptical to get it. I want to believe that Stephen Hahn and the agency wouldn’t do that, especially after the beating they took among colleagues for approving plasma prematurely, but we’ll see. In all likelihood the last two weeks of the election will be filled with Trump tweeting openly at the FDA to approve something and then accusing them of being chockablock with Democrats trying to engineer a Biden victory when they don’t.


hotair--2020-09-08--Pittsburgh BLM activists claim video only shows one side of the story

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette spoke to two of the people seen in that video clips that circulated over the weekend about their behavior .
First of all , the woman in the “ Nazi Lived Don ’ t Matter ” t-shirt who drank someone ’ s beer is named Nique Craft .
Craft claims there is another side to the story which doesn ’ t appear in the video clips .
Regarding the man hit over the head with a skateboard , here ’ s her claim : Craft , who identifies as nonbinary , said the videos show only one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were three men from outside the protest who were screaming “ Blue lives matter ” at the protesters .
When protesters began to confront them , one man began swinging a bike at people .
According to Craft ’ s account , a man began grabbing Craft ’ s hair and placed his hand on Craft ’ s chest , saying he was trying to stop Craft from engaging with another man .
Conveniently , Craft claims not to know who the man with the skateboard was , i.e .
the guy who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was marching with the same group she was with all day…She doesn ’ t recognize him .
As for drinking the bystander ’ s beer , Craft claims that was a misunderstanding too : When the confrontation ended , Craft said , a man in the restaurant began condemning the protesters ’ actions .
The woman who was with him offered Craft to come over , have a beer and talk about the situation .
“ So , being a theatrical , snarky type of person that I am , I said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait for you to order another beer ; I will take the one you have , ” Craft said .
Obviously if someone invites you over to have a beer and talk , they are trying to de-escalate a violent situation .
When you walk over , take a beer that belongs to them and walk away , you ’ re not respecting that offer to have a discussion , you ’ re spitting on it .
All of which makes sense because , according to another interview Craft gave to Pittsburgh Current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bigger role in the protests .
Along with that fear of coddling white protesters , Nique believes that anger has not played a large enough role in Pittsburgh ’ s protest .
While we happily celebrate the death of the Pinkertons , dozens of people were arrested in East Liberty essentially because someone may or may not have thrown a water bottle at a riot cop .
“ Logically , I think we should f**k s**t up like everybody else is .
Also logically , I feel like we ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I don ’ t think logic has a lot to do with her thinking .
Another activists in the crowd is telling a similar story .
Lorenzon Rulli is the tall person who shouted obsenities at the diners and gave them the finger .
He said , “ We were talking to people that were talking to us .
The beer that was consumed was an offer .
The glass that fell was a mistake.
” The glass he knocked over may have accidentally fallen on the ground but someone else then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ground , breaking it .
That wasn ’ t a mistake .
The most relevant point about this is that both Craft and Rulli have previously been arrested for rioting back in June : In the last week , Pittsburgh police have charged several leaders of local ‘ Black Lives Matter ’ protests .
Those charged include Christian Carter , Nique Craft and Dena Stanley .
All three are accused of riot , harassment , and other offenses related to a June 24 protest at a Downtown bar , 941 Saloon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it down.
” Police affidavits say the protesters tried unsuccessfully to gain entry to the business , and then trapped patrons inside for about 25 minutes by duct-taping the front door shut .
Marchers are also accused of damaging a security vehicle outside the bar by stabbing one of its tires and jumping on it .
Last week , activist Lorenzo Rulli also surrendered to police after being charged with 14 offenses related to the protest at the bar and two other demonstrations .
Rulli was released from the Allegheny County Jail on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carter , Craft , and Stanley also secured release pending further proceedings .
So harassing diners isn ’ t new for this group .
They ’ ve already been arrested and charged for this sort of thing once before .
Even without that history , I wouldn ’ t believe these people aren ’ t telling the truth and here ’ s why .
That video I posted as an update yesterday shows the same group nearly getting into a fist fight with a McDonald ’ s manager .
They repeatedly scream about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their bullhorns in people ’ s faces and their bodies into other people .
It ’ s clear who is trying to escalate things .
Hopefully prosecutors won ’ t drop the previous charges if they see that this group ’ s behavior hasn ’ t changed .

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette spoke to two of the people seen in that video clips that circulated over the weekend about their behavior. First of all, the woman in the “Nazi Lived Don’t Matter” t-shirt who drank someone’s beer is named Nique Craft. Craft claims there is another side to the story which doesn’t appear in the video clips. Regarding the man hit over the head with a skateboard, here’s her claim:
Craft, who identifies as nonbinary, said the videos show only one side of the story and that there were three men from outside the protest who were screaming “Blue lives matter” at the protesters. When protesters began to confront them, one man began swinging a bike at people. According to Craft’s account, a man began grabbing Craft’s hair and placed his hand on Craft’s chest, saying he was trying to stop Craft from engaging with another man.
Here’s that clip again:
PITTSBURGH PA pic.twitter.com/xXn6EQpENb — President-Elect Dr BadPantsGator PhD (@drrollergator) September 7, 2020
Conveniently, Craft claims not to know who the man with the skateboard was, i.e. the guy who committed a violent assault on camera who was marching with the same group she was with all day…She doesn’t recognize him.
Riiiight.
As for drinking the bystander’s beer, Craft claims that was a misunderstanding too:
When the confrontation ended, Craft said, a man in the restaurant began condemning the protesters’ actions. The woman who was with him offered Craft to come over, have a beer and talk about the situation. “So, being a theatrical, snarky type of person that I am, I said that I don’t have time to wait for you to order another beer; I will take the one you have,” Craft said.
Here’s that clip:
PITTSBURGH PA pic.twitter.com/PxZGxpJIca — President-Elect Dr BadPantsGator PhD (@drrollergator) September 6, 2020
Obviously if someone invites you over to have a beer and talk, they are trying to de-escalate a violent situation. When you walk over, take a beer that belongs to them and walk away, you’re not respecting that offer to have a discussion, you’re spitting on it. All of which makes sense because, according to another interview Craft gave to Pittsburgh Current, she believes anger should be playing a bigger role in the protests.
Along with that fear of coddling white protesters, Nique believes that anger has not played a large enough role in Pittsburgh’s protest. While we happily celebrate the death of the Pinkertons, dozens of people were arrested in East Liberty essentially because someone may or may not have thrown a water bottle at a riot cop. “Logically, I think we should f**k s**t up like everybody else is. Also logically, I feel like we’re not ready for that,” Nique admits.
I don’t think logic has a lot to do with her thinking.
Another activists in the crowd is telling a similar story. Lorenzon Rulli is the tall person who shouted obsenities at the diners and gave them the finger. He said, “We were talking to people that were talking to us. The beer that was consumed was an offer. The glass that fell was a mistake.” The glass he knocked over may have accidentally fallen on the ground but someone else then came up and intentionally swiped another glass on the ground, breaking it. That wasn’t a mistake.
The most relevant point about this is that both Craft and Rulli have previously been arrested for rioting back in June:
In the last week, Pittsburgh police have charged several leaders of local ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests. Those charged include Christian Carter, Nique Craft and Dena Stanley. All three are accused of riot, harassment, and other offenses related to a June 24 protest at a Downtown bar, 941 Saloon, where marchers allegedly chanted “burn it down.” Police affidavits say the protesters tried unsuccessfully to gain entry to the business, and then trapped patrons inside for about 25 minutes by duct-taping the front door shut. Marchers are also accused of damaging a security vehicle outside the bar by stabbing one of its tires and jumping on it. Last week, activist Lorenzo Rulli also surrendered to police after being charged with 14 offenses related to the protest at the bar and two other demonstrations. Rulli was released from the Allegheny County Jail on the day he turned himself in. Carter, Craft, and Stanley also secured release pending further proceedings.
So harassing diners isn’t new for this group. They’ve already been arrested and charged for this sort of thing once before.
Even without that history, I wouldn’t believe these people aren’t telling the truth and here’s why. That video I posted as an update yesterday shows the same group nearly getting into a fist fight with a McDonald’s manager. They repeatedly scream about being touched even as they are shoving their bullhorns in people’s faces and their bodies into other people. It’s clear who is trying to escalate things.
Hopefully prosecutors won’t drop the previous charges if they see that this group’s behavior hasn’t changed.


hotair--2020-09-08--Bolton: No really, that Atlantic hit on Trump is "simply false"; <span class='red'>Update: "Devastat

Bolton: No really, that Atlantic hit on Trump is "simply false"; Update: "Devastated"?

Don ’ t get John Bolton confused with Trump apologists .
The former national security adviser still doesn ’ t have much nice to say about his former boss ( as you ’ ll see ) , but Bolton still wants to set the record straight on why Trump didn ’ t go to Aisne-Marne on Armistice Day 2018 .
That was “ a straight weather call , ” Bolton tells Fox News ’ Martha MacCallum , and the report from The Atlantic based on anonymous sources is “ simply false.
” MacCallum then defends fellow Fox reporter Jennifer Griffin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but Bolton calls that “ completely wrong ” as well ( via Jeff Dunetz ) : “ According to what that article said , the president made disparaging remarks about soldiers and people buried in the cemetery in connection with the decision for him not to go to the ceremony that was planned that afternoon , and that was simply false… ” “ I don ’ t know who told the author that , but that was false.
” “ The main issue was whether or not weather conditions permitted the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton ’ s not the only non-apologist to defend Trump over The Atlantic ’ s claim .
A top aide to John Kelly told Breitbart over the weekend that he was in the room for the discussion , and he never heard Trump say anything like what The Atlantic ’ s sources claim .
Not on the issue of visiting the cemetery , at least : “ You can put me on record denying that I spoke with The Atlantic , ” [ Zach ] Fuentes told Breitbart News on Monday .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources are .
I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather .
Honestly , do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers ?
” He specifically also stated that he believes The Atlantic ’ s sources “ are unlikely first hand accounts.
” “ They are conflating those people from something the day after , ” Fuentes said .
To underscore Fuentes ’ bona fides as a non-apologist , he went on to complain about Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of their way to emphasize that Trump isn ’ t exactly known for his decorum .
Bolton makes a pointed reference to Trump ’ s penchant for talking badly about anyone “ whose last name is not Trump , ” and says that “ I can ’ t prove the negative that he never said those things.
” However , Trump didn ’ t say those things in making the decision about the visit to Aisne-Marne , both Bolton and Fuentes insist .
In fact , everyone who has gone on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including at least two public sources with no interest in defending Trump otherwise .
The only people who are saying it are anonymous sources talking to different news outlets , who might be the same sources talking to multiple reporters .
Put that together with John Bolton ’ s account from his memoir , written in large part to attack Trump but published prior to The Atlantic ’ s story , and it looks like The Atlantic either got suckered or tried to sucker its readers .
Update : I ’ d tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , but the US Ambassador to France was in the room for this exchange , and she also says the story is false .
In fact , McCourt says , Trump was “ devastated ” by the cancellation : Ambassador McCourt was there the day President Trump ’ s team called off the trip to the cemetery at Belleau Wood because of inclement weather .
She is the latest U.S. official who was actually present at the event to publicly deny the Atlantic ’ s account of events , which is based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say , I never spoke to the Atlantic , and I can ’ t imagine who would , ” McCourt told Breitbart News .
“ In my presence , POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country .
And he certainly did not that day , either .
Let me add , he was devastated to not be able to go to the cemetery at Belleau Wood .
In fact , the next day , he attended and spoke at the ceremony in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Devastated ” ?
Well , maybe , but Trump ’ s participation in the Suresnes ceremony the next day shows that he wasn ’ t opposed to participating in such events .
As I wrote the other day , that alone should cast a great deal of skepticism on The Atlantic ’ s claim , even without the on-the-record rebuttals .
But with this many people who were in the room disputing Jeffrey Goldberg ’ s claims without hiding behind anonymity , one has to wonder whether anyone else was actually in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make Goldberg ’ s anonymous sources worthless .

Don’t get John Bolton confused with Trump apologists. The former national security adviser still doesn’t have much nice to say about his former boss (as you’ll see), but Bolton still wants to set the record straight on why Trump didn’t go to Aisne-Marne on Armistice Day 2018. That was “a straight weather call,” Bolton tells Fox News’ Martha MacCallum, and the report from The Atlantic based on anonymous sources is “simply false.”
MacCallum then defends fellow Fox reporter Jennifer Griffin’s claimed confirmation of the story, but Bolton calls that “completely wrong” as well (via Jeff Dunetz):
“According to what that article said, the president made disparaging remarks about soldiers and people buried in the cemetery in connection with the decision for him not to go to the ceremony that was planned that afternoon, and that was simply false…” “I don’t know who told the author that, but that was false.” “The main issue was whether or not weather conditions permitted the president to go out to the cemetery.”
Bolton’s not the only non-apologist to defend Trump over The Atlantic’s claim. A top aide to John Kelly told Breitbart over the weekend that he was in the room for the discussion, and he never heard Trump say anything like what The Atlantic’s sources claim. Not on the issue of visiting the cemetery, at least:
“You can put me on record denying that I spoke with The Atlantic,” [Zach] Fuentes told Breitbart News on Monday. “I don’t know who the sources are. I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?” He specifically also stated that he believes The Atlantic’s sources “are unlikely first hand accounts.” “They are conflating those people from something the day after,” Fuentes said.
To underscore Fuentes’ bona fides as a non-apologist, he went on to complain about Trump’s treatment of Kelly:
“On a separate note, I am disappointed to see POTUS talk about General Kelly so negatively in the middle of being accused of saying negative things about the military,” Fuentes said. “If anyone understands selfless service, it’s General Kelly.”
Both men go out of their way to emphasize that Trump isn’t exactly known for his decorum. Bolton makes a pointed reference to Trump’s penchant for talking badly about anyone “whose last name is not Trump,” and says that “I can’t prove the negative that he never said those things.” However, Trump didn’t say those things in making the decision about the visit to Aisne-Marne, both Bolton and Fuentes insist.
In fact, everyone who has gone on the record says that exact same thing, including at least two public sources with no interest in defending Trump otherwise. The only people who are saying it are anonymous sources talking to different news outlets, who might be the same sources talking to multiple reporters. Put that together with John Bolton’s account from his memoir, written in large part to attack Trump but published prior to The Atlantic’s story, and it looks like The Atlantic either got suckered or tried to sucker its readers.
Update: I’d tend to count Jamie McCourt more on Team Trump, but the US Ambassador to France was in the room for this exchange, and she also says the story is false. In fact, McCourt says, Trump was “devastated” by the cancellation:
Ambassador McCourt was there the day President Trump’s team called off the trip to the cemetery at Belleau Wood because of inclement weather. She is the latest U.S. official who was actually present at the event to publicly deny the Atlantic’s account of events, which is based entirely on anonymous sources. “Needless to say, I never spoke to the Atlantic, and I can’t imagine who would,” McCourt told Breitbart News. “In my presence, POTUS has NEVER denigrated any member of the U.S. military or anyone in service to our country. And he certainly did not that day, either. Let me add, he was devastated to not be able to go to the cemetery at Belleau Wood. In fact, the next day, he attended and spoke at the ceremony in Suresnes in the pouring rain.”
“Devastated”? Well, maybe, but Trump’s participation in the Suresnes ceremony the next day shows that he wasn’t opposed to participating in such events. As I wrote the other day, that alone should cast a great deal of skepticism on The Atlantic’s claim, even without the on-the-record rebuttals. But with this many people who were in the room disputing Jeffrey Goldberg’s claims without hiding behind anonymity, one has to wonder whether anyone else was actually in the room at the time — which would make Goldberg’s anonymous sources worthless.


hotair--2020-09-08--Where'd all of the Trump campaign's money go?

It ’ s funny in hindsight that what finally got Brad Parscale fired as campaign manager was poor attendance at a Trump rally in June , not spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign money for months to little effect on the status of the race .
That seems like a microcosm of the inner circle ’ s priorities : “ We ’ ve all squandered astronomical sums from time to time but bruising POTUS ’ s ego is unforgivable.
” They ’ ve spent $ 800 million so far and , for their trouble , currently enjoy about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall .
They ’ re scrambling to keep pace with Biden despite having had an enormous financial advantage when the race began .
With their previous approach to spending having fallen flat , where should they refocus during the stretch run to November ?
I think the answer to that question lies in three little words .
Under Mr. Parscale , more than $ 350 million — almost half of the $ 800 million spent — went to fund-raising operations , as no expense was spared in finding new donors online .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and housed the team at a cavernous , well-appointed office in the Virginia suburbs ; outsize legal bills were treated as campaign costs ; and more than $ 100 million was spent on a television advertising blitz before the party convention , the point when most of the electorate historically begins to pay close attention to the race .
Among the splashiest and perhaps most questionable purchases was a pair of Super Bowl ads the campaign reserved for $ 11 million , according to Advertising Analytics — more than it has spent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was a vanity splurge that allowed Mr. Trump to match the billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg ’ s buy for the big game… Some people familiar with the budget noted that Mr. Parscale had a car and driver , an unusual expense for a campaign manager .
Mr. Trump has told people gleefully that Mr. Stepien took a pay cut when the president gave him the job… Most visibly , the Trump campaign slashed its August television spending , mostly abandoning the airwaves during the party conventions .
In the last two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign spent $ 35.9 million on television , compared with $ 4.8 million for Mr. Trump , according to Advertising Analytics .
The Times notes that the campaign spent about as much on the Super Bowl ads , to soothe Trump ’ s ego , as it did in advertising on local TV in Wisconsin , Michigan , Iowa , and Minnesota combined through the end of July .
When asked about his questionable priorities , Parscale was defensive , telling the Times that spending decisions were made “ in partnership with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very close eye of the family… No decision was made without their approval.
” I ’ m of two minds about how much cash the campaign has burned through this year .
On the one hand , it ’ s impossible to argue with Ed Rollins ’ s logic : “ If you spend $ 800 million and you ’ re 10 points behind , I think you ’ ve got to answer the question ‘ What was the game plan ?
’ ” If they had spent nothing at all and reserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run , would Trump be meaningfully further behind right now ?
Laugh at Biden ’ s “ basement ” campaign if you like but it ’ s verrrrry cost-effective .
On the other hand , given the dynamics of this election , it seems like a huge chunk of campaign spending was destined to be “ squandered ” no matter what .
Trump ’ s sheer ubiquity in media creates constant pressure towards a “ referendum ” approach to the election , which helps explain why attitudes about the two candidates have remained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic upheaval we ’ ve experienced this year .
It ’ s a truism by now : The race is freakishly stable in a freakishly unstable political climate .
Under those circumstances , it ’ s hard to believe there was some ingenious game-changing ad strategy out there that would have cut Biden ’ s lead in half if only Parscale had devoted more money to it .
In fact , if I were them , I ’ m not sure I ’ d spend another dollar on advertising .
Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s attention away from that message with his daily antics anyway .
They ’ re better off spending the enormous sum they ’ ll raise over the next two months on GOTV efforts instead .
Trump ’ s view of the race has always been that Team Red has the numbers to beat Team Blue if only he can get enough of them out to the polls — and that ’ s sort of true , in that many millions of members of Trump ’ s base of working-class whites ended up not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends up losing and finds himself enraged about squandered spending , that ’ s what he should be enraged about .
Why wasn ’ t every available dollar spent on turning out people who are likely to think highly of Trump instead of trying to win over suburbanites , who aren ’ t ?
To the campaign ’ s credit , they are focused on one aspect of getting out the vote that ’ s been neglected by Team Biden .
They ’ re knocking on doors , allegedly a million per week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn out for Trump .
Democrats aren ’ t doing that because of the pandemic and insist that they ’ re not suffering for it .
“ At first I was nervous , but our response rates on phone calls and texts are much higher and people are not necessarily wanting someone to go up to their door right now , ” said a top Biden campaign official to Politico last month .
“ You get to throw a lot of the rule book out the window and try out new things.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relying heavily on mail-in ballots this year ; having someone come to your door to remind you to send in your ballot early logically seems like it ’ d be more effective than a text would .
Bloomberg reports today that Trump is considering spending some of his own money down the stretch to keep pace with Democratic spending .
That ’ s been received skeptically on political Twitter this morning but I ’ m more credulous about it : President Donald Trump has discussed spending as much as $ 100 million of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if necessary , to beat Democratic nominee Joe Biden , according to people familiar with the matter .
The billionaire president has talked about the idea with multiple people , though he hasn ’ t yet committed to any self-funding , according to people briefed on internal deliberations .
Though Trump personally contributed $ 66 million to his 2016 campaign , it would be unprecedented for an incumbent president to put his own money toward winning a second term .
Trump has sought advice about whether he should self-fund as he scrutinizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year that failed to push him ahead of the former vice president in the polls .
He did it before , for a race everyone told him he was destined to lose .
Why wouldn ’ t he do it again , when he enjoys the advantage of incumbency and maybe a well-timed economic rebound this month and next ?
If he wins , it ’ ll have been worth it .
If he loses , he ’ ll make the money back in whatever grift he ends up running once he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand will remain attractive to rank-and-file Republicans for years to come , and given the influence he ’ s likely to retain over the party ’ s leadership , all manner of special interests are likely to want to do business with him as a sort of super-lobbyist and GOP kingmaker .
Then again , according to a report in Forbes this morning , he lost $ 600 million this past year thanks to the pandemic ’ s effect on resorts and occupancy in office buildings .
And of course , since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he won ’ t have the same bipartisan clientele in his next act that he did in his previous ones .
If anything , they ’ ll be organizing boycotts against him .
Maybe he ’ ll decide that he can ’ t afford to spend on his campaign after all .

It’s funny in hindsight that what finally got Brad Parscale fired as campaign manager was poor attendance at a Trump rally in June, not spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign money for months to little effect on the status of the race. That seems like a microcosm of the inner circle’s priorities: “We’ve all squandered astronomical sums from time to time but bruising POTUS’s ego is unforgivable.”
They’ve spent $800 million so far and, for their trouble, currently enjoy about a 25 percent chance of victory this fall. They’re scrambling to keep pace with Biden despite having had an enormous financial advantage when the race began. With their previous approach to spending having fallen flat, where should they refocus during the stretch run to November? I think the answer to that question lies in three little words.
Daily. Boat. Parades.
Anyway:
Under Mr. Parscale, more than $350 million — almost half of the $800 million spent — went to fund-raising operations, as no expense was spared in finding new donors online. The campaign assembled a big and well-paid staff and housed the team at a cavernous, well-appointed office in the Virginia suburbs; outsize legal bills were treated as campaign costs; and more than $100 million was spent on a television advertising blitz before the party convention, the point when most of the electorate historically begins to pay close attention to the race. Among the splashiest and perhaps most questionable purchases was a pair of Super Bowl ads the campaign reserved for $11 million, according to Advertising Analytics — more than it has spent on TV in some top battleground states. It was a vanity splurge that allowed Mr. Trump to match the billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg’s buy for the big game… Some people familiar with the budget noted that Mr. Parscale had a car and driver, an unusual expense for a campaign manager. Mr. Trump has told people gleefully that Mr. Stepien took a pay cut when the president gave him the job… Most visibly, the Trump campaign slashed its August television spending, mostly abandoning the airwaves during the party conventions. In the last two weeks of the month, Mr. Biden’s campaign spent $35.9 million on television, compared with $4.8 million for Mr. Trump, according to Advertising Analytics.
The Times notes that the campaign spent about as much on the Super Bowl ads, to soothe Trump’s ego, as it did in advertising on local TV in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and Minnesota combined through the end of July. When asked about his questionable priorities, Parscale was defensive, telling the Times that spending decisions were made “in partnership with Ronna McDaniel” and “under the very close eye of the family… No decision was made without their approval.”
I’m of two minds about how much cash the campaign has burned through this year. On the one hand, it’s impossible to argue with Ed Rollins’s logic: “If you spend $800 million and you’re 10 points behind, I think you’ve got to answer the question ‘What was the game plan?’” If they had spent nothing at all and reserved $800 million for the post-Labor-Day stretch run, would Trump be meaningfully further behind right now? Laugh at Biden’s “basement” campaign if you like but it’s verrrrry cost-effective.
On the other hand, given the dynamics of this election, it seems like a huge chunk of campaign spending was destined to be “squandered” no matter what. Trump’s sheer ubiquity in media creates constant pressure towards a “referendum” approach to the election, which helps explain why attitudes about the two candidates have remained largely frozen despite the momentous social and economic upheaval we’ve experienced this year. It’s a truism by now: The race is freakishly stable in a freakishly unstable political climate. Under those circumstances, it’s hard to believe there was some ingenious game-changing ad strategy out there that would have cut Biden’s lead in half if only Parscale had devoted more money to it.
In fact, if I were them, I’m not sure I’d spend another dollar on advertising. Trump’s just going to draw the public’s attention away from that message with his daily antics anyway. They’re better off spending the enormous sum they’ll raise over the next two months on GOTV efforts instead. Trump’s view of the race has always been that Team Red has the numbers to beat Team Blue if only he can get enough of them out to the polls — and that’s sort of true, in that many millions of members of Trump’s base of working-class whites ended up not voting four years ago. If he ends up losing and finds himself enraged about squandered spending, that’s what he should be enraged about. Why wasn’t every available dollar spent on turning out people who are likely to think highly of Trump instead of trying to win over suburbanites, who aren’t?
To the campaign’s credit, they are focused on one aspect of getting out the vote that’s been neglected by Team Biden. They’re knocking on doors, allegedly a million per week, to try to convince residents to turn out for Trump. Democrats aren’t doing that because of the pandemic and insist that they’re not suffering for it. “At first I was nervous, but our response rates on phone calls and texts are much higher and people are not necessarily wanting someone to go up to their door right now,” said a top Biden campaign official to Politico last month. “You get to throw a lot of the rule book out the window and try out new things.” We’ll see. Democrats are relying heavily on mail-in ballots this year; having someone come to your door to remind you to send in your ballot early logically seems like it’d be more effective than a text would.
Bloomberg reports today that Trump is considering spending some of his own money down the stretch to keep pace with Democratic spending. That’s been received skeptically on political Twitter this morning but I’m more credulous about it:
President Donald Trump has discussed spending as much as $100 million of his own money on his re-election campaign, if necessary, to beat Democratic nominee Joe Biden, according to people familiar with the matter. The billionaire president has talked about the idea with multiple people, though he hasn’t yet committed to any self-funding, according to people briefed on internal deliberations. Though Trump personally contributed $66 million to his 2016 campaign, it would be unprecedented for an incumbent president to put his own money toward winning a second term. Trump has sought advice about whether he should self-fund as he scrutinizes heavy spending by his team earlier this year that failed to push him ahead of the former vice president in the polls.
He did it before, for a race everyone told him he was destined to lose. Why wouldn’t he do it again, when he enjoys the advantage of incumbency and maybe a well-timed economic rebound this month and next? If he wins, it’ll have been worth it. If he loses, he’ll make the money back in whatever grift he ends up running once he’s out of office. The Trump brand will remain attractive to rank-and-file Republicans for years to come, and given the influence he’s likely to retain over the party’s leadership, all manner of special interests are likely to want to do business with him as a sort of super-lobbyist and GOP kingmaker.
Then again, according to a report in Forbes this morning, he lost $600 million this past year thanks to the pandemic’s effect on resorts and occupancy in office buildings. And of course, since the Trump name is now poison to Democrats, he won’t have the same bipartisan clientele in his next act that he did in his previous ones. If anything, they’ll be organizing boycotts against him. Maybe he’ll decide that he can’t afford to spend on his campaign after all.


hotair--2020-09-08--Super. Just 1 in 5 shootings in NYC resulted in an arrest this year

We recently discussed the sickening news that New York City had already passed 1,000 shootings in 2020 , a number that ’ s in excess of the total number of shootings for all of 2019 and there are still four months to go .
But as with any municipal government and law enforcement agency , the raw number of incidents doesn ’ t tell the whole story .
How effective are officials being in solving these cases and putting the guilty behind bars ?
According to a new report from the New York Post , things aren ’ t looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either .
The NYPD ’ s clearance rate for shootings is hovering below 20 % on the year , meaning that more than four out of five shooters are still on the streets , and this has many of the locals feeling nervous .
( At least the once who haven ’ t packed up and left yet , anyway . )
The city is gripped by a gun-violence epidemic , but only about 20 percent of shootings have ended with an arrest , according to a Post analysis of NYPD data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 cases of gunplay tallied , about 210 have seen at least one suspect arrested , with the rest remaining open as of late last month , according to data The Post obtained from the city ’ s five district attorneys when the NYPD repeatedly refused to provide it themselves… A shooting is considered “ cleared ” when cops make at least one arrest .
Before we begin ringing the alarm bells too loudly , this isn ’ t as much of a dramatic drop in clearances as you might imagine .
Sadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clearance rate of between 30 and 33 percent over the past five years .
But dropping below twenty is still rather alarming .
As usual , the effectiveness of the police in solving shootings varies quite a bit between boroughs .
Brooklyn continues to drag down the NYPD ’ s numbers with both the lowest clearance rate ( 15 % ) and the highest number of shootings ( nearly 450 ) .
Those numbers aren ’ t hard to explain because Brooklyn is the home to East New York on the borough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one of the most dangerous , gang-infested parts of Gotham and it remains essentially a no-go zone for the police at certain times of the day .
By contrast , Manhattan turned in a 26 % clearance rate on only 130 shootings , while Staten Island cleared half of the thirty shootings they experienced this year .
It seems that no matter who you ask , the reason for this poor performance comes down to a variety of factors , not just a single flaw that could be quickly corrected .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debunked ” the idea , it ’ s impossible to ignore the fact that New York ’ s new bail “ reform ” laws have been putting a lot more criminals back out on the streets more quickly , as have policies seeking to empty the jails as much as possible during the pandemic .
And getting rid of the city ’ s plainclothes anti-crime unit ( responsible for taking a lot of illegal guns off the street ) certainly hasn ’ t helped .
But the bigger factor , at least according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the effect of how the police do their jobs while facing a wave of anti-police sentiment .
The broken windows policies that served to tame New York ’ s out-of-control crime rates in the 90s and 2000s are no more under the de Blasio administration .
And the constant scrutinizing of everything the police do amid calls for more cops to be put in jail leaves many officers hesitant to aggressively go after suspects at times .
Why engage a potentially dangerous gang member when you may wind up being the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play rough with you and you wind up having to use force to make the arrest ?
And with relations between the Mayor and the police unions tanking into the gutter , there ’ s even less incentive to go above and beyond .
The final factor was pointed out in this report by an NYPD spokeswoman who reminds everyone that the cops are quite short of manpower as compared to years past .
Attrition is adding up , with more and more police leaving the force .
Recruiting new officers has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is faced with a rising violent crime rate at the same time as they have fewer officers to deal with it .
With that in mind , it is any shock that clearance rates are down ?
It should have been predictable , really .

We recently discussed the sickening news that New York City had already passed 1,000 shootings in 2020, a number that’s in excess of the total number of shootings for all of 2019 and there are still four months to go. But as with any municipal government and law enforcement agency, the raw number of incidents doesn’t tell the whole story. How effective are officials being in solving these cases and putting the guilty behind bars? According to a new report from the New York Post, things aren’t looking all that hot on the enforcement front, either. The NYPD’s clearance rate for shootings is hovering below 20% on the year, meaning that more than four out of five shooters are still on the streets, and this has many of the locals feeling nervous. (At least the once who haven’t packed up and left yet, anyway.)
The city is gripped by a gun-violence epidemic, but only about 20 percent of shootings have ended with an arrest, according to a Post analysis of NYPD data through late August. Of the approximately 1,000 cases of gunplay tallied, about 210 have seen at least one suspect arrested, with the rest remaining open as of late last month, according to data The Post obtained from the city’s five district attorneys when the NYPD repeatedly refused to provide it themselves… A shooting is considered “cleared” when cops make at least one arrest.
Before we begin ringing the alarm bells too loudly, this isn’t as much of a dramatic drop in clearances as you might imagine. Sadly, the NYPD has only been averaging a clearance rate of between 30 and 33 percent over the past five years. But dropping below twenty is still rather alarming.
As usual, the effectiveness of the police in solving shootings varies quite a bit between boroughs. Brooklyn continues to drag down the NYPD’s numbers with both the lowest clearance rate (15%) and the highest number of shootings (nearly 450). Those numbers aren’t hard to explain because Brooklyn is the home to East New York on the borough’s south side. That’s one of the most dangerous, gang-infested parts of Gotham and it remains essentially a no-go zone for the police at certain times of the day. By contrast, Manhattan turned in a 26% clearance rate on only 130 shootings, while Staten Island cleared half of the thirty shootings they experienced this year.
It seems that no matter who you ask, the reason for this poor performance comes down to a variety of factors, not just a single flaw that could be quickly corrected. While the Post claims to have mostly “debunked” the idea, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that New York’s new bail “reform” laws have been putting a lot more criminals back out on the streets more quickly, as have policies seeking to empty the jails as much as possible during the pandemic. And getting rid of the city’s plainclothes anti-crime unit (responsible for taking a lot of illegal guns off the street) certainly hasn’t helped. But the bigger factor, at least according to one study commissioned by the city, is the effect of how the police do their jobs while facing a wave of anti-police sentiment.
The broken windows policies that served to tame New York’s out-of-control crime rates in the 90s and 2000s are no more under the de Blasio administration. And the constant scrutinizing of everything the police do amid calls for more cops to be put in jail leaves many officers hesitant to aggressively go after suspects at times. Why engage a potentially dangerous gang member when you may wind up being the one facing charges if they decide to play rough with you and you wind up having to use force to make the arrest? And with relations between the Mayor and the police unions tanking into the gutter, there’s even less incentive to go above and beyond.
The final factor was pointed out in this report by an NYPD spokeswoman who reminds everyone that the cops are quite short of manpower as compared to years past. Attrition is adding up, with more and more police leaving the force. Recruiting new officers has been increasingly challenging as well. The NYPD is faced with a rising violent crime rate at the same time as they have fewer officers to deal with it. With that in mind, it is any shock that clearance rates are down? It should have been predictable, really.


hotair--2020-09-08--The left's awkward lionization of Jacob Blake

When we first learned that Kenosha resident Jacob Blake was offering his first interviews and sending out video messages from the hospital after being shot by the police in Kenosha , I noted a somewhat fawning tone to the media coverage he was getting .
This left me wondering about the other people involved in his story , particularly the alleged victims of his past criminal behavior .
Judging by the thousands of combined retweets and likes that message received , I didn ’ t seem to be the only one raising these nagging questions .
None of these issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media outlets , however .
The New York Times has been generating a lot of clicks this week from their own piece on the subject .
They describe Blake as a “ rare survivor ” of police assaults and seemingly admire his willingness to “ tell his own story.
” Unlike so many of the people who have become grim symbols for a movement , Mr. Blake survived and has begun to tell his own story .
“ Your life — and not only just your life , your legs , something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward in life — could be taken from you like this , man , ” Mr. Blake says from his hospital bed , snapping his fingers for emphasis , in a video released over the weekend .
In the video , he speaks publicly for the first time about what happened to him .
His injuries are severe , and his family says he was paralyzed from the waist down in the shooting last month .
The Gray Lady then goes on to favorably share a Saturday tweet from someone who describes Blake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be silent.
” The Times speaks glowingly about how activists see the opportunity to present the public with a personal voice to his experience to be “ encouraging.
” They quote Blake ’ s attorney , Ben Crump , saying that his client “ hasn ’ t been able to fully grasp what a symbol he has become.
” The article does eventually ( and very briefly ) get around to mentioning why the police were called to the scene that day and the charges he faces , but it then immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity this is supposed to be for victims of police violence to “ have a voice.
” I ’ m once again left wondering who is making these editorial decisions at the Paper of Record and if they ’ ve really lost all sense of self-awareness .
It may yet be proven that the police acted improperly when the decision to employ potentially deadly force against Blake on the morning of the event .
An investigation is underway and we won ’ t know the results of that inquiry for some time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of other things we do know and which should obviously be part of this story .
As I wrote on August 29th , at least some reporters have been digging into Blake ’ s backstory and the picture isn ’ t a pretty one .
It ’ s the tale of someone who has had numerous “ touches ” with law enforcement over the years and not for minor matters .
The woman whose home Blake was at when the police arrived had a restraining order against him… an order he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , allegedly sexually assaulting her in front of her own child .
She said he had assaulted her numerous times over the years since she had known him , generally when he needed money .
The charges against Blake included illegal weapons violations , domestic violence , criminal assault , and more .
In short , this was not some innocent victim of racist cops who were out randomly looking for Black people to murder .
Jacob Blake has a profile best described as being a serial predator .
Does that excuse the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employ potentially lethal force is found to have been flawed ?
No .
The rules are the rules .
But one bad thing happening to Jacob Blake does not erase all the bad things that happened to other people at his hands .
When someone beat the heck out of Jeffrey Epstein in his cell last year , the public was clearly entitled to criticize the jail for not keeping their inmates safe while in custody .
But that doesn ’ t mean that the press was going to go out and start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of wronged victim of the criminal justice system rather than keeping in mind that he was a serial child rapist and predator .
If the media insists on having Jacob Blake tell his story as the “ victim ” of a police shooting , they are free to do so .
But someone should be telling the story of the woman whose home Blake was invading that morning as well as anyone else who ran afoul of him in the past rather trying to turn him into some sort of hero in @ @ @ @ @ @

When we first learned that Kenosha resident Jacob Blake was offering his first interviews and sending out video messages from the hospital after being shot by the police in Kenosha, I noted a somewhat fawning tone to the media coverage he was getting. This left me wondering about the other people involved in his story, particularly the alleged victims of his past criminal behavior.
Just curious, has anyone interviewed the woman with the restraining order against him that he (allegedly) sexually assaulted *again* before the cops arrived? If she doesn't feel like talking, that's understandable, but it seems like it would be part of the story. https://t.co/3R3A6OlpzE — Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) September 6, 2020
Judging by the thousands of combined retweets and likes that message received, I didn’t seem to be the only one raising these nagging questions. None of these issues slowed down the rest of our major media outlets, however. The New York Times has been generating a lot of clicks this week from their own piece on the subject. They describe Blake as a “rare survivor” of police assaults and seemingly admire his willingness to “tell his own story.”
Unlike so many of the people who have become grim symbols for a movement, Mr. Blake survived and has begun to tell his own story. “Your life — and not only just your life, your legs, something that you need to move around and move forward in life — could be taken from you like this, man,” Mr. Blake says from his hospital bed, snapping his fingers for emphasis, in a video released over the weekend. In the video, he speaks publicly for the first time about what happened to him. His injuries are severe, and his family says he was paralyzed from the waist down in the shooting last month.
The Gray Lady then goes on to favorably share a Saturday tweet from someone who describes Blake as a “brother who can’t be silent.”
Words from brother who can’t be silent Mr Jacob Blake pic.twitter.com/cc6pEdlvRQ — Our Lives Matter! (@GHOGM) September 5, 2020
The Times speaks glowingly about how activists see the opportunity to present the public with a personal voice to his experience to be “encouraging.” They quote Blake’s attorney, Ben Crump, saying that his client “hasn’t been able to fully grasp what a symbol he has become.”
The article does eventually (and very briefly) get around to mentioning why the police were called to the scene that day and the charges he faces, but it then immediately switches gears back to describing what an opportunity this is supposed to be for victims of police violence to “have a voice.” I’m once again left wondering who is making these editorial decisions at the Paper of Record and if they’ve really lost all sense of self-awareness.
It may yet be proven that the police acted improperly when the decision to employ potentially deadly force against Blake on the morning of the event. An investigation is underway and we won’t know the results of that inquiry for some time. But in the meanwhile, there are a number of other things we do know and which should obviously be part of this story.
As I wrote on August 29th, at least some reporters have been digging into Blake’s backstory and the picture isn’t a pretty one. It’s the tale of someone who has had numerous “touches” with law enforcement over the years and not for minor matters. The woman whose home Blake was at when the police arrived had a restraining order against him… an order he had violated yet again that same morning, allegedly sexually assaulting her in front of her own child. She said he had assaulted her numerous times over the years since she had known him, generally when he needed money.
The charges against Blake included illegal weapons violations, domestic violence, criminal assault, and more. In short, this was not some innocent victim of racist cops who were out randomly looking for Black people to murder. Jacob Blake has a profile best described as being a serial predator.
Does that excuse the police shooting him if the decision to employ potentially lethal force is found to have been flawed? No. The rules are the rules. But one bad thing happening to Jacob Blake does not erase all the bad things that happened to other people at his hands. When someone beat the heck out of Jeffrey Epstein in his cell last year, the public was clearly entitled to criticize the jail for not keeping their inmates safe while in custody. But that doesn’t mean that the press was going to go out and start painting flattering images of Epstein as some sort of wronged victim of the criminal justice system rather than keeping in mind that he was a serial child rapist and predator.
If the media insists on having Jacob Blake tell his story as the “victim” of a police shooting, they are free to do so. But someone should be telling the story of the woman whose home Blake was invading that morning as well as anyone else who ran afoul of him in the past rather trying to turn him into some sort of hero in their war on the cops.