hotair--2020-09-09--Judicial Watch: Mueller may have lied to Congress about conflict of interest

Did Donald Trump tell the truth about Robert Mueller after all ?
Trump vehemently objected to Mueller ’ s appointment as special counsel in 2017 , claiming that Mueller had interviewed to replace James Comey as FBI Director just days before the appointment by Rod Rosenstein .
Mueller denied that claim , including during his testimony before Congress in July of last year .
Rep. Greg Steube ( R-FL ) made sure to get Mueller on the record on that point , and Mueller insisted that he ’ d never been in consideration for the job : STEUBE : Thank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller , over here .
Mr. Mueller did you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as Special Counsel ?
MUELLER : My understanding I was not applying for that job , I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job , which triggered the interview you ’ re talking about .
STEUBE : So you don ’ t recall on May 16th , 2017 that you interviewed with the president regarding the FBI director job ?
MUELLER : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about… MUELLER : …it was about the job and not about me applying for the job .
STEUBE : So your statement here today is that you didn ’ t interview to apply for the FBI director job ?
STEUBE : So it – did you tell the vice president that the FBI director position would be the one job that you would come back to – for ?
Five months before this testimony had taken place , Judicial Watch had petitioned for the records surrounding Mueller ’ s May 16 , 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday , they received those records , along with other records relating to other parts of Mueller ’ s special-counsel investigation .
Lo and behold , those records contained an e-mail in which Rosenstein noted that Mueller had withdrawn his name from consideration for the FBI Director position on May 17 , 2017 : Judicial Watch announced today that it received 47 pages of documents from the Department of Justice which includes a May 17 , 2017 , email documenting that Robert Mueller informed the Attorney General ’ s office he was withdrawing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This recently released email raises new questions about Mueller ’ s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on July 24 , 2019 , where he said a May 16 , 2017 interview with President Donald Trump was “ not about me applying for the job ” as FBI director .
… In the May 17 , 2017 , email former Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein writes to then-Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt with the subject line : “ Mueller ” and states : “ Withdrew from consideration for FBI director.
” Hunt responds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning and also withdrew his name from consideration.
” On the same day , Rosenstein appointed Mueller special counsel for the Russia investigation .
The e-mail is terse , but its meaning is obvious : If Mueller “ withdrew from consideration for FBI director ” on May 17 , then he must have known he was under consideration for it on May 16 .
That means he wasn ’ t in the meeting that day as a consultant , as he testified under Steube ’ s questioning .
It means he was there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even if that may not have been his intention .
He was aware enough of it to withdraw from consideration .
That certainly explains why Trump was so incensed over Mueller ’ s appointment as special counsel .
He had literally been interviewing Mueller for Comey ’ s job the day before , and then Mueller gets appointed to investigate why the job was vacant in the first place .
That certainly looks like a conflict of interest , or at least too close for a special counsel appointment , which is supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective .
One has to wonder what happened in the interview , and whether it had any influence on how Mueller approached the case .
At the very least , that makes Mueller ’ s testimony erroneous .
At worst , Mueller may have lied to Congress , but don ’ t hold your breath on that having any legal consequences .
The House would have to vote for a criminal referral , and Nancy Pelosi isn ’ t about to let Trump off the hook for anything related to the Russiagate conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump will have to just settle for some belated vindication on the special-counsel appointment , although the media will no doubt ensure that he celebrates it quietly .

Did Donald Trump tell the truth about Robert Mueller after all? Trump vehemently objected to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel in 2017, claiming that Mueller had interviewed to replace James Comey as FBI Director just days before the appointment by Rod Rosenstein. Mueller denied that claim, including during his testimony before Congress in July of last year.
Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) made sure to get Mueller on the record on that point, and Mueller insisted that he’d never been in consideration for the job:
STEUBE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mueller, over here. Mr. Mueller did you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as Special Counsel? MUELLER: My understanding I was not applying for that job, I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview you’re talking about. STEUBE: So you don’t recall on May 16th, 2017 that you interviewed with the president regarding the FBI director job? MUELLER: I interviewed with the president and it was about… STEUBE: Regarding the FBI director job? MUELLER: …it was about the job and not about me applying for the job. STEUBE: So your statement here today is that you didn’t interview to apply for the FBI director job? MUELLER: That’s correct. STEUBE: So it – did you tell the vice president that the FBI director position would be the one job that you would come back to – for? MUELLER: I don’t recall that one. STEUBE: You don’t recall that? MUELLER: No.
Five months before this testimony had taken place, Judicial Watch had petitioned for the records surrounding Mueller’s May 16, 2017 interview at the White House. Late yesterday, they received those records, along with other records relating to other parts of Mueller’s special-counsel investigation. Lo and behold, those records contained an e-mail in which Rosenstein noted that Mueller had withdrawn his name from consideration for the FBI Director position on May 17, 2017:
Judicial Watch announced today that it received 47 pages of documents from the Department of Justice which includes a May 17, 2017, email documenting that Robert Mueller informed the Attorney General’s office he was withdrawing from consideration for director of the FBI. This recently released email raises new questions about Mueller’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2019, where he said a May 16, 2017 interview with President Donald Trump was “not about me applying for the job” as FBI director. … In the May 17, 2017, email former Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein writes to then-Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt with the subject line: “Mueller” and states: “Withdrew from consideration for FBI director.” Hunt responds: “[redacted] called this morning and also withdrew his name from consideration.” On the same day, Rosenstein appointed Mueller special counsel for the Russia investigation.
The e-mail is terse, but its meaning is obvious:
If Mueller “withdrew from consideration for FBI director” on May 17, then he must have known he was under consideration for it on May 16. That means he wasn’t in the meeting that day as a consultant, as he testified under Steube’s questioning. It means he was there as a candidate for the position, even if that may not have been his intention. He was aware enough of it to withdraw from consideration.
That certainly explains why Trump was so incensed over Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. He had literally been interviewing Mueller for Comey’s job the day before, and then Mueller gets appointed to investigate why the job was vacant in the first place. That certainly looks like a conflict of interest, or at least too close for a special counsel appointment, which is supposed to be at least somewhat independent and objective. One has to wonder what happened in the interview, and whether it had any influence on how Mueller approached the case.
At the very least, that makes Mueller’s testimony erroneous. At worst, Mueller may have lied to Congress, but don’t hold your breath on that having any legal consequences. The House would have to vote for a criminal referral, and Nancy Pelosi isn’t about to let Trump off the hook for anything related to the Russiagate conspiracy theory, especially not before the election. Trump will have to just settle for some belated vindication on the special-counsel appointment, although the media will no doubt ensure that he celebrates it quietly.


hotair--2020-09-09--Wait... they actually nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize?

Proving yet again that there are no expectations that 2020 can ’ t confound , I awoke today to find one of the most unpredictable headlines in recent memory .
President Donald J. Trump has been officially nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work aimed at brokering a deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates .
To put this in context , this would be the equivalent of the top management at Fox News getting together and endorsing Brian Stelter for a Pulitzer .
In more normal times ( whenever those were ) , the sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relations between those two nations would be a no-brainer , but in the era of the Bad Orange Man , seeing anyone give him a nod for any of his accomplishments is akin to hitting an actual unicorn with your car .
And yet it appears to be official .
( NY Post ) President Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for helping broker a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates , according to a report .
Christian Tybring-Gjedde , a member of the Norwegian Parliament and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submitted the nomination , Fox News reported .
“ For his merit , I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other Peace Prize nominees , ” Tybring-Gjedde , told Fox News .
Seeing those two adversaries laying down their rhetorical swords and moving to normalize relations is indeed a historic moment , assuming the deal lasts .
Leaders from both parties will be meeting at the White House next week to formalize the agreement .
As you likely already saw in the news , the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took place .
In a sign of how the liberal media reacts to any positive news about Trump , the New York Times immediately jumped into the story to proclaim that the flight was nothing to celebrate .
The fact is that this deal has already begun producing a ripple effect of sorts .
After initially blasting the agreement as a violation of their solidarity and a move to undermine their coalition , the Palestinians quickly backed off and have decided to “ soften ” their criticism of the deal .
( Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly scaled down its criticism of the Israel-United Arab Emirates normalization deal ahead of an Arab League meeting on the matter in Cairo .
The Reuters news agency reported Tuesday that a draft resolution presented by the PA ambassador ahead of Wednesday ’ s meeting “ does not include a call to condemn , or act against , the Emirates over the US-brokered deal.
” PA President Mahmoud Abbas also sent out an order barring statements or actions against other Arab leaders , including the heads of the UAE , the report said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the international stage ( okay… let ’ s just admit that he is ) , but he ’ s not entirely daft .
The only way that the Palestinians have maintained control of their internally divided terror state has been with an unwavering , solid block of Arab allies standing with them against Israel .
When a crack in that wall appears , it immediately weakens their position and this announcement is more than a crack .
It ’ s a gaping fissure in the wall of Arab antipathy towards the Jews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realize that he needs to adapt to the times or risk being left behind .
And that ’ s probably exactly what Trump was counting on .
So does this mean that Trump is a shoe-in for winning the Peace Prize ?
Don ’ t hold your breath .
There are a lot of international actors who would have to weigh in on Trump ’ s behalf when it ’ s time for the vote , and there ’ s a lot of bad blood there that hasn ’ t gone away .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for someone else .
After all , it ’ s not as if Trump has done anything as impressive as the previous U.S. President to win the prize .
You know , like… winning an election and then expanding America ’ s war footing .
But in this case , Donald Trump will be able to fall back on an old maxim that applies to all such international moments of recognition .
Hey… it ’ s an honor just to be nominated .

Proving yet again that there are no expectations that 2020 can’t confound, I awoke today to find one of the most unpredictable headlines in recent memory. President Donald J. Trump has been officially nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work aimed at brokering a deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. To put this in context, this would be the equivalent of the top management at Fox News getting together and endorsing Brian Stelter for a Pulitzer. In more normal times (whenever those were), the sort of progress we’ve seen in normalizing relations between those two nations would be a no-brainer, but in the era of the Bad Orange Man, seeing anyone give him a nod for any of his accomplishments is akin to hitting an actual unicorn with your car. And yet it appears to be official. (NY Post)
President Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for helping broker a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, according to a report. Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian Parliament and chairman to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, submitted the nomination, Fox News reported. “For his merit, I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other Peace Prize nominees,” Tybring-Gjedde, told Fox News.
Seeing those two adversaries laying down their rhetorical swords and moving to normalize relations is indeed a historic moment, assuming the deal lasts. Leaders from both parties will be meeting at the White House next week to formalize the agreement. As you likely already saw in the news, the first flight from Israel to the UAE already took place. In a sign of how the liberal media reacts to any positive news about Trump, the New York Times immediately jumped into the story to proclaim that the flight was nothing to celebrate.
The fact is that this deal has already begun producing a ripple effect of sorts. After initially blasting the agreement as a violation of their solidarity and a move to undermine their coalition, the Palestinians quickly backed off and have decided to “soften” their criticism of the deal. (Times of Israel)
The Palestinian Authority has reportedly scaled down its criticism of the Israel-United Arab Emirates normalization deal ahead of an Arab League meeting on the matter in Cairo. The Reuters news agency reported Tuesday that a draft resolution presented by the PA ambassador ahead of Wednesday’s meeting “does not include a call to condemn, or act against, the Emirates over the US-brokered deal.” PA President Mahmoud Abbas also sent out an order barring statements or actions against other Arab leaders, including the heads of the UAE, the report said.
Abbas may be a bad actor on the international stage (okay… let’s just admit that he is), but he’s not entirely daft. The only way that the Palestinians have maintained control of their internally divided terror state has been with an unwavering, solid block of Arab allies standing with them against Israel. When a crack in that wall appears, it immediately weakens their position and this announcement is more than a crack. It’s a gaping fissure in the wall of Arab antipathy towards the Jews. Abbas is likely smart enough to realize that he needs to adapt to the times or risk being left behind. And that’s probably exactly what Trump was counting on.
So does this mean that Trump is a shoe-in for winning the Peace Prize? Don’t hold your breath. There are a lot of international actors who would have to weigh in on Trump’s behalf when it’s time for the vote, and there’s a lot of bad blood there that hasn’t gone away. They’ll find some excuse to vote for someone else. After all, it’s not as if Trump has done anything as impressive as the previous U.S. President to win the prize. You know, like… winning an election and then expanding America’s war footing.
But in this case, Donald Trump will be able to fall back on an old maxim that applies to all such international moments of recognition. Hey… it’s an honor just to be nominated.


hotair--2020-09-10--Kamala Harris throws #MeToo under the bus... again

When California Senator Kamala Harris decided to accept Sleepy Joe Biden ’ s invitation to be his running mate , did she have any idea what sort of minefield was awaiting her ?
There are any number of rakes in the general election field waiting to be stepped on and Harris has been hitting enough of them to fill an entire Charlie Chaplin film .
The latest episode stems from her recent visit to Kenosha , Wisconsin to sit down with the family of Jacob Blake , with the recently indicted suspect joining in over the phone .
The aspiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity to jump into the whole police reform debate with both feet , but her decision to heap such effluent praise on the entire family has exposed yet another obvious example of her hypocrisy .
Expressing concern over Blake ’ s shooting and whether or not the police followed proper protocols and training during the arrest is understandable enough .
( Though it ’ s looking more and more like they did . )
But she didn ’ t stop there .
She decided to praise the entire family , including both Jacob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom leave much to be desired in terms of woke sensibilities .
( Washington Examiner ) It ’ s been quite a week for Kamala Harris .
In addition to promulgating anti-vaccination conspiracy theories about any coronavirus vaccine released during the Trump presidency , she met with the family of Jacob Blake , a man famous for fleeing from the police with his children in tow when he violated an existing restraining order after being charged with sexual assault… Yet , it ’ s not just the radical Left that has embraced Blake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active criminal investigation and take the side of a man charged with sexual assault and domestic violence .
“ I mean , they ’ re an incredible family , ” said Harris after meeting with his family while Blake called in .
“ And what they ’ ve endured , and they just do it with such dignity and grace .
And you know , they ’ re carrying the weight of a lot of voices on their shoulders.
” You can almost forgive Harris for saying something like that since it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politician would follow .
She ’ s not going to come away from a meeting that she requested and say , wow .
What a bunch of jerks .
And I ’ m sure many members of the family who are concerned over the prognosis of Jacob Blake are going through a rough time .
The mother , in particular , has been very measured and apolitical in her public statements .
I have no doubt her heart is broken over the shooting of her son , just as it was probably also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law over the years .
But Harris has intentionally lumped in two members of the family who she probably wouldn ’ t want to be associated with very closely .
One is the father , Jacob Blake sr. His now-famous antisemitic rants about Jews controlling the media and the banks , along with his references to white people as “ crackers ” and “ pink toes , ” could well be described as incredible , but not in the way I ’ m sure Harris intended the word .
And , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blake himself .
For someone who has supposedly embraced the # MeToo movement so tightly , Harris certainly had plenty of praise for someone facing multiple , highly credible accusations of sexual assault for which he is currently facing trial .
In fact , the only reason that the police ran into Blake on that fateful day was that his victim had called 911 after he had violated one of the multiple restraining orders against him and had allegedly just finished sexually assaulting the same woman yet again less than an hour before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe all women ?
Does she believe this woman ?
Harris ’ mixed record ( to put it kindly ) on the entire # MeToo concept is well documented and it predates the current era by quite a bit .
You can go all the way back to her time as Attorney General of California .
Back then , Harris ’ office negotiated a plea deal for former Democrat San Diego Mayor Bob Filner after he was accused of sexually assaulting three unidentified women .
Filner wound up pleading guilty to one felony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counts of battery .
Instead of facing multiple years in federal prison as would have been the case for a full set of convictions , the disgraced mayor received three months of home confinement .
I ’ m guessing the three women in question didn ’ t feel terribly “ believed ” upon learning of the deal .
The entire approach to the Jacob Blake situation is part of the larger pattern I discussed here recently .
The Democrats have decided to hitch their wagon to Blake ’ s story and lionize him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak for victims of physical violence at the hands of police officers .
To call Blake a “ flawed messenger ” in this national debate is to put it mildly .
His record describes someone who could best be described as a serial abuser and felon with more than his share of trouble knocking at his door .
But Kamala Harris has walked straight into the same trap that is catching up so many of her liberal colleagues .
Will anyone notice or care ?
Not if they ’ re only getting their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal newspapers .
They probably think he ’ s some sort of saint .

When California Senator Kamala Harris decided to accept Sleepy Joe Biden’s invitation to be his running mate, did she have any idea what sort of minefield was awaiting her? There are any number of rakes in the general election field waiting to be stepped on and Harris has been hitting enough of them to fill an entire Charlie Chaplin film. The latest episode stems from her recent visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin to sit down with the family of Jacob Blake, with the recently indicted suspect joining in over the phone. The aspiring Veep no doubt saw this as an opportunity to jump into the whole police reform debate with both feet, but her decision to heap such effluent praise on the entire family has exposed yet another obvious example of her hypocrisy.
Expressing concern over Blake’s shooting and whether or not the police followed proper protocols and training during the arrest is understandable enough. (Though it’s looking more and more like they did.) But she didn’t stop there. She decided to praise the entire family, including both Jacob Blake and his father, both of whom leave much to be desired in terms of woke sensibilities. (Washington Examiner)
It’s been quite a week for Kamala Harris. In addition to promulgating anti-vaccination conspiracy theories about any coronavirus vaccine released during the Trump presidency, she met with the family of Jacob Blake, a man famous for fleeing from the police with his children in tow when he violated an existing restraining order after being charged with sexual assault… Yet, it’s not just the radical Left that has embraced Blake. Harris decided to wade into the active criminal investigation and take the side of a man charged with sexual assault and domestic violence. “I mean, they’re an incredible family,” said Harris after meeting with his family while Blake called in. “And what they’ve endured, and they just do it with such dignity and grace. And you know, they’re carrying the weight of a lot of voices on their shoulders.”
You can almost forgive Harris for saying something like that since it was probably just a knee-jerk instinct that any politician would follow. She’s not going to come away from a meeting that she requested and say, wow. What a bunch of jerks. And I’m sure many members of the family who are concerned over the prognosis of Jacob Blake are going through a rough time. The mother, in particular, has been very measured and apolitical in her public statements. I have no doubt her heart is broken over the shooting of her son, just as it was probably also broken by his frequent run-ins with the law over the years.
But Harris has intentionally lumped in two members of the family who she probably wouldn’t want to be associated with very closely. One is the father, Jacob Blake sr. His now-famous antisemitic rants about Jews controlling the media and the banks, along with his references to white people as “crackers” and “pink toes,” could well be described as incredible, but not in the way I’m sure Harris intended the word.
And, of course, there’s the younger Jason Blake himself. For someone who has supposedly embraced the #MeToo movement so tightly, Harris certainly had plenty of praise for someone facing multiple, highly credible accusations of sexual assault for which he is currently facing trial. In fact, the only reason that the police ran into Blake on that fateful day was that his victim had called 911 after he had violated one of the multiple restraining orders against him and had allegedly just finished sexually assaulting the same woman yet again less than an hour before the cops arrived. Does Harris still believe all women? Does she believe this woman?
Harris’ mixed record (to put it kindly) on the entire #MeToo concept is well documented and it predates the current era by quite a bit. You can go all the way back to her time as Attorney General of California. Back then, Harris’ office negotiated a plea deal for former Democrat San Diego Mayor Bob Filner after he was accused of sexually assaulting three unidentified women. Filner wound up pleading guilty to one felony count of false imprisonment and two misdemeanor counts of battery. Instead of facing multiple years in federal prison as would have been the case for a full set of convictions, the disgraced mayor received three months of home confinement. I’m guessing the three women in question didn’t feel terribly “believed” upon learning of the deal.
The entire approach to the Jacob Blake situation is part of the larger pattern I discussed here recently. The Democrats have decided to hitch their wagon to Blake’s story and lionize him as some sort of truth-teller who will speak for victims of physical violence at the hands of police officers. To call Blake a “flawed messenger” in this national debate is to put it mildly. His record describes someone who could best be described as a serial abuser and felon with more than his share of trouble knocking at his door. But Kamala Harris has walked straight into the same trap that is catching up so many of her liberal colleagues. Will anyone notice or care? Not if they’re only getting their news from the cable networks and major liberal newspapers. They probably think he’s some sort of saint.


hotair--2020-09-09--Whistleblower: DHS heads pressured me to change intel assessments to better match Trump's political

Whistleblower: DHS heads pressured me to change intel assessments to better match Trump's political rhetoric

Tricky business in that the whistleblower , Brian Murphy , claims he was demoted because he refused to comply with the corrupt demands made of him .
Was that demotion truly retaliatory or does Murphy have an axe to grind ?
Of note : “ Murphy was removed from his position at DHS and assigned to a management role in July , following reports by the Post that his office had compiled ‘ intelligence reports ’ about tweets by journalists who were covering protests in Portland , Ore. ” It ’ s also tricky in that it sounds like something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which of course isn ’ t the same thing as saying they actually did it .
I ’ m skeptical of Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli just because both have been serving in “ acting ” capacities at DHS for many months , a fact that should make them especially eager to remain in the president ’ s good graces .
In a normal administration , where all major executive-branch officers have to be confirmed by the Senate , the president will think twice about replacing one who falls out of favor lest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long , bruising confirmation process .
In this administration , with McConnell and the Senate GOP having completely abdicated their advise-and-consent duties , Trump can replace Wolf or Cuccinelli at a moment ’ s notice with a new “ acting ” director via some procedural chicanery .
So yeah , the two of them would have extra incentive to make sure nothing ’ s coming out of DHS that might irritate the president .
He can always find some more abject crony to handle his business if they can ’ t .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint .
Wolf , he says , told him to stop producing assessments on the threat of campaign interference by pro-Trump Russia and to focus more on the threat from pro-Biden China and Iran .
Allegedly that request originated with Trump ’ s NSA , Robert O ’ Brien , with Wolf once going so far as to ask Murphy to “ hold ” an intel analysis of Russia because it made Trump look bad .
What ’ s wrong with paying more attention to China and Iran ?
Well , reportedly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t equal .
A statement by the U.S. intelligence community last month , released after pressure from Democratic lawmakers pushing for more public transparency , said Russia has undertaken a broad effort to damage Democrat Joe Biden ’ s bid for the presidency… Mr. O ’ Brien last month publicly alleged Chinese hackers were targeting U.S. election infrastructure in the lead up to the election , making a new claim about the level of Beijing ’ s activity in the election .
Mr. O ’ Brien ’ s comments were met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter , The Wall Street Journal reported at the time .
While China has an active interest in the election , the U.S. doesn ’ t currently have intelligence showing that Beijing is directly trying to hack election-related systems , the officials said .
Russia has allegedly been pushing Trump-friendly messages online about the fraudulent mail-in voting and Biden ’ s mental acuity .
Is O ’ Brien overstating China ’ s support for Biden to make Russia ’ s support for Trump seem less glaring and alarming , or is the dreaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community overstating Russia ’ s support for Trump to make him look bad ?
Tricky business .
But note that former DHS spokesman Miles Taylor claims that Trump once got so angry at a DHS official for supporting intel assessments that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign that he threatened to fire that official before being talked out of it .
Russian campaign meddling is a famously touchy subject with him and Wolf and Cuccinelli would have every reason to know it .
Murphy also claims that Wolf and Cuccinelli encouraged him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and emphasize instead the threat from left-wing groups , in keeping with Trump ’ s campaign focus on the rioting in Portland and elsewhere : The complaint also alleges that Wolf and Cuccinelli , both Trump appointees , directed officials to change intelligence assessments to ensure they matched up with misleading public comments from Trump about Antifa and “ anarchist ” groups , according to a complaint filed with the DHS inspector general .
Separately , both Wolf and Cuccinelli also tried to alter a report to downplay the threat posed by White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftist groups due to concerns about how the initial language would reflect on the President , according to a source familiar with the claims raised by the whistleblower… [ Murphy ] refused to alter the draft versions of the report warning of the threat posed by White supremacists , prompting Wolf and Cuccinelli to halt work on the document , the complaint states .
A source told CNN that it was indeed Wolf and Cuccinelli that moved to block the report on domestic terror that Murphy had been working on .
Supposedly there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show language about white supremacists being changed to refer instead to “ domestic violent extremists , ” a vaguer and more anodyne term .
That jibes with something that Elizabeth Neumann , a former DHS specialist in threat assessments , told NPR recently .
She says that after the El Paso massacre last year , her agency requested more funding to fight domestic terrorism .
White House aides were fine with that , but only on the condition that she present the request as a way of “ preventing violence.
” Why not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terror ?
Quote : “ They seem to understand that for whatever reason , if we use the term ‘ domestic terrorism ’ or we talk about the white supremacist language , that seems to derail things at the White House.
” That ’ s not even all of it .
Murphy *also* claims that former DHS chief Kirstjen Nielsen perjured herself before Congress last year when she was asked how many known or suspected terrorists had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico .
Murphy says he was pressured to provide intelligence supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s case for the border wall .
In the end , though , he could find evidence of only three suspected terrorists crossing illegally .
Nielsen claimed the number was more like in the thousands .
House Democrats want to talk to her , but first they ’ re going to talk to Murphy himself on September 21 .
Is there any evidence to corroborate any of this ?
Yep , says Murphy .
He complained to numerous people at the agency as these corrupt requests were made of him .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk to all of those people too .
In lieu of an exit question , I ’ ll leave you with this short but trenchant Twitter thread from Julian Sanchez making the point that , if Murphy ’ s telling the truth , the problem here isn ’ t “ just ” a matter of federal officers cooking intelligence to boost the president ’ s electoral agenda .
It ’ s a matter of applying resources as well .
If you have reason to believe Russia is meddling more aggressively than China or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for political reasons to spend equal time on China and Iran , then by definition you ’ re not allocating time and energy proportionately to the true threat .
Russia ends up with more freedom to behave badly than it otherwise should have , conveniently to the president ’ s advantage .

Tricky business in that the whistleblower, Brian Murphy, claims he was demoted because he refused to comply with the corrupt demands made of him. Was that demotion truly retaliatory or does Murphy have an axe to grind? Of note: “Murphy was removed from his position at DHS and assigned to a management role in July, following reports by the Post that his office had compiled ‘intelligence reports’ about tweets by journalists who were covering protests in Portland, Ore.”
It’s also tricky in that it sounds like something Trump’s cronies would do, which of course isn’t the same thing as saying they actually did it. I’m skeptical of Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli just because both have been serving in “acting” capacities at DHS for many months, a fact that should make them especially eager to remain in the president’s good graces. In a normal administration, where all major executive-branch officers have to be confirmed by the Senate, the president will think twice about replacing one who falls out of favor lest he and his nominee have to endure a long, bruising confirmation process. In this administration, with McConnell and the Senate GOP having completely abdicated their advise-and-consent duties, Trump can replace Wolf or Cuccinelli at a moment’s notice with a new “acting” director via some procedural chicanery. So yeah, the two of them would have extra incentive to make sure nothing’s coming out of DHS that might irritate the president. He can always find some more abject crony to handle his business if they can’t.
Murphy makes various claims in his whistleblower complaint. Wolf, he says, told him to stop producing assessments on the threat of campaign interference by pro-Trump Russia and to focus more on the threat from pro-Biden China and Iran. Allegedly that request originated with Trump’s NSA, Robert O’Brien, with Wolf once going so far as to ask Murphy to “hold” an intel analysis of Russia because it made Trump look bad. What’s wrong with paying more attention to China and Iran? Well, reportedly, the threats from the three countries aren’t equal.
A statement by the U.S. intelligence community last month, released after pressure from Democratic lawmakers pushing for more public transparency, said Russia has undertaken a broad effort to damage Democrat Joe Biden’s bid for the presidency… Mr. O’Brien last month publicly alleged Chinese hackers were targeting U.S. election infrastructure in the lead up to the election, making a new claim about the level of Beijing’s activity in the election. Mr. O’Brien’s comments were met with skepticism by other officials familiar with the matter, The Wall Street Journal reported at the time. While China has an active interest in the election, the U.S. doesn’t currently have intelligence showing that Beijing is directly trying to hack election-related systems, the officials said.
Russia has allegedly been pushing Trump-friendly messages online about the fraudulent mail-in voting and Biden’s mental acuity. Is O’Brien overstating China’s support for Biden to make Russia’s support for Trump seem less glaring and alarming, or is the dreaded “deep state” within the intelligence community overstating Russia’s support for Trump to make him look bad? Tricky business. But note that former DHS spokesman Miles Taylor claims that Trump once got so angry at a DHS official for supporting intel assessments that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign that he threatened to fire that official before being talked out of it. Russian campaign meddling is a famously touchy subject with him and Wolf and Cuccinelli would have every reason to know it.
Murphy also claims that Wolf and Cuccinelli encouraged him to downplay the terror threat from white supremacists and emphasize instead the threat from left-wing groups, in keeping with Trump’s campaign focus on the rioting in Portland and elsewhere:
The complaint also alleges that Wolf and Cuccinelli, both Trump appointees, directed officials to change intelligence assessments to ensure they matched up with misleading public comments from Trump about Antifa and “anarchist” groups, according to a complaint filed with the DHS inspector general. Separately, both Wolf and Cuccinelli also tried to alter a report to downplay the threat posed by White supremacists and instead emphasize the role of leftist groups due to concerns about how the initial language would reflect on the President, according to a source familiar with the claims raised by the whistleblower… [Murphy] refused to alter the draft versions of the report warning of the threat posed by White supremacists, prompting Wolf and Cuccinelli to halt work on the document, the complaint states.
A source told CNN that it was indeed Wolf and Cuccinelli that moved to block the report on domestic terror that Murphy had been working on. Supposedly there are different drafts of the report that show language about white supremacists being changed to refer instead to “domestic violent extremists,” a vaguer and more anodyne term. That jibes with something that Elizabeth Neumann, a former DHS specialist in threat assessments, told NPR recently. She says that after the El Paso massacre last year, her agency requested more funding to fight domestic terrorism. White House aides were fine with that, but only on the condition that she present the request as a way of “preventing violence.” Why not frame it explicitly in terms of fighting terror? Quote: “They seem to understand that for whatever reason, if we use the term ‘domestic terrorism’ or we talk about the white supremacist language, that seems to derail things at the White House.”
That’s not even all of it. Murphy *also* claims that former DHS chief Kirstjen Nielsen perjured herself before Congress last year when she was asked how many known or suspected terrorists had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico. Murphy says he was pressured to provide intelligence supporting a huge number, to bolster Trump’s case for the border wall. In the end, though, he could find evidence of only three suspected terrorists crossing illegally. Nielsen claimed the number was more like in the thousands. House Democrats want to talk to her, but first they’re going to talk to Murphy himself on September 21.
Is there any evidence to corroborate any of this? Yep, says Murphy. He complained to numerous people at the agency as these corrupt requests were made of him.
Murphy first raised concerns about pressure on Russia-related intelligence to undersecretary David Glawe in March 2018, returning to him repeatedly until Glawe’s retirement in May 2020… Murphy made similar disclosures in 2018 to then-Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon, in 2019 to then-assistant national security adviser Sarah Tinsley and six times earlier this year to acting deputy DNI Kash Patel, according to his complaint. And in mid-April he raised his concerns to Wolf and Cuccinelli, which was followed a month later by Wolf’s admonition to change focus to Iran and China.
I’m guessing Democrats will want to talk to all of those people too. In lieu of an exit question, I’ll leave you with this short but trenchant Twitter thread from Julian Sanchez making the point that, if Murphy’s telling the truth, the problem here isn’t “just” a matter of federal officers cooking intelligence to boost the president’s electoral agenda. It’s a matter of applying resources as well. If you have reason to believe Russia is meddling more aggressively than China or Iran is and yet you feel compelled for political reasons to spend equal time on China and Iran, then by definition you’re not allocating time and energy proportionately to the true threat. Russia ends up with more freedom to behave badly than it otherwise should have, conveniently to the president’s advantage.


hotair--2020-09-09--BLM war on Kelly Loeffler escalates - Sell shares in WNBA team, or else

Senator Kelly Loeffler is running for her first full term in the U.S. Senate after being appointed to fill the seat vacated by Johnny Isakson last December .
She is being targeted by Black Lives Matter activists because she won ’ t appease them .
She is now asking Capitol Police to investigate the latest threats she has received .
Last week I wrote about a campaign event in a community center in Cumming , Georgia for Senator Loeffler .
Her guest was Senator Tom Cotton .
The two had to leave the event early , though , because two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interrupted Loeffler while she was speaking .
They were chanting and causing a loud distraction .
The women knew what they were doing – one of the women was a former candidate for the state Senate .
BLM activists are angry about Loeffler ’ s statements about the protests and , in particular , the violence and destruction the protests frequently bring with them .
Loeffler has proposed new legislation in the U.S. Senate .
It ’ s titled the Holding Rioters Accountable Act .
It would withhold funding from district attorneys who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , she is unapologetically speaking up and supporting law enforcement .
Her message is also that cancel culture is out of control .
She ’ s not wrong .
On Monday , Loeffler was interviewed on Fox and Friends .
She spoke about her legislation and the need for holding elected officials accountable in dealing with rioting and destruction .
Once the violence starts at a protest , it is no longer a protest protected by the First Amendment , it is a riot .
She said , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BLM activists , that her supporters countered the two women protesters in Cummings by shouting her name and chanting “ USA ” in response .
Her conclusion is that the November election is a clear choice , a “ stark contrast ” between order and chaos .
Do they want the opportunity to have free expression , to have the rule of law , safety , and security in their communities ?
This is the type of legislation I have been introducing to help the president to make sure that we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Or do we have the chaos and pandemonium that they want to create just to consolidate power in the radical left ?
” She ’ s asking Capitol Police to investigate several letters that have been received at her home and at her Atlanta campaign office .
Loeffler said in a statement to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday that she received “ multiple threats against my life ” over the last few days and she ’ s forwarded them to the Capitol Police and other authorities to review .
Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the AJC .
It included logos of the Atlanta Dream and the Black Lives Matter movement above a note warning she could “ get a knife ” if she doesn ’ t sell the WNBA team , which she has co-owned since 2011 .
The AJC downplays the specifics of the threat to Loeffler with that description of the letter the campaign shared .
As shown in a snapshot in the article , it is a postcard that was postmarked in North Texas .
There is a picture in the upper corner of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Atlanta Dream team is on the opposite side of the BLM banner .
The wording over and below a split picture of a Dream player and the senator is “ WNBA Atlanta Dream hates Senator Kelly Loeffler .
Best Not Piss Off the Black Girls .
Racist Whore You Need to Sell… Before You Get A Knife In Your Ass.
” The Atlanta Dream team has already entered Loeffler ’ s race for Senate because , out of hatred toward her , the team wore campaign t-shirts declaring support for Loeffler ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that since Loeffler ( and anyone else ) doesn ’ t support all of the criminal actions of BLM , she is a racist and must be punished .
BLM activists are calling for her to sell her shares in the WNBA team .
She is holding her ground and refusing to do so .
Loeffler received the endorsement of the Georgia Labor Commissioner Mark Butler , a Republican , Tuesday morning .
All twenty of Loeffler ’ s challengers will appear on the November 3 ballot for the special election race .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoff will be held in January if no candidate receives more than 50 % of votes .
Democrat frontrunner Rev .
Raphael Warnock is supported by Stacey Abrams and Jon Ossoff , among other prominent Democrats .

Senator Kelly Loeffler is running for her first full term in the U.S. Senate after being appointed to fill the seat vacated by Johnny Isakson last December. She is being targeted by Black Lives Matter activists because she won’t appease them. She is now asking Capitol Police to investigate the latest threats she has received.
Last week I wrote about a campaign event in a community center in Cumming, Georgia for Senator Loeffler. Her guest was Senator Tom Cotton. The two had to leave the event early, though, because two BLM supporters, both black women, interrupted Loeffler while she was speaking. They were chanting and causing a loud distraction. The women knew what they were doing – one of the women was a former candidate for the state Senate.
BLM activists are angry about Loeffler’s statements about the protests and, in particular, the violence and destruction the protests frequently bring with them. Loeffler has proposed new legislation in the U.S. Senate. It’s titled the Holding Rioters Accountable Act. It would withhold funding from district attorneys who refuse to prosecute crimes arising from protests. In other words, she is unapologetically speaking up and supporting law enforcement. Her message is also that cancel culture is out of control. She’s not wrong.
On Monday, Loeffler was interviewed on Fox and Friends. She spoke about her legislation and the need for holding elected officials accountable in dealing with rioting and destruction. Once the violence starts at a protest, it is no longer a protest protected by the First Amendment, it is a riot. She said, when speaking about pushback she is getting from BLM activists, that her supporters countered the two women protesters in Cummings by shouting her name and chanting “USA” in response. Her conclusion is that the November election is a clear choice, a “stark contrast” between order and chaos.
Do they want the opportunity to have free expression, to have the rule of law, safety, and security in their communities? This is the type of legislation I have been introducing to help the president to make sure that we have a strong, safe economy,” she said. “Or do we have the chaos and pandemonium that they want to create just to consolidate power in the radical left?”
She’s asking Capitol Police to investigate several letters that have been received at her home and at her Atlanta campaign office.
Loeffler said in a statement to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday that she received “multiple threats against my life” over the last few days and she’s forwarded them to the Capitol Police and other authorities to review. Her campaign shared one of the letters with the AJC. It included logos of the Atlanta Dream and the Black Lives Matter movement above a note warning she could “get a knife” if she doesn’t sell the WNBA team, which she has co-owned since 2011.
The AJC downplays the specifics of the threat to Loeffler with that description of the letter the campaign shared. As shown in a snapshot in the article, it is a postcard that was postmarked in North Texas. There is a picture in the upper corner of a BLM banner. The logo of the Atlanta Dream team is on the opposite side of the BLM banner. The wording over and below a split picture of a Dream player and the senator is “WNBA Atlanta Dream hates Senator Kelly Loeffler. Best Not Piss Off the Black Girls. Racist Whore You Need to Sell… Before You Get A Knife In Your Ass.”
The Atlanta Dream team has already entered Loeffler’s race for Senate because, out of hatred toward her, the team wore campaign t-shirts declaring support for Loeffler’s Democrat opponent. Cancel culture demands that since Loeffler (and anyone else) doesn’t support all of the criminal actions of BLM, she is a racist and must be punished.
She faces 20 challengers in a November special election, including Rep. Doug Collins.
BLM activists are calling for her to sell her shares in the WNBA team. She is holding her ground and refusing to do so.
“No person, regardless of their political views, should be threatened for sharing their beliefs,” she said, “and I will continue fighting for free speech in America.”
Loeffler received the endorsement of the Georgia Labor Commissioner Mark Butler, a Republican, Tuesday morning.
In a statement, Butler called Loeffler a “proven conservative champion” and highlighted her conservative stances on gun ownership, immigration and her background as an Atlanta businesswoman. Butler’s endorsement builds on her base of prominent state Republican backers including Gov. Brian Kemp, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan and Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr. She has also drawn support from many national Republicans including U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.
All twenty of Loeffler’s challengers will appear on the November 3 ballot for the special election race. It is a free-for-all-special election. A runoff will be held in January if no candidate receives more than 50% of votes. Democrat frontrunner Rev. Raphael Warnock is supported by Stacey Abrams and Jon Ossoff, among other prominent Democrats.


hotair--2020-09-10--Poll: Trump's lead over Biden among military households holds steady after Atlantic story, but...

This is a big deal , probably bigger than you thought , as we ’ ll see in a second .
The Atlantic story accusing Trump of having described fallen troops as “ suckers ” and “ losers ” seemed like it had the potential to be a rare Trump scandal that might do him real damage , but the evidence that it has is scant so far .
You would expect a backlash to that report to show up in military households first and foremost .
But Morning Consult isn ’ t seeing it .
Maybe it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its anonymous sourcing , never mind the various reports from other outlets that confirmed some of its details , or maybe it ’ s that opinions of Trump are so hardened at this stage of his presidency that he could burn the flag or save a drowning puppy and no one ’ s mind about him would be changed .
Either way , no movement , says MC : Morning Consult daily tracking conducted Sept. 6-8 found Trump leading Biden by 10 percentage points , 52 percent to 42 percent , among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who said they are , or live with , an active-duty service member or veteran… The latest polling comes after The Atlantic published a Sept. 3 article citing four sources who said the president referred to people who died in wars as “ losers ” and “ suckers.
” The White House and former administration officials have strongly refuted the piece , though elements of it were also confirmed by reporting from Fox News and The Associated Press .
Trump ’ s advantage with the group is statistically unchanged from responses gathered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he led Biden by 9 points .
Why is that a big deal ?
Well , if you had asked me a week ago to guess what percentage of the electorate is currently in the military or a veteran , I probably would have spitballed five percent .
The reality , per CNN ’ s Harry Enten , is more than twice that number .
The number who live in military households , which includes spouses and any adult children , is obviously even greater .
If Trump ’ s support among vets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a little , he ’ s a dead duck .
Trump can thank veterans for his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton .
According to the CCES study of verified 2016 voters , he won veterans and active military members by a 27-point margin over the Democratic nominee .
This was a huge deal for Trump because active military and veterans make up about 12 % of voters .
To give you some perspective , that ’ s a slightly higher proportion of the electorate than Hispanic voters ( some of whom are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and just a hair less than 18-29 year-olds ( again some of whom did or are currently serving in the military ) … Perhaps what ’ s most interesting is that Trump seems to have done significantly better than Mitt Romney did in 2012 among active military members and veterans .
Romney won this group by 17 points in 2012 , according to the CCES .
Being a current or former member of the military made someone significantly more likely to vote for Trump , even when you account for factors such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex and a person ’ s 2012 vote .
According to Enten ’ s calculations , Trump lost the non-military vote in all six key swing states in 2016 — meaning that troops and vets were decisive in handing him the presidency .
That ’ s how important this voting bloc is .
If he still leads Biden among military households and if his lead hasn ’ t slipped any since the Atlantic story came out , why is there a “ but ” in my headline ?
For two reasons .
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smaller than his lead over Hillary Clinton was : Given how tight the margins were in some of those 2016 swing states , I ’ d be curious to know whether Trump would be president today if he had won military households by just 10 points instead of 18 .
Second , a separate poll that ’ s out today from Monmouth also contains some info on how the Atlantic story might be playing .
Monmouth didn ’ t poll military , veterans , or military households , just the plain ol ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know how Americans perceive Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s attitudes about the military .
Does the average voter think Trump respects the military more than Biden does or vice versa ?
Result : Seventy-one percent say Biden respects troops and vets versus just 55 percent who say Trump does .
Biden ’ s overall lead over Trump ( 51/42 ) hasn ’ t changed much since Monmouth ’ s last poll so it feels safe to say the Atlantic stuff hasn ’ t hurt the president , but maybe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at it .
When Monmouth asked people if they ’ re “ not likely at all ” to support Biden this fall , 40 percent of registered voters agreed .
When they asked if they ’ re “ not likely at all ” to support Trump , 50 percent agreed .
There are still a few voters out there in America who consider themselves undecided ; inasmuch as the Atlantic story might have hardened opposition to Trump among people who were already leaning against him , it ’ s hurting him even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to actually switch their votes .
I ’ ll give you one more data point from Monmouth , not because it bears on the Atlantic or the military but just because : Monmouth ’ s pollster , Patrick Murray , insists that the idea of “ secret Trump voters ” is a myth , unsupported by any compelling evidence .
He asked about them in his poll not because he ’ s trying to “ find ” those voters but because he ’ s trying to gauge how predisposed voters might be this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he ends up losing .
If you ’ re convinced that Trump ’ s “ real ” support is much larger than the polls are measuring and he ends up losing handily , you might ask yourself , “ B-b-b-but what about all the secret Trump voters ?
” However , the NYT ’ s data guy , Nate Cohn , is a little more credulous about the possibility of hidden Trumpers .
They ’ re not secret in the sense that they ’ re embarrassed to tell pollsters that they support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no evidence of that .
But there *is* evidence that voters without a college degree — the heart of Trump ’ s base — are less likely to participate in polls .
Pollsters are aware of that and try to compensate for it through weighting their samples , but it ’ s possible that pollsters are missing the sheer scale of blue-collar voters preparing to turn out for Trump in November .
We ’ ll know in two months .

This is a big deal, probably bigger than you thought, as we’ll see in a second. The Atlantic story accusing Trump of having described fallen troops as “suckers” and “losers” seemed like it had the potential to be a rare Trump scandal that might do him real damage, but the evidence that it has is scant so far. You would expect a backlash to that report to show up in military households first and foremost.
But Morning Consult isn’t seeing it. Maybe it’s because the story was easily dismissed because of its anonymous sourcing, never mind the various reports from other outlets that confirmed some of its details, or maybe it’s that opinions of Trump are so hardened at this stage of his presidency that he could burn the flag or save a drowning puppy and no one’s mind about him would be changed.
Either way, no movement, says MC:
Morning Consult daily tracking conducted Sept. 6-8 found Trump leading Biden by 10 percentage points, 52 percent to 42 percent, among 2,711 likely voters in military households — those who said they are, or live with, an active-duty service member or veteran… The latest polling comes after The Atlantic published a Sept. 3 article citing four sources who said the president referred to people who died in wars as “losers” and “suckers.” The White House and former administration officials have strongly refuted the piece, though elements of it were also confirmed by reporting from Fox News and The Associated Press. Trump’s advantage with the group is statistically unchanged from responses gathered Aug. 31 through Sept. 2, when he led Biden by 9 points.
Why is that a big deal? Well, if you had asked me a week ago to guess what percentage of the electorate is currently in the military or a veteran, I probably would have spitballed five percent. The reality, per CNN’s Harry Enten, is more than twice that number. The number who live in military households, which includes spouses and any adult children, is obviously even greater. If Trump’s support among vets, troops, and their families erodes even a little, he’s a dead duck.
Trump can thank veterans for his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton. According to the CCES study of verified 2016 voters, he won veterans and active military members by a 27-point margin over the Democratic nominee. This was a huge deal for Trump because active military and veterans make up about 12% of voters. To give you some perspective, that’s a slightly higher proportion of the electorate than Hispanic voters (some of whom are or were part of the armed forces) and just a hair less than 18-29 year-olds (again some of whom did or are currently serving in the military)… Perhaps what’s most interesting is that Trump seems to have done significantly better than Mitt Romney did in 2012 among active military members and veterans. Romney won this group by 17 points in 2012, according to the CCES. Being a current or former member of the military made someone significantly more likely to vote for Trump, even when you account for factors such as age, education, race, sex and a person’s 2012 vote.
According to Enten’s calculations, Trump lost the non-military vote in all six key swing states in 2016 — meaning that troops and vets were decisive in handing him the presidency. That’s how important this voting bloc is.
If he still leads Biden among military households and if his lead hasn’t slipped any since the Atlantic story came out, why is there a “but” in my headline? For two reasons. First, his lead over Biden is noticeably smaller than his lead over Hillary Clinton was:
Given how tight the margins were in some of those 2016 swing states, I’d be curious to know whether Trump would be president today if he had won military households by just 10 points instead of 18. Second, a separate poll that’s out today from Monmouth also contains some info on how the Atlantic story might be playing. Monmouth didn’t poll military, veterans, or military households, just the plain ol’ general public, but they were curious to know how Americans perceive Trump’s and Biden’s attitudes about the military. Does the average voter think Trump respects the military more than Biden does or vice versa? Result:
Seventy-one percent say Biden respects troops and vets versus just 55 percent who say Trump does. Biden’s overall lead over Trump (51/42) hasn’t changed much since Monmouth’s last poll so it feels safe to say the Atlantic stuff hasn’t hurt the president, but maybe that’s not the right way to look at it. When Monmouth asked people if they’re “not likely at all” to support Biden this fall, 40 percent of registered voters agreed. When they asked if they’re “not likely at all” to support Trump, 50 percent agreed. There are still a few voters out there in America who consider themselves undecided; inasmuch as the Atlantic story might have hardened opposition to Trump among people who were already leaning against him, it’s hurting him even if it didn’t cause anyone to actually switch their votes.
I’ll give you one more data point from Monmouth, not because it bears on the Atlantic or the military but just because:
Monmouth’s pollster, Patrick Murray, insists that the idea of “secret Trump voters” is a myth, unsupported by any compelling evidence. He asked about them in his poll not because he’s trying to “find” those voters but because he’s trying to gauge how predisposed voters might be this fall to believe that Trump was cheated if he ends up losing. If you’re convinced that Trump’s “real” support is much larger than the polls are measuring and he ends up losing handily, you might ask yourself, “B-b-b-but what about all the secret Trump voters?” However, the NYT’s data guy, Nate Cohn, is a little more credulous about the possibility of hidden Trumpers. They’re not secret in the sense that they’re embarrassed to tell pollsters that they support Trump, notes Cohn. There’s no evidence of that. But there *is* evidence that voters without a college degree — the heart of Trump’s base — are less likely to participate in polls. Pollsters are aware of that and try to compensate for it through weighting their samples, but it’s possible that pollsters are missing the sheer scale of blue-collar voters preparing to turn out for Trump in November. We’ll know in two months.


hotair--2020-09-10--LA County: On second thought, trick-or-treating isn't *officially banned*

Dictate in haste , repent at leisure .
On Tuesday , health officials in Los Angeles County issued a ban on most Halloween activities , including trick-or-treating and outdoor gatherings .
After an avalanche of criticism — and no small number of declarations of defiance — the county reversed itself yesterday and rescinded its ban .
They ’ re still recommending against it , which is what they should have done in the first place : Trick-or-treating is not canceled in Los Angeles County after all .
A day after banning the Halloween tradition this year due to the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials reversed course on Wednesday , saying instead the activity is “ not recommended.
” Still , health officials are advising against going door-to-door to get candy .
Had the county simply advised against trick-or-treating — which seems like pretty good advice — few people would likely have objected , even if they weren ’ t inclined to heed it .
By making it a diktat , though , Los Angeles raised the stakes and all sorts of questions about abuse of power and authority .
It also raised a good point about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be on the streets to put an end to street urchins demanding tasty treats , anyway ?
Aren ’ t people in LA agitating for fewer police and fewer police interactions these days ?
Apparently , though , the county ’ s health officials haven ’ t actually learned that lesson .
They still have kept in place a full ban on a wide range of other activities , including outdoor gatherings with “ people outside your household ” : Halloween movie nights at drive-in-theaters , Halloween-themed meals at outdoor restaurants and Halloween-themed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the permitted in-person activities .
But , again , public health officials said these all must comply with current protocols .
… Halloween activities that are still not permitted under the health order include carnivals , haunted houses , festivals , and live entertainment — as well as gatherings , events or parties with people outside your household .
This still demonstrates the same arbitrary and capricious attitude toward power and authority as it did two days ago .
There are daily protests in the streets of south LA over the police shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intend to enforce the “ inside the household only ” restriction on those outdoor gatherings ?
If not , then this is not a science-based decision — it ’ s a politically based decision .
Outdoor gatherings with mask use and proper social distancing is no more risky , and likely much less risky , for COVID-19 transmission than these densely-packed protests with shouting and more-than-occasionally violence .
And again , this comes at a time when those demonstrations are against police enforcing laws at all .
Irony isn ’ t the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Threatening enforcement of these diktats on peaceful celebrants in their own homes while ignoring public demonstrations with higher risk is a very good demonstration as to why we need to limit government power .
Especially when it comes to unaccountable , unelected bureaucrats .

Dictate in haste, repent at leisure. On Tuesday, health officials in Los Angeles County issued a ban on most Halloween activities, including trick-or-treating and outdoor gatherings. After an avalanche of criticism — and no small number of declarations of defiance — the county reversed itself yesterday and rescinded its ban.
They’re still recommending against it, which is what they should have done in the first place:
Trick-or-treating is not canceled in Los Angeles County after all. A day after banning the Halloween tradition this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, L.A. County public health health officials reversed course on Wednesday, saying instead the activity is “not recommended.” Still, health officials are advising against going door-to-door to get candy.
Had the county simply advised against trick-or-treating — which seems like pretty good advice — few people would likely have objected, even if they weren’t inclined to heed it. By making it a diktat, though, Los Angeles raised the stakes and all sorts of questions about abuse of power and authority. It also raised a good point about enforcement; exactly who was going to be on the streets to put an end to street urchins demanding tasty treats, anyway? Aren’t people in LA agitating for fewer police and fewer police interactions these days?
Apparently, though, the county’s health officials haven’t actually learned that lesson. They still have kept in place a full ban on a wide range of other activities, including outdoor gatherings with “people outside your household”:
Halloween movie nights at drive-in-theaters, Halloween-themed meals at outdoor restaurants and Halloween-themed art installations at outdoor museums are among the permitted in-person activities. But, again, public health officials said these all must comply with current protocols. … Halloween activities that are still not permitted under the health order include carnivals, haunted houses, festivals, and live entertainment — as well as gatherings, events or parties with people outside your household.
This still demonstrates the same arbitrary and capricious attitude toward power and authority as it did two days ago. There are daily protests in the streets of south LA over the police shooting of Dijon Kizzee; does the county intend to enforce the “inside the household only” restriction on those outdoor gatherings? If not, then this is not a science-based decision — it’s a politically based decision. Outdoor gatherings with mask use and proper social distancing is no more risky, and likely much less risky, for COVID-19 transmission than these densely-packed protests with shouting and more-than-occasionally violence. And again, this comes at a time when those demonstrations are against police enforcing laws at all.
Irony isn’t the only reason to point this out, either. Threatening enforcement of these diktats on peaceful celebrants in their own homes while ignoring public demonstrations with higher risk is a very good demonstration as to why we need to limit government power. Especially when it comes to unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats.


hotair--2020-09-10--Biden spox really didn't want to give straight answers in today's Fox News interview

This guy is what Nathan Thurm would sound like after a case of Mountain Dew .
Is he just bad at this , or so accustomed to a soft touch from the rest of the media that the prospect of facing off with Bret Baier turned him into a jabbering spokes-chimp ?
I don ’ t know what Team Joe is doing on Fox in the first place .
They ’ ll get a fair shake from Baier , but there are no persuadables in that audience .
I think maybe he psyched himself out given the expectations on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when entering The Bad Place .
Under normal circumstances , maybe Ducklo could have chilled out a bit and been more conversational .
In the home stretch of the presidential campaign , with the left expecting him to slay the Fox dragon , he may have felt he had to be excessively combative .
Which is dumb , because one of his boss ’ s strengths is that he ’ s not that way himself .
He ’ s more soft-spoken , which is a better fit for many swing voters than Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 ” nonstop rhetorical shtick .
That ’ s not to say today was a good day for Sleepy Joe either , though .
He sat for an interview with CNN this afternoon and somehow maneuvered himself into saying that ( a ) he was against NAFTA after he was for it , which isn ’ t the first time he ’ s been in that position with respect to major public policy , and ( b ) that Trump ’ s USMCA deal is actually an improvement on NAFTA .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues ranging from trade to China to the “ forever wars ” he voted for , Biden sounds a lot Trumpier than he did five years ago .
All part of his campaign strategy , I assume : “ I ’ ll give you all the things you like about Trump too !
Just with much less Trumpiness .
”

This guy is what Nathan Thurm would sound like after a case of Mountain Dew.
Is he just bad at this, or so accustomed to a soft touch from the rest of the media that the prospect of facing off with Bret Baier turned him into a jabbering spokes-chimp?
I don’t know what Team Joe is doing on Fox in the first place. They’ll get a fair shake from Baier, but there are no persuadables in that audience.
Watch Joe Biden spokesman TJ Ducklo absolutely melt down when @BretBaier asks him if Biden has ever used a teleprompter for news interviews from his house. Ducklo explodes and, like he did throughout the interview, accuses him of being a Trump campaign shill pic.twitter.com/oIfCID9qAb — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) September 10, 2020
Video: Here's just a sample of the back-and-forth between Fox News Channel's @BretBaier and TJ Ducklo from the Biden campaign. Baier repeatedly asked the simple question of what Biden would have done differently on COVID, and Ducklo accuses him of being a Trump campaign stooge pic.twitter.com/kQw9PZJAUk — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) September 10, 2020
I think maybe he psyched himself out given the expectations on the left for how one should comport oneself when entering The Bad Place. Under normal circumstances, maybe Ducklo could have chilled out a bit and been more conversational. In the home stretch of the presidential campaign, with the left expecting him to slay the Fox dragon, he may have felt he had to be excessively combative.
Which is dumb, because one of his boss’s strengths is that he’s not that way himself. He’s more soft-spoken, which is a better fit for many swing voters than Trump’s “this one goes to 11” nonstop rhetorical shtick.
That’s not to say today was a good day for Sleepy Joe either, though. He sat for an interview with CNN this afternoon and somehow maneuvered himself into saying that (a) he was against NAFTA after he was for it, which isn’t the first time he’s been in that position with respect to major public policy, and (b) that Trump’s USMCA deal is actually an improvement on NAFTA. It’s hard not to notice that on issues ranging from trade to China to the “forever wars” he voted for, Biden sounds a lot Trumpier than he did five years ago. All part of his campaign strategy, I assume: “I’ll give you all the things you like about Trump too! Just with much less Trumpiness.”


hotair--2020-09-10--NY Times editor after blaming Sarah Palin for incitement in the Tuscon shooting: 'The right is comin

NY Times editor after blaming Sarah Palin for incitement in the Tuscon shooting: 'The right is coming after us'

Last month a judge ruled that Sarah Palin ’ s defamation lawsuit against the NY Times could go to trial .
Because she is a public figure , Palin still has a tough road ahead of her .
She has to prove that the Times wasn ’ t just sloppy but is guilty of actual malice or , at a minimum , “ reckless disregard ” for the truth .
That won ’ t be easy but the judge in the case did agree it ’ s not impossible because the Times ’ work , in particular that of now-former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectacularly awful .
Today Columbia Journalism Review published the most detailed breakdown I ’ ve seen of how that terrible editorial got published in the first place .
I ’ m going to skip over most of the preliminaries here and assume you ’ re already familiar with the backstory involving Sarah Palin ’ s Facebook map and the 2011 Tucson shooting by a deranged man named Jared Lee Loughner .
All you really need to know is that , despite a lot of media outrage directed at Palin at the time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of evidence that Loughner had ever seen her Facebook map or that he cared one way or the other about Palin .
His politics , so far as they are coherent at all , appear to have leaned to the left .
All of this seemed to be a long settled-issue until the Times needed to put out an editorial about the shooting of some Republicans by a deranged Bernie Sanders fan in 2017 .
Already it ’ s clear that this is shaping up to be an editorial about political violence and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is responsible .
Hours before the editorial was published , Bennet is already casting about for a way to compare the shooting at the baseball diamond to the one in Tucson years earlier .
Critically , he ’ s not sure if there ’ s a connection .
A little before 5 pm Williamson submits a draft of the editorial .
Here ’ s what it said about Palin and the map : Let me just say that what Williamson wrote wasn ’ t strictly wrong but it was intentionally misleading .
Yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was criticized at the time but it ’ s also true there were no facts connecting Loughner to the right and the criticism happened despite this .
Yes , it ’ s true Palin ’ s map had circulated prior to the shooting but , again , that had absolutely nothing to do with Loughner or the shooting .
Williamson is writing in such a way as to suggest there was some grounds for the criticism of both the right and Palin when in fact there was only nakedly partisan outrage .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives , including several at the NY Times , as if that were proof of guilt .
And you have to follow her link and read 10-paragraphs down to find out that no actual connection exists .
Why didn ’ t she just say that ?
That wasn ’ t sloppy so much as slippery .
But as slippery as this draft was , it wasn ’ t nearly enough for James Bennet who decided he needed to dive in an rewrite it .
He had a point to make : As bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it wasn ’ t as clearly connected to partisan incitement as the Tucson shooting had been .
Note that this is exactly the thing Bennet had asked about earlier in the day when he claimed not to know if there was a connection .
Somehow by that night he was very clear that it existed .
Asked about what he added to the editorial by a judge , Bennet claimed that “ incitement ” didn ’ t mean incitement : Writing that someone had a clear “ link to political incitement ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later it was “ simply rhetoric ” should be the definition of reckless disregard for the truth .
And once the piece went up there was an immediate reaction from the many people who knew this claim was a lie including some working for the Times .
Ross Douthat sent an email telling Bennet he was wrong and Bennet promised to look at it again in the morning .
Another editor sent an email to Williamson asking who was responsible for the line about political incitement and Sarah Palin .
Williamson , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bennet had revised her draft on this point said that had been in the draft all along .
Then , sometime shortly before midnight , Bennet sent an email to Williamson : “ Are you up ?
The right is coming after us… ” He must not have slept much that night because the following morning he had sent an email to his team at 5:08 am : “ Hey guys — We ’ re taking a lot of criticism for saying that the attack on Giffords was in any way connected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth is here , but we may have relied too heavily on our early editorials and other early coverage of that attack .
If so , I ’ m very sorry for my own failure on this yesterday .
… I ’ d like to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible this morning and correct the piece if needed.
” So if you ’ re following this closely , Bennet went from not knowing what was true in the early afternoon , to knowing in the evening that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial , and then back to not knowing the following morning .
The Times ’ lawyers want to say that this proves it was all a mistake , i.e .
he didn ’ t know he was wrong .
But how can that be so if he stated he didn ’ t know the truth before the rewrite ?
Once he ’ d admitted that , wasn ’ t it his responsibility to research the connection before stating categorically that it existed ?
But Bennet claimed in his deposition that he never looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , including the one Williamson had buried in her draft .
That may be my favorite part of this story .
Williamson wrote a slippery and misleading account of the Tucson shooting which buried the truth about it in a link and , like most readers , Bennet never clicked on it to get the truth .
If Williamson had simply told the truth in her draft , i.e .
there was no connection , Bennet could never have made his mistake .
But clarity was never the goal for this editorial @

Last month a judge ruled that Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against the NY Times could go to trial. Because she is a public figure, Palin still has a tough road ahead of her. She has to prove that the Times wasn’t just sloppy but is guilty of actual malice or, at a minimum, “reckless disregard” for the truth. That won’t be easy but the judge in the case did agree it’s not impossible because the Times’ work, in particular that of now-former editor James Bennet on this piece was spectacularly awful.
Today Columbia Journalism Review published the most detailed breakdown I’ve seen of how that terrible editorial got published in the first place. I’m going to skip over most of the preliminaries here and assume you’re already familiar with the backstory involving Sarah Palin’s Facebook map and the 2011 Tucson shooting by a deranged man named Jared Lee Loughner. All you really need to know is that, despite a lot of media outrage directed at Palin at the time, there has never been even a shred of evidence that Loughner had ever seen her Facebook map or that he cared one way or the other about Palin. His politics, so far as they are coherent at all, appear to have leaned to the left.
All of this seemed to be a long settled-issue until the Times needed to put out an editorial about the shooting of some Republicans by a deranged Bernie Sanders fan in 2017.
The idea for an editorial on the Arlington shooting came from [Elizabeth] Williamson, a Washington-based edit-page writer who had previously reported in the US and abroad for The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. A few hours after the bullets flew, according to her deposition, she sent an email to colleagues with the subject line, “Are we writing on the congressional shooting?” An editor responded, “Can’t see it yet, but keep looking. A nutcase who hates Republicans???”
Already it’s clear that this is shaping up to be an editorial about political violence and it looks like someone on the left is responsible.
For the next few hours, Williamson and other edit-page staff researched motives for the shooting. Mid-afternoon, [James] Bennet contributed to an email string: “Did we ever write anything connecting … the Giffords shooting to some kind of incitement?” A colleague offered up a 2011 column in which Frank Rich mentioned Palin’s map but noted that “we have no idea” if Loughner had seen it before the shooting, adding, “nor does it matter.”
Hours before the editorial was published, Bennet is already casting about for a way to compare the shooting at the baseball diamond to the one in Tucson years earlier. Critically, he’s not sure if there’s a connection. A little before 5 pm Williamson submits a draft of the editorial. Here’s what it said about Palin and the map:
Just as in 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a nine-year-old girl, Mr. Hodgkinson’s rage was nurtured in a vile political climate. Then, it was the pro-gun right being criticized: in the weeks before the shooting Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs.
Let me just say that what Williamson wrote wasn’t strictly wrong but it was intentionally misleading. Yes, it’s true the right was criticized at the time but it’s also true there were no facts connecting Loughner to the right and the criticism happened despite this. Yes, it’s true Palin’s map had circulated prior to the shooting but, again, that had absolutely nothing to do with Loughner or the shooting.
Williamson is writing in such a way as to suggest there was some grounds for the criticism of both the right and Palin when in fact there was only nakedly partisan outrage. She’s taking the ill-informed speculation of progressives, including several at the NY Times, as if that were proof of guilt. And you have to follow her link and read 10-paragraphs down to find out that no actual connection exists. Why didn’t she just say that? That wasn’t sloppy so much as slippery.
But as slippery as this draft was, it wasn’t nearly enough for James Bennet who decided he needed to dive in an rewrite it. He had a point to make: As bad as the shooting that day had been, it wasn’t as clearly connected to partisan incitement as the Tucson shooting had been.
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a nine-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.
Note that this is exactly the thing Bennet had asked about earlier in the day when he claimed not to know if there was a connection. Somehow by that night he was very clear that it existed. Asked about what he added to the editorial by a judge, Bennet claimed that “incitement” didn’t mean incitement:
The judge wanted clarity: “I am asking a question about grammar and sentence structure, which presumably you have some expertise in.” He read the first “incitement” passage back to Bennet and asked, “Doesn’t that mean as a matter of ordinary English grammar and usage that that sentence is saying that the shooting in 2011 was clearly linked to political incitement?” Bennet fumbled for a while, so the judge zeroed in again: “You’re saying that this map circulated by Sarah Palin’s political action committee was a direct cause of the kind of political incitement that you think led to various acts of violence?” Bennet responded, “I would not use the word ‘cause,’ your Honor” and later added, “it wasn’t in my head that that was tantamount to complicity in attempted murder. It’s simply rhetoric.”
Writing that someone had a clear “link to political incitement” when they did not and then claiming later it was “simply rhetoric” should be the definition of reckless disregard for the truth. And once the piece went up there was an immediate reaction from the many people who knew this claim was a lie including some working for the Times.
Ross Douthat sent an email telling Bennet he was wrong and Bennet promised to look at it again in the morning. Another editor sent an email to Williamson asking who was responsible for the line about political incitement and Sarah Palin. Williamson, who apparently hadn’t noticed how much Bennet had revised her draft on this point said that had been in the draft all along.
Then, sometime shortly before midnight, Bennet sent an email to Williamson: “Are you up? The right is coming after us…” He must not have slept much that night because the following morning he had sent an email to his team at 5:08 am: “Hey guys — We’re taking a lot of criticism for saying that the attack on Giffords was in any way connected to incitement.… I don’t know what the truth is here, but we may have relied too heavily on our early editorials and other early coverage of that attack. If so, I’m very sorry for my own failure on this yesterday. … I’d like to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible this morning and correct the piece if needed.”
So if you’re following this closely, Bennet went from not knowing what was true in the early afternoon, to knowing in the evening that Palin was responsible as he rewrote the editorial, and then back to not knowing the following morning. The Times’ lawyers want to say that this proves it was all a mistake, i.e. he didn’t know he was wrong. But how can that be so if he stated he didn’t know the truth before the rewrite? Once he’d admitted that, wasn’t it his responsibility to research the connection before stating categorically that it existed? But Bennet claimed in his deposition that he never looked at any of the links provided to him, including the one Williamson had buried in her draft.
That may be my favorite part of this story. Williamson wrote a slippery and misleading account of the Tucson shooting which buried the truth about it in a link and, like most readers, Bennet never clicked on it to get the truth. If Williamson had simply told the truth in her draft, i.e. there was no connection, Bennet could never have made his mistake. But clarity was never the goal for this editorial.


hotair--2020-09-10--Jussie Smollett: 'It was set up to make it seem like I was lying about something...'

Jussie Smollett gave an interview to Marc Lamont Hill yesterday .
Smollett is still sticking to his story about being attacked by two racist white people in the middle of the night in Chicago despite all of the evidence that proves that didn ’ t happen .
Prior to his interview with Smollett , Hill had on two other people , Aislinn Pulley who is a founder of Chicago ’ s Black Lives Matter group and Angela Davis .
Both sought to raise doubt about the credibility of Chicago police .
Hill said the goal was to have a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s case but about Chicago justice in general .
So when Pulley came on , she insinuated that CPD ’ s holding of the Osundairo borthers for 47 hours until they confessed their role in the scheme was suspicious .
“ I mean this is standard torture advanced interrogation techniques , ” Pulley said .
She added , “ The whole thing continues to be a PR stunt in order to save face for CPD… ” When Angela Davis came on next , she admitted she was a long time friend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the efforts to prosecute Jussie are designed to justify and validate existing structures of policing , precisely at a time when the police and carceral systems are being profoundly criticized by masses of people… ” In other words , the CPD framed Jussie as pushback against Black Lives Matter .
When Smollett finally came on he said of his situation , “ It has been difficult to be quiet.
” He then said that he wasn ’ t going “ rogue ” and was still taking the advice of his lawyers to lay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As for whether or not his legal case could end soon , Smollett said it seemed unlikely to him .
“ There is an example being made and the sad part is there ’ s an example being made of someone that did not do what they ’ re being accused of , ” he said .
As for the veracity of his claims about the attack , Smollett said there were “ two other witnesses ” who saw white men attack him .
He also claimed “ there is a tape ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ of course it cuts off right before it happens.
” Smollett admitted that he ’ d seen all of the criticism of his story in the media .
“ When I step back I can see the way that they ’ ve played the narrative , the way that they ’ ve served it to the people…but at the same time I ’ m not really living for people that don ’ t believe , ” he said .
He added , “ From the very , very beginning it was set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about something or everything .
And that has to do with the fact of the MAGA of it all.
” Asked to expand on the “ MAGA of it all ” by Hill , Smollett didn ’ t really have much more to say other than to claim that he said it “ because they said it , ” meaning his alleged white attackers .
As far as the allegations made by the Osundairo brothers , Smollett really had nothing much to say beyond repeating the fact that they had denied his involvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow-up question about the video of the brothers buying supplies ( including rope and a red hat ) just prior to the attack .
No question about the fact that police were able to track their movement before and after the attack via video , proving they were in the area at the time .
Instead Smollett pointed people to the open letter published yesterday to support him .
That letter was signed by Angela Davis , Danny Glover and Linda Sarsour among others .
At the every end of the interview , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job to convince the doubters of his innocence .
He stopped and seemed to struggle with what to say next .
After a pause he said that if the allegations that he had faked this attack were true then “ the smart thing to do would be to admit that , because at least their would be a place to work back from.
” He added , “ This is bulls**t. This is bulls**t. ” Finally he said , “ Their whole thing that they ’ re going to do tomorrow [ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for me .
I ’ ve checked out .
I ’ ve moved on .
I ’ ve moved on to continue to fight for my people.
” Here ’ s Marc Lamont Hill ’ s full interview with Jussie Smollett .
He ’ s right that by this point he might have been better off admitting he lied , but he ’ s clearly not ever going to do that .
He ’ s the O.J .
Simpson of racial hoaxes except that he ’ s not even pretending to look for @ @ @ @ @ @

Jussie Smollett gave an interview to Marc Lamont Hill yesterday. Smollett is still sticking to his story about being attacked by two racist white people in the middle of the night in Chicago despite all of the evidence that proves that didn’t happen.
Prior to his interview with Smollett, Hill had on two other people, Aislinn Pulley who is a founder of Chicago’s Black Lives Matter group and Angela Davis. Both sought to raise doubt about the credibility of Chicago police. Hill said the goal was to have a “larger conversation” not just about Smollett’s case but about Chicago justice in general.
So when Pulley came on, she insinuated that CPD’s holding of the Osundairo borthers for 47 hours until they confessed their role in the scheme was suspicious. “I mean this is standard torture advanced interrogation techniques,” Pulley said. She added, “The whole thing continues to be a PR stunt in order to save face for CPD…”
When Angela Davis came on next, she admitted she was a long time friend of the Smollett family but argued that “the efforts to prosecute Jussie are designed to justify and validate existing structures of policing, precisely at a time when the police and carceral systems are being profoundly criticized by masses of people…” In other words, the CPD framed Jussie as pushback against Black Lives Matter.
When Smollett finally came on he said of his situation, “It has been difficult to be quiet.” He then said that he wasn’t going “rogue” and was still taking the advice of his lawyers to lay low while his case was ongoing. As for whether or not his legal case could end soon, Smollett said it seemed unlikely to him. “There is an example being made and the sad part is there’s an example being made of someone that did not do what they’re being accused of,” he said.
As for the veracity of his claims about the attack, Smollett said there were “two other witnesses” who saw white men attack him. He also claimed “there is a tape” which shows the attack though he added “of course it cuts off right before it happens.”
Smollett admitted that he’d seen all of the criticism of his story in the media. “When I step back I can see the way that they’ve played the narrative, the way that they’ve served it to the people…but at the same time I’m not really living for people that don’t believe,” he said. He added, “From the very, very beginning it was set up to seem like I was lying about something or everything. And that has to do with the fact of the MAGA of it all.”
Asked to expand on the “MAGA of it all” by Hill, Smollett didn’t really have much more to say other than to claim that he said it “because they said it,” meaning his alleged white attackers.
As far as the allegations made by the Osundairo brothers, Smollett really had nothing much to say beyond repeating the fact that they had denied his involvement for 47 hours. There was no follow-up question about the video of the brothers buying supplies (including rope and a red hat) just prior to the attack. No question about the fact that police were able to track their movement before and after the attack via video, proving they were in the area at the time. Instead Smollett pointed people to the open letter published yesterday to support him. That letter was signed by Angela Davis, Danny Glover and Linda Sarsour among others.
At the every end of the interview, Smollett said it wasn’t his job to convince the doubters of his innocence. He stopped and seemed to struggle with what to say next. After a pause he said that if the allegations that he had faked this attack were true then “the smart thing to do would be to admit that, because at least their would be a place to work back from.” He added, “This is bulls**t. This is bulls**t.”
Finally he said, “Their whole thing that they’re going to do tomorrow [in court], that’s not for me. I’ve checked out. I’ve moved on. I’ve moved on to continue to fight for my people.”
Here’s Marc Lamont Hill’s full interview with Jussie Smollett. He’s right that by this point he might have been better off admitting he lied, but he’s clearly not ever going to do that. He’s the O.J. Simpson of racial hoaxes except that he’s not even pretending to look for the “real killers.”
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CE8F-vJAopZ/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet