hotair--2020-08-27--Russian prosecutors: No need for criminal investigation of Alexei Navalny poisoning

As Jazz pointed out a couple of days ago , Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny is currently in a coma in a German hospital .
Doctors there determined Navalny had been poisoned with cholinesterase inhibitors which can be found in pesticides and nerve agents .
In short , he was poisoned by someone trying to kill him .
Back in Russia , the head doctor at the Siberian hospital where Navalny was first taken after his collapse on an airplane has claimed that he wasn ’ t poisoned .
Instead , these very fine and not at all Kremlin influenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that caused low-blood sugar .
In keeping with this bogus diagnosis , Russian prosecutors have now said they don ’ t see any crime that needs to be investigated : The prosecutor general ’ s office said it saw no basis to open an inquiry after a preliminary investigation .
Vladimir Putin ’ s press spokesman , Dmitry Peskov , said there was little reason to act since a poisonous substance had not been discovered .
“ Here , in this case , nothing has changed .
We still , unfortunately , do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the condition the patient is in now , ” Peskov said , refusing to identify Navalny by name .
The Kremlin ’ s reluctance to open a meaningful investigation into Navalny ’ s apparent poisoning is hardly a surprise .
On Tuesday Peskov dismissed accusations that Putin might be behind Navalny ’ s sudden illness as “ empty noise ” , “ idle talk ” , and not “ serious ” .
And that ’ s how things work in Russia .
If you stand up to Putin , you get poisoned by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if you ’ re a doctor examining one of Putin ’ s victims you pretend he just has low blood sugar or your risk falling out a window under mysterious circumstances .
So , really , I don ’ t blame the doctors in Russia for lying .
What choice do they have ?
Meanwhile , back in the real world , some of Navalny ’ s friends described what it is to align yourself with Navalny and against Putin in Russia .
Sergei Boiko drank tea with Alexei Navalny two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home from Siberia .
They met in Novosibirsk , where Mr Boiko is one of 33 people challenging pro-Kremlin candidates at next month ’ s local elections… “ There were people following us ; many resources invested , ” Mr Boiko tells me .
Whilst Alexei Navalny was in town , he says each of their cars was followed constantly .
When the team moved about on foot , each person had their own , dedicated tail .
“ It was from the start of the day to the end , ” Mr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was [ the ] secret service.
” … “ As soon as I got involved , I realised how it would be , ” says Vitaly Kolesnikov , recalling how days into his job as camera and video editor on Alexei Navalny ’ s anti-corruption investigations , his new boss was attacked with a green dye that burned his eye .
“ Since then , I ’ ve been interrogated , threatened , had money stolen , ” Mr Kolesnikov says .
“ It ’ s been quite a journey.
” There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ultimately responsible for Navalny ’ s poisoning .
Putin knows he can get away with this kind of extra-judicial terrorism precisely because there is no independent source of power in Russia to challenge him .
And he ’ s clearly determined to keep it that way .
That ’ s Putin ’ s real goal here , not simply to kill one critic but to frighten all of the others into silence .

As Jazz pointed out a couple of days ago, Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny is currently in a coma in a German hospital. Doctors there determined Navalny had been poisoned with cholinesterase inhibitors which can be found in pesticides and nerve agents. In short, he was poisoned by someone trying to kill him.
Back in Russia, the head doctor at the Siberian hospital where Navalny was first taken after his collapse on an airplane has claimed that he wasn’t poisoned. Instead, these very fine and not at all Kremlin influenced doctors said Navalny had a metabolic disease that caused low-blood sugar. In keeping with this bogus diagnosis, Russian prosecutors have now said they don’t see any crime that needs to be investigated:
The prosecutor general’s office said it saw no basis to open an inquiry after a preliminary investigation. Vladimir Putin’s press spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said there was little reason to act since a poisonous substance had not been discovered. “Here, in this case, nothing has changed. We still, unfortunately, do not have an understanding of what caused the condition the patient is in now,” Peskov said, refusing to identify Navalny by name. The Kremlin’s reluctance to open a meaningful investigation into Navalny’s apparent poisoning is hardly a surprise. On Tuesday Peskov dismissed accusations that Putin might be behind Navalny’s sudden illness as “empty noise”, “idle talk”, and not “serious”.
And that’s how things work in Russia. If you stand up to Putin, you get poisoned by one of Putin’s kill squads. And if you’re a doctor examining one of Putin’s victims you pretend he just has low blood sugar or your risk falling out a window under mysterious circumstances. So, really, I don’t blame the doctors in Russia for lying. What choice do they have?
Meanwhile, back in the real world, some of Navalny’s friends described what it is to align yourself with Navalny and against Putin in Russia.
Sergei Boiko drank tea with Alexei Navalny two days before he collapsed on his flight home from Siberia. They met in Novosibirsk, where Mr Boiko is one of 33 people challenging pro-Kremlin candidates at next month’s local elections… “There were people following us; many resources invested,” Mr Boiko tells me. Whilst Alexei Navalny was in town, he says each of their cars was followed constantly. When the team moved about on foot, each person had their own, dedicated tail. “It was from the start of the day to the end,” Mr Boiko says. “I think it was [the] secret service.”… “As soon as I got involved, I realised how it would be,” says Vitaly Kolesnikov, recalling how days into his job as camera and video editor on Alexei Navalny’s anti-corruption investigations, his new boss was attacked with a green dye that burned his eye. “Since then, I’ve been interrogated, threatened, had money stolen,” Mr Kolesnikov says. “It’s been quite a journey.”
There’s no doubt in my mind who was ultimately responsible for Navalny’s poisoning. Putin knows he can get away with this kind of extra-judicial terrorism precisely because there is no independent source of power in Russia to challenge him. And he’s clearly determined to keep it that way. That’s Putin’s real goal here, not simply to kill one critic but to frighten all of the others into silence.


hotair--2020-08-27--Massachusetts can account for a little more than half of the million primary ballots they mailed out

The Massachusetts primary is coming up on September 1st ( yes , there are still primaries taking place ) and the Democratic-run state has decided to go whole hog on mail-in ballots .
To say that the process hasn ’ t gone entirely smoothly thus far would be a bit of an understatement .
The local CBS station tries to paint some lipstick on this pig by saying that “ a handful of Massachusetts cities and towns ” are dealing with some “ issues ” as they prepare for the vote , but the details suggest that there are probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the road ahead .
For one thing , some areas saw nearly all the residents receiving ballots without return envelopes included .
( At least among those who actually received one . )
A handful of Massachusetts cities and towns are dealing with mail in voting issues , with one week before the September 1 Primary .
The city of Medford mailed out roughly 1200 ballots without the corresponding yellow envelope needed to certify the vote .
Medford said the issue occurred on August 10 and 11 and envelopes were sent out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Andy Mallon , a lifelong Medford resident , says he still has not received his envelope .
He decided to cast his ballot early and in person to be safe .
Sending out the ballots to entire cities or towns without the return envelopes is potentially much more than a simple logistical error .
The envelopes have pre-paid postage on them so they can be dropped in the mail anywhere and be sent back to the election officials at no charge .
If any of the voters have to grab an envelope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on it , they have effectively paid a poll tax .
It would only take one person to complain and this could turn into a legal mess .
Also , if Mr. Mallon – a self-described registered voter from the article excerpt above – didn ’ t receive his ballot , you can rest assured that he ’ s not the only one .
Why might that be ?
As we ’ ve discussed here on multiple occasions in the past , the vast majority of states are not used to the rigorous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote-by-mail system .
States like Oregon , where they have been doing it for years , manage this feat fairly well because they rigorously update their voter rolls .
Other states do not , and Massachusetts falls into the latter category .
There ’ s a very good chance that Mr. Mallon moved at some point , changed his name or underwent some other life-event that altered his voter registry information but he never updated it .
But since he always votes in person down at his local polling station , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his ballot has shown up at some other address .
What happened to it after that will likely remain a mystery .
Down toward the end of the linked report we see one figure that should give all Massachusetts voters pause .
Secretary of State Bill Galvin has informed all residents that over a million ballots were mailed out this month .
And slightly over one half million were mailed back .
So where are the other half-million ballots ?
Sure , some of them may have been thrown away by people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps others fell into the “ did not receive a return envelope ” category and may still be on the way .
But let ’ s not pretend that those factors account for all of them or even close to all of them .
A lot of those ballots went to the wrong address .
Some number of voters will never receive one and be left wondering what they ’ re supposed to do on election day .
Others may have fallen into the hands of unscrupulous people who just decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer to election day .
This could lead to some voters showing up as having voted twice and what are they supposed to do then ?
All good questions , but with few answers forthcoming .
Buckle up , Massachusetts voters .
You may be in for a bumpy ride next week and things will only get more interesting on November 3rd when the level of participation really goes through the roof .

The Massachusetts primary is coming up on September 1st (yes, there are still primaries taking place) and the Democratic-run state has decided to go whole hog on mail-in ballots. To say that the process hasn’t gone entirely smoothly thus far would be a bit of an understatement. The local CBS station tries to paint some lipstick on this pig by saying that “a handful of Massachusetts cities and towns” are dealing with some “issues” as they prepare for the vote, but the details suggest that there are probably quite a few snags awaiting them in the road ahead. For one thing, some areas saw nearly all the residents receiving ballots without return envelopes included. (At least among those who actually received one.)
A handful of Massachusetts cities and towns are dealing with mail in voting issues, with one week before the September 1 Primary. The city of Medford mailed out roughly 1200 ballots without the corresponding yellow envelope needed to certify the vote. Medford said the issue occurred on August 10 and 11 and envelopes were sent out to impacted voters within two to three days. Andy Mallon, a lifelong Medford resident, says he still has not received his envelope. He decided to cast his ballot early and in person to be safe.
Sending out the ballots to entire cities or towns without the return envelopes is potentially much more than a simple logistical error. The envelopes have pre-paid postage on them so they can be dropped in the mail anywhere and be sent back to the election officials at no charge. If any of the voters have to grab an envelope of their own and put a stamp on it, they have effectively paid a poll tax. It would only take one person to complain and this could turn into a legal mess.
Also, if Mr. Mallon – a self-described registered voter from the article excerpt above – didn’t receive his ballot, you can rest assured that he’s not the only one. Why might that be? As we’ve discussed here on multiple occasions in the past, the vast majority of states are not used to the rigorous tasks involved in successfully handling a total vote-by-mail system. States like Oregon, where they have been doing it for years, manage this feat fairly well because they rigorously update their voter rolls. Other states do not, and Massachusetts falls into the latter category.
There’s a very good chance that Mr. Mallon moved at some point, changed his name or underwent some other life-event that altered his voter registry information but he never updated it. But since he always votes in person down at his local polling station, it’s never been an issue. Now his ballot has shown up at some other address. What happened to it after that will likely remain a mystery.
Down toward the end of the linked report we see one figure that should give all Massachusetts voters pause. Secretary of State Bill Galvin has informed all residents that over a million ballots were mailed out this month. And slightly over one half million were mailed back. So where are the other half-million ballots? Sure, some of them may have been thrown away by people who knew they planned to vote in person. Perhaps others fell into the “did not receive a return envelope” category and may still be on the way. But let’s not pretend that those factors account for all of them or even close to all of them.
A lot of those ballots went to the wrong address. Some number of voters will never receive one and be left wondering what they’re supposed to do on election day. Others may have fallen into the hands of unscrupulous people who just decided to fill them out and drop them off closer to election day. This could lead to some voters showing up as having voted twice and what are they supposed to do then? All good questions, but with few answers forthcoming. Buckle up, Massachusetts voters. You may be in for a bumpy ride next week and things will only get more interesting on November 3rd when the level of participation really goes through the roof.


hotair--2020-08-27--Hoo boy: Biden shouldn't debate Trump, says Pelosi

Political Twitter is aghast that she said this , and not just the conservative wing .
Can I take you back to this post from a few days ago , after she called Trump and the GOP “ domestic enemies ” for questioning the integrity of mail-in ballots ?
Quote : [ T ] his isn ’ t the first time lately that her rhetoric about Trump and Republicans has gone to a place that seems motivated less by strategy than by not-quite-controlled contempt .
Sometimes it ’ s petty insults , like when she claimed in May that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s bareknuckle demagoguery , accusing Republicans in June of trying to get away with the murder of George Floyd because their police-reform bill wasn ’ t to her liking .
Last month she took to calling the coronavirus the “ Trump virus.
” Most famously , there was the spectacle of her theatrically tearing up Trump ’ s prepared remarks on camera after he finished the State of the Union .
When , exactly , did Nancy Pelosi start to lose her sh*t ?
By “ lose her sh*t , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden-esque way where she might forget at a given moment what year it is .
I mean it in terms of her temper .
Pelosi is a calculating politician , but her disgust at Trump increasingly seems to overwhelm her ability to think strategically .
There ’ s no strategic reason to say this and every strategic reason not to : For months , Trump and other Republicans have claimed that Biden intends to skip the debates .
Despite the fact that he participated in all of the primary debates , despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall ’ s debate schedule before Trump ’ s campaign did , Team Trump keeps pushing this idea as a way of seeding doubt about the Democrat ’ s mental acuity .
Trump took the strategy to an absurd new length yesterday in an interview with Byron York : “ I don ’ t know how he could have been so incompetent in his debate performances and then all of a sudden be OK against Bernie , ” Trump answered .
“ My point is , if you go back and watch some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so bad .
He wasn ’ t even coherent .
And against Bernie , he was .
And we ’ re calling for a drug test.
” … “ Go back and watch his performances in some of those debates , ” Trump continued .
“ He didn ’ t know where he was .
And all of a sudden , he was not good , he was normal , and I don ’ t understand how .
I don ’ t know if there is or not , but somebody said to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs.
’ I don ’ t know if that ’ s true or not , but I ’ m asking for a drug test .
Both candidates .
Me , too .
I take an aspirin a day.
” The Republican claim is that old age has turned Biden ’ s brain to goo .
What drug would supposedly restore the cogency of a sundowning 77-year-old ?
Biden should take him up on the offer , though .
Maybe we ’ ll finally find out why Trump has the sniffles so often and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night .
Anyway , every time the media amplifies some Republican claim that Biden is looking to duck the debates , Democrats screech that they ’ re carrying Trump ’ s water for him .
No one on the left has even suggested skipping the debates , they cry .
Except … now someone on the left has .
The highest-ranking Democrat in the federal government , as a matter of fact .
Team Biden rushed out a statement politely disagreeing with her : What is Pelosi thinking ?
If you strain hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which she ’ s playing good cop/bad cop with Biden , essentially manufacturing an opportunity for him to reiterate that he ’ s gung ho to debate .
Why , he ’ s so eager to do so that he insists on proceeding despite the sage counsel of the Speaker !
I don ’ t buy that , though .
It ’ s stupid for any Democrat to supply oxygen to Trump ’ s claims that Biden ’ s own party is nervous about his mental state .
And whatever else you think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normally behave stupidly .
I think her Trump-hate has simply gotten the better of her judgment .
At least she retained the presence of mind in the clip above to note that Biden disagrees with her .
Now the media will have ask him about it and supply even more oxygen to the claim .
Here ’ s the RNC doing its best with Biden ’ s response this afternoon , noting that he said he intends to debate *if* the debate commission “ continues down the straight and narrow.
” But Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether he believes the commission is treating him “ fairly.
” They rejected Rudy Giuliani ’ s request for a fourth debate , remember .
As far as I know , as of today , the president still has yet to commit to showing up .

Political Twitter is aghast that she said this, and not just the conservative wing. Can I take you back to this post from a few days ago, after she called Trump and the GOP “domestic enemies” for questioning the integrity of mail-in ballots? Quote:
[T]his isn’t the first time lately that her rhetoric about Trump and Republicans has gone to a place that seems motivated less by strategy than by not-quite-controlled contempt. Sometimes it’s petty insults, like when she claimed in May that Trump was “morbidly obese.” Other times it’s bareknuckle demagoguery, accusing Republicans in June of trying to get away with the murder of George Floyd because their police-reform bill wasn’t to her liking. Last month she took to calling the coronavirus the “Trump virus.” Most famously, there was the spectacle of her theatrically tearing up Trump’s prepared remarks on camera after he finished the State of the Union. When, exactly, did Nancy Pelosi start to lose her sh*t?
By “lose her sh*t,” I don’t mean in a Biden-esque way where she might forget at a given moment what year it is. I mean it in terms of her temper. Pelosi is a calculating politician, but her disgust at Trump increasingly seems to overwhelm her ability to think strategically. There’s no strategic reason to say this and every strategic reason not to:
Speaker Pelosi says that she does not think there should be any presidential debates between President Trump and Joe Biden: "I wouldn't legitimize a conversation with him." pic.twitter.com/KkGSBAWrzy — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 27, 2020
For months, Trump and other Republicans have claimed that Biden intends to skip the debates. Despite the fact that he participated in all of the primary debates, despite the fact that his campaign agreed to this fall’s debate schedule before Trump’s campaign did, Team Trump keeps pushing this idea as a way of seeding doubt about the Democrat’s mental acuity. Trump took the strategy to an absurd new length yesterday in an interview with Byron York:
“I don’t know how he could have been so incompetent in his debate performances and then all of a sudden be OK against Bernie,” Trump answered. “My point is, if you go back and watch some of those numerous debates, he was so bad. He wasn’t even coherent. And against Bernie, he was. And we’re calling for a drug test.”… “Go back and watch his performances in some of those debates,” Trump continued. “He didn’t know where he was. And all of a sudden, he was not good, he was normal, and I don’t understand how. I don’t know if there is or not, but somebody said to me, ‘He must be on drugs.’ I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I’m asking for a drug test. Both candidates. Me, too. I take an aspirin a day.”
The Republican claim is that old age has turned Biden’s brain to goo. What drug would supposedly restore the cogency of a sundowning 77-year-old?
Biden should take him up on the offer, though. Maybe we’ll finally find out why Trump has the sniffles so often and only sleeps three to four hours per night.
Anyway, every time the media amplifies some Republican claim that Biden is looking to duck the debates, Democrats screech that they’re carrying Trump’s water for him. No one on the left has even suggested skipping the debates, they cry. Except … now someone on the left has. The highest-ranking Democrat in the federal government, as a matter of fact.
Team Biden rushed out a statement politely disagreeing with her:
NEW from Biden camp's @AndrewBatesNC: "We certainly agree with Speaker Pelosi on her views of the President's behavior. But just as she has powerfully confronted that behavior in the Oval Office and the Cabinet Room, Joe Biden looks forward to doing the same on the debate stage." https://t.co/CwLjYbPnOR — Johnny Verhovek (@JTHVerhovek) August 27, 2020
What is Pelosi thinking? If you strain hard, you can fashion a theory in which she’s playing good cop/bad cop with Biden, essentially manufacturing an opportunity for him to reiterate that he’s gung ho to debate. Why, he’s so eager to do so that he insists on proceeding despite the sage counsel of the Speaker! I don’t buy that, though. It’s stupid for any Democrat to supply oxygen to Trump’s claims that Biden’s own party is nervous about his mental state. And whatever else you think of Pelosi, she doesn’t normally behave stupidly.
I think her Trump-hate has simply gotten the better of her judgment. At least she retained the presence of mind in the clip above to note that Biden disagrees with her.
Now the media will have ask him about it and supply even more oxygen to the claim. Here’s the RNC doing its best with Biden’s response this afternoon, noting that he said he intends to debate *if* the debate commission “continues down the straight and narrow.” But Trump has also made his participation contingent on whether he believes the commission is treating him “fairly.” They rejected Rudy Giuliani’s request for a fourth debate, remember. As far as I know, as of today, the president still has yet to commit to showing up.


hotair--2020-08-27--Wisconsin DOJ releases some additional information on the shooting of Jacob Blake

Yesterday police released the name of the officer who shot Jacob Blake .
He ’ s Officer Rusten Sheskey , who had been with the department for seven years .
They also gave a few details about the incident including why police were called to the scene in the first place : Sunday ’ s incident began when a woman called police saying “ her boyfriend was present and was not supposed to be on the premises , ” according to investigators .
In a police call , a dispatcher names Blake and says he “ isn ’ t supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took the complainant ’ s keys and refused to leave .
The dispatcher later explains she doesn ’ t have more details because the caller was “ uncooperative.
” That ’ s quite a different story than the one that was published by the Washington Post three days ago .
At the time the Post quoted a woman who claimed the incident was “ a fight between two women over a scratch on one of their cars.
” Maybe that was some part of the argument but obviously the girlfriend ’ s 911 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was there at all .
A press release from the Wisconsin DOJ describes what happened when police arrived : During the incident , officers attempted to arrest Jacob S. Blake , age 29 .
Law enforcement deployed a taser to attempt to stop Mr. Blake , however the taser was not successful in stopping Mr. Blake .
Mr. Blake walked around his vehicle , opened the driver ’ s side door , and leaned forward .
While holding onto Mr. Blake ’ s shirt , Officer Rusten Sheskey fired his service weapon 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Mr. Blake ’ s back .
No other officer fired their weapon .
Kenosha Police Department does not have body cameras , therefore the officers were not wearing body cameras… During the investigation following the initial incident , Mr. Blake admitted that he had a knife in his possession .
DCI agents recovered a knife from the driver ’ s side floorboard of Mr. Blake ’ s vehicle .
A search of the vehicle located no additional weapons .
And that ’ s all we have at this point .
Is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be but it ’ s hard to tell at this point because the description is so vague .
For instance , when exactly did Blake admit he had a knife ?
Was that when police first arrived and before they tried to arrest him ?
Was he armed during the encounter or not ?
The man who shot the video of the shooting said he heard officers saying “ Drop the knife !
Drop the knife !
” before the shooting , i.e .
before Blake opened the car door .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a knife in Blake ’ s hand .
The Wisconsin DOJ says they found the knife in the car on the driver ’ s side floor .
Did Blake drop it there when he was shot or was it inside the car the whole time ?
If it was in the car the whole time why were police yelling for him to “ drop the knife ” before he got to the car ?
Based on what I ’ ve seen it sounds as if the officers believed he had a knife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door .
That would explain why they had their guns drawn .
But if he had it the whole time , it doesn ’ t explain why officer Sheskey decided reaching into the car presented an escalation of the threat .
He couldn ’ t have been reaching for a knife if he already had it on him and there wasn ’ t a gun .
Looking at the video again , it looks like Blake was trying to get in the car , not just reach inside .
Maybe he was trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure we ’ ll hear his explanation of what he was thinking eventually .
Here ’ s a local news report from Milwaukee ’ s Fox 6 on the new information :

Yesterday police released the name of the officer who shot Jacob Blake. He’s Officer Rusten Sheskey, who had been with the department for seven years. They also gave a few details about the incident including why police were called to the scene in the first place:
Sunday’s incident began when a woman called police saying “her boyfriend was present and was not supposed to be on the premises,” according to investigators. In a police call, a dispatcher names Blake and says he “isn’t supposed to be there” and that he took the complainant’s keys and refused to leave. The dispatcher later explains she doesn’t have more details because the caller was “uncooperative.”
That’s quite a different story than the one that was published by the Washington Post three days ago. At the time the Post quoted a woman who claimed the incident was “a fight between two women over a scratch on one of their cars.” Maybe that was some part of the argument but obviously the girlfriend’s 911 calls suggests she was worried that Blake was there at all.
A press release from the Wisconsin DOJ describes what happened when police arrived:
During the incident, officers attempted to arrest Jacob S. Blake, age 29. Law enforcement deployed a taser to attempt to stop Mr. Blake, however the taser was not successful in stopping Mr. Blake. Mr. Blake walked around his vehicle, opened the driver’s side door, and leaned forward. While holding onto Mr. Blake’s shirt, Officer Rusten Sheskey fired his service weapon 7 times. Officer Sheskey fired the weapon into Mr. Blake’s back. No other officer fired their weapon. Kenosha Police Department does not have body cameras, therefore the officers were not wearing body cameras… During the investigation following the initial incident, Mr. Blake admitted that he had a knife in his possession. DCI agents recovered a knife from the driver’s side floorboard of Mr. Blake’s vehicle. A search of the vehicle located no additional weapons.
And that’s all we have at this point. Is the detail about the knife significant? It could be but it’s hard to tell at this point because the description is so vague. For instance, when exactly did Blake admit he had a knife? Was that when police first arrived and before they tried to arrest him? Was he armed during the encounter or not?
The man who shot the video of the shooting said he heard officers saying “Drop the knife! Drop the knife!” before the shooting, i.e. before Blake opened the car door. But he also said he didn’t see a knife in Blake’s hand. The Wisconsin DOJ says they found the knife in the car on the driver’s side floor. Did Blake drop it there when he was shot or was it inside the car the whole time? If it was in the car the whole time why were police yelling for him to “drop the knife” before he got to the car?
Based on what I’ve seen it sounds as if the officers believed he had a knife on him before he opened the car door. That would explain why they had their guns drawn. But if he had it the whole time, it doesn’t explain why officer Sheskey decided reaching into the car presented an escalation of the threat. He couldn’t have been reaching for a knife if he already had it on him and there wasn’t a gun.
Looking at the video again, it looks like Blake was trying to get in the car, not just reach inside. Maybe he was trying to drive away? I’m sure we’ll hear his explanation of what he was thinking eventually.
Here’s a local news report from Milwaukee’s Fox 6 on the new information:


hotair--2020-08-27--PBS's Yamiche Alcindor: That Madison Cawthorn must be a white supremacist, you know

When everything is racist , then nothing is racist .
This logic has never been more clear than now , during the Summer of Love .
With cities burning on a nightly basis and looters running wild in the streets all in the name of social justice , any traditional expression of love of America will be trashed as a dog whistle by the left , including their wingmen in the media .
Case in point – PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor waded into racial warfare after Madison Cawthorn delivered his speech during Night Three of the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for North Carolina ’ s 11th Congressional District formerly held by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows , is 25 years old and is paralyzed from the waist down from a car accident as a teenager .
His was one of many good speeches that referenced personal stories .
He ’ s very young , he ’ s an articulate speaker , and he doesn ’ t lack a sense of patriotism .
Cawthorn ended his speech in a very dramatic way .
Two young men came out to him and placed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then Cawthorn began to rise up out of the wheelchair and stood , with the assistance of his aides and the walker .
It was an unexpected and powerful moment .
He urged Americans to not “ cower to a mob , ” and to “ kneel before God but stand for our flag.
” And , just like that , the angry mob tore into him , including Yamiche Alcindor .
Alcindor tweeted that surely Cawthorn must be a white supremacist or something , because well , how dare he .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ read this tweet : This is where we are – any ( white ) person who says it ’ s ok to stand for the flag and encourages others to have enough of a spine to publicly express feelings of patriotism is a racist to the woke crowd .
White athletes kneel with black athletes .
You must accept this new normal shown on sports fields or you will be given the Drew Brees treatment .
Participate in groupthink or be harassed and shunned .
Here ’ s the thing – nowhere in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any kind of desire to rebuke the kneelers or even mention black athletes .
This is just Yamiche ’ s opinion , not Yamiche actually reporting on the speech .
Unfortunately , this is Yamiche ’ s history as she covers this White House and President Trump .
There are many examples where she crossed the line from being a reporter to being a political activist .
We ’ ve seen this malarkey over and over again during the last four years .
The bad Orange Man is a racist , you see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behave as activists during press briefings and are emboldened to bring the drama during the televised briefings .
Especially the women reporters , I ’ m sorry to say , who jab fingers at either the president or White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and raise their voices as they argue their points of view .
It ’ s quite a spectacle but it ’ s not journalism .
Journalists slept through eight years of President Obama and he could do no wrong .
President George W. Bush was treated like a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hitler .
He could do no right .
The dishonesty in the coverage of Trump has been off the charts .
This is why stories about unprofessional journalists who cover the White House continue .
Journalists are the story , not the actual news or the newsmakers .
He ’ s not wrong here .
That ’ s probably why Yamiche tried to zing him on social media .
He hit a nerve .
Yamiche deserved the blowback she received .

When everything is racist, then nothing is racist. This logic has never been more clear than now, during the Summer of Love. With cities burning on a nightly basis and looters running wild in the streets all in the name of social justice, any traditional expression of love of America will be trashed as a dog whistle by the left, including their wingmen in the media.
Case in point – PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor waded into racial warfare after Madison Cawthorn delivered his speech during Night Three of the Republican convention. Cawthorn, the Republican nominee for North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District formerly held by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, is 25 years old and is paralyzed from the waist down from a car accident as a teenager. His was one of many good speeches that referenced personal stories. He’s very young, he’s an articulate speaker, and he doesn’t lack a sense of patriotism.
Cawthorn ended his speech in a very dramatic way. Two young men came out to him and placed a walker in front of his wheelchair. Then Cawthorn began to rise up out of the wheelchair and stood, with the assistance of his aides and the walker. It was an unexpected and powerful moment. He urged Americans to not “cower to a mob,” and to “kneel before God but stand for our flag.”
“Be a radical for liberty and be a radical for our republic for which I stand, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all,” Cawthorn said as he rose from his wheelchair and stood behind a walker.
And, just like that, the angry mob tore into him, including Yamiche Alcindor. Alcindor tweeted that surely Cawthorn must be a white supremacist or something, because well, how dare he.
Madison Cawthorn made it a point to stand, suggesting that all Americans to should stand during the pledge of allegiance & national anthem. It was a direct rebuke of actions by ppl — including black athletes who are currently sitting out games — protesting police brutality. — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) August 27, 2020
I first noticed the kerfuffle as I read this tweet:
The activist below found a way to turn a paraplegic standing up in his wheelchair an act of white supremacy https://t.co/UQ8VvmvE7m — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) August 27, 2020
This is where we are – any (white) person who says it’s ok to stand for the flag and encourages others to have enough of a spine to publicly express feelings of patriotism is a racist to the woke crowd. White athletes kneel with black athletes. You must accept this new normal shown on sports fields or you will be given the Drew Brees treatment. Participate in groupthink or be harassed and shunned.
Here’s the thing – nowhere in Cawthorn’s speech did he mention any kind of desire to rebuke the kneelers or even mention black athletes. This is just Yamiche’s opinion, not Yamiche actually reporting on the speech. Unfortunately, this is Yamiche’s history as she covers this White House and President Trump. There are many examples where she crossed the line from being a reporter to being a political activist.
Nowhere did Cawthorn state his standing was a “direct rebuke of actions by ppl — including black athletes who are currently sitting out games — protesting police brutality. And Yamiche Alcindor is not a journalist. https://t.co/IybeznJdZ0 — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) August 27, 2020
We’ve seen this malarkey over and over again during the last four years. The bad Orange Man is a racist, you see. The White House press corps frequently behave as activists during press briefings and are emboldened to bring the drama during the televised briefings. Especially the women reporters, I’m sorry to say, who jab fingers at either the president or White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and raise their voices as they argue their points of view. It’s quite a spectacle but it’s not journalism. Journalists slept through eight years of President Obama and he could do no wrong. President George W. Bush was treated like a Republican president and called a racist and even Hitler. He could do no right. The dishonesty in the coverage of Trump has been off the charts. This is why stories about unprofessional journalists who cover the White House continue. Journalists are the story, not the actual news or the newsmakers.
“Today, political forces want to usher in the digital dark ages,” he said. “National leaders on the left have normalized emotion-based voting, and a radicalized identity politics that reject MLK’s dream.”
He’s not wrong here. That’s probably why Yamiche tried to zing him on social media. He hit a nerve. Yamiche deserved the blowback she received.


hotair--2020-08-27--CNN chyron: Kenosha protests are "fiery but mostly peaceful"

What can you say ?
By this logic , the “ militia ” response in Kenosha on Tuesday night was “ shoot-y but mostly peaceful.
” Only one guy there killed anyone , right ?
The standard read on why the media does things like this is that they ’ re trying to ingratiate themselves to the left , but I don ’ t think that ’ s true in this case .
Spin like this will draw much more flak from the center and right than it will praise from progressives .
To fart out something this addled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is CNN ’ s copy team demonstrating that it ’ s unable to conceptualize what ’ s happening in Kenosha as anything but good on balance .
They might have gotten away with claiming that “ fiery ” was being used in the figurative sense , as a synonym for “ impassioned , ” if not for the fact that … cars are literally on fire here in the shot .
Douglas Murray thinks the spin is all about the election : The same story is rolling out across America .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ‘ social justice ’ .
When these protests involve mass lootings , such as those in Chicago ’ s Magnificent Mile , they are claimed ( if acknowledged at all ) to be the actions of a tiny fringe .
Such dogged blindness has a clear political and cultural purpose .
The political purpose is a desire to prevent the reelection of Donald Trump .
The wider justification would appear to be a belief that ‘ anti-racism ’ is such an important omelette of a cause that a few broken eggs — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying .
I take his point , but do you think CNN will be appreciably more likely to condemn “ fiery ” anti-racism protests on November 4 ?
I don ’ t .
If in fact they ’ re trying to provide electoral cover for Democrats , they ’ re at least barking up the right tree .
A new poll out of the very important state of Wisconsin shows that approval of BLM protests has declined significantly among whites there since June .
The burst of support nationwide for the protests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Biden .
As that support has fallen , his own support has risen .
Black Wisconsinites are as supportive now as they were two months ago but whites , the heart of Trump ’ s base , have lost 27 net points between then and now .
And note the date of the poll .
This wasn ’ t taken in the last 48 hours , as Kenosha burned .
It was conducted weeks ago , between August 4 and 9 .
What do you suppose the approval numbers for BLM look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a piece of anecdotal evidence from the Times today : In Kenosha County , where the president won by fewer than 250 votes in 2016 , those who already supported Mr. Trump said in interviews that the events of the past few days have simply reinforced their conviction that he is the man for the job .
But some voters who were less sure of their choice said the chaos in their city and the inability of elected leaders to stop it were currently nudging them toward the Republicans.… [ John ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked but said the Democratic Party ’ s vision for governing seemed limited to attacking him and calling him a racist , a charge being leveled so constantly that it was having the effect of alienating , instead of persuading , people .
And the idea that Democrats alone were morally pure on race annoyed him .
“ The Democratic agenda to me right now is America is systematically racist and evil and the only people who can fix it are Democrats , ” he said .
“ That ’ s the vibe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s handling of the pandemic “ laughable ” — but said he ’ s on the fence between voting for him or Biden because of what ’ s going on in his hometown .
“ [ A ] s of now I ’ m really not happy about how Democrats are handling any of this , ” he said of his mayor and governor .
Didn ’ t he watch CNN last night and realize that the arson that ’ s been happening is mostly peaceful ?
Don ’ t get too excited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nate Silver makes a shrewd point here : People recoiling from Trump ’ s position isn ’ t limited to the subject of race relations .
His Trump-y push for reopening schools this fall , come what may , helped drive a backlash to that idea .
He isn ’ t trusted or liked outside of his base , and he ’ s all but guaranteed to say something jerky and incendiary about Kenosha on Twitter once the convention is over .
Don ’ t underestimate his ability to take a development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and respond in a way that ’ s so gross it ends up chasing them off again .
As I write this , his aides are probably huddled around him begging him not to tweet his support for vigilantism .
You can ’ t watch him 24/7 , guys .
I ’ ll leave you with this clip from our Townhall cousin Julio Rosas of protesters winning more hearts and minds last night in Kenosha .
At least nothing ’ s on fire here .

What can you say?
By this logic, the “militia” response in Kenosha on Tuesday night was “shoot-y but mostly peaceful.” Only one guy there killed anyone, right?
The standard read on why the media does things like this is that they’re trying to ingratiate themselves to the left, but I don’t think that’s true in this case. Spin like this will draw much more flak from the center and right than it will praise from progressives. To fart out something this addled, you have to believe it yourself. This is CNN’s copy team demonstrating that it’s unable to conceptualize what’s happening in Kenosha as anything but good on balance.
This isn’t a news report. This is disinformation and propaganda. How low they must regard their audience if they sincerely believe that people watching will not notice. pic.twitter.com/N583u7hMpa — Inaya Folarin Iman (@InayaFolarin) August 27, 2020
They might have gotten away with claiming that “fiery” was being used in the figurative sense, as a synonym for “impassioned,” if not for the fact that … cars are literally on fire here in the shot.
A rhetorical question:
If a bunch of MAGA protesters burned down 30 buildings protesting lockdowns and a Fox reporter backlit by roaring flames described them as "mostly peaceful," what would you say? https://t.co/9YlnUcRtS5 — Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) August 27, 2020
Douglas Murray thinks the spin is all about the election:
The same story is rolling out across America. The left says that there are nightly protests for ‘social justice’. When these protests involve mass lootings, such as those in Chicago’s Magnificent Mile, they are claimed (if acknowledged at all) to be the actions of a tiny fringe. Such dogged blindness has a clear political and cultural purpose. The political purpose is a desire to prevent the reelection of Donald Trump. The wider justification would appear to be a belief that ‘anti-racism’ is such an important omelette of a cause that a few broken eggs — or cities — is a price worth paying.
I take his point, but do you think CNN will be appreciably more likely to condemn “fiery” anti-racism protests on November 4? I don’t.
If in fact they’re trying to provide electoral cover for Democrats, they’re at least barking up the right tree. A new poll out of the very important state of Wisconsin shows that approval of BLM protests has declined significantly among whites there since June. The burst of support nationwide for the protests that month drove Trump into a 10-point ditch against Biden. As that support has fallen, his own support has risen.
Black Wisconsinites are as supportive now as they were two months ago but whites, the heart of Trump’s base, have lost 27 net points between then and now. And note the date of the poll. This wasn’t taken in the last 48 hours, as Kenosha burned. It was conducted weeks ago, between August 4 and 9. What do you suppose the approval numbers for BLM look like in Wisconsin today?
Here’s a piece of anecdotal evidence from the Times today:
In Kenosha County, where the president won by fewer than 250 votes in 2016, those who already supported Mr. Trump said in interviews that the events of the past few days have simply reinforced their conviction that he is the man for the job. But some voters who were less sure of their choice said the chaos in their city and the inability of elected leaders to stop it were currently nudging them toward the Republicans.… [John] Geraghty said he disliked how Mr. Trump talked but said the Democratic Party’s vision for governing seemed limited to attacking him and calling him a racist, a charge being leveled so constantly that it was having the effect of alienating, instead of persuading, people. And the idea that Democrats alone were morally pure on race annoyed him. “The Democratic agenda to me right now is America is systematically racist and evil and the only people who can fix it are Democrats,” he said. “That’s the vibe I get.”
Geraghty called Trump’s handling of the pandemic “laughable” — but said he’s on the fence between voting for him or Biden because of what’s going on in his hometown. “[A]s of now I’m really not happy about how Democrats are handling any of this,” he said of his mayor and governor. Didn’t he watch CNN last night and realize that the arson that’s been happening is mostly peaceful?
Don’t get too excited about a Trump comeback yet, though. Nate Silver makes a shrewd point here:
In other words, some of the popularity boost for BLM in June may have reflected a reaction against Trump / negative partisanship. Voters give Trump TERRIBLE marks for his handling of race relations and people may flock to the opposite position of whatever he says on these issues. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 27, 2020
People recoiling from Trump’s position isn’t limited to the subject of race relations. His Trump-y push for reopening schools this fall, come what may, helped drive a backlash to that idea. He isn’t trusted or liked outside of his base, and he’s all but guaranteed to say something jerky and incendiary about Kenosha on Twitter once the convention is over. Don’t underestimate his ability to take a development that’s pushing swing voters towards him and respond in a way that’s so gross it ends up chasing them off again. As I write this, his aides are probably huddled around him begging him not to tweet his support for vigilantism. You can’t watch him 24/7, guys.
I’ll leave you with this clip from our Townhall cousin Julio Rosas of protesters winning more hearts and minds last night in Kenosha. At least nothing’s on fire here.


hotair--2020-08-27--Harris County's Democrat County Clerk doubles down on mail-in voting

Elections have consequences and one of the most obvious consequences of the 2018 election in Harris County , Texas ( Houston ) was the sweep of county officeholders for Democrats .
Harris County is the third-largest county in the United States .
The political party that controls it matters .
The new county clerk , Democrat Chris Hollins , is doing what other Democrats are doing across the country .
He is encouraging Houstonians to vote by mail in the November election .
He not only supports voting by mail but he is doubling down on his efforts to accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced that it will send out mail-in ballot applications to all registered voters in Harris County .
There are more than 2.4 million residents on its voter roll .
What could possibly go wrong ?
Hollins sent out mail-in ballot applications to every registered voter aged 65 or older earlier this summer for the July primary run-off races .
That wasn ’ t as radical of a move because people 65 and older qualify for mail-in voting in any election .
Since times are different now because of the coronavirus and lockdowns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
So , since Hollins was pleased with the success of that initiative , he has decided to ramp it up and include every registered voter .
Since the coronavirus spread to Texas , concerns about voting in the November election have been a focus for county officials .
Texas has specific qualifications for eligibility for a mail-in ballot .
The voter must be 65 years of age or older , out of the county during the voting period , in jail but still eligible to vote , or ill or disabled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include fears of the coronavirus into the illness requirement .
The fear of catching the virus at a polling place is enough for Democrats to claim that this qualifies as a reason to get a mail-in ballot to use .
Legal challenges continue .
For the July primary elections , Hollins thought voters should be able to cast ballots online because of the coronavirus .
That idea was shot down .
Never mind that Harris County has never done online voting and isn ’ t set up to handle that .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hollins has said he was encouraged by the county ’ s return rate ahead of the July primary runoff election when it sent applications to every registered voter who was 65 or older .
Typically , voters must print out or request applications for ballots by mail from the county or the state and deliver or mail them to their local elections office .
In between the March primary election and the July primary runoff , the county saw a more than 100 % increase in vote-by-mail applications , Hollins said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mail , we want you to vote by mail .
It ’ s safest for you .
It ’ s safest for all your neighbors , ” Hollins said in a previous interview , arguing that every additional mail-in voter would make the election safer for those voting in person because they ’ d have to stand behind one less voter who could potentially infect them .
“ Voting by mail is the safest way to vote , and all those who are eligible to vote should strongly consider casting their vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves but as a service , a duty to other residents.
” Not all voters who apply for mail-in ballots will be eligible under the traditional requirements .
This mass-mailing scheme has disaster written all over it .
People are going to assume they qualify for mail-in voting because they receive an application .
Moving ahead with his own agenda – and that of the county Democrats – is not the way to run an election with integrity .
Hollins has also sent a letter to Governor Abbott that requests extending the deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in ballots .
Hollins is taking advantage of the conspiracy theory that Democrats are scaring voters with – that President Trump is suppressing their vote and using the USPS to do it .
Voter turn-out is expected to be strong in November .
The county is preparing by doing it the right way – additional polling places , increasing the number of poll workers , and an extension of early voting days .
That is a legitimate way of handling the needs of an election .
There will even be drive-through locations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional money to fund Hollins ’ “ ambitious election plan ” .
Harris County voters this November will have more time and more than a hundred additional places to cast ballots in the presidential election , including drive-through locations and one day of 24-hour voting , under an expansive plan approved by Commissioners Court Tuesday .
With the additional polling locations , an extra week of early voting and up to 12,000 election workers , Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins is pledging a smooth November election .
On a 3-2 vote , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17.1 million — all but about $ 1 million to come from federal CARES Act dollars — to fund Hollins ’ s ambitious election plan .
The money is on top of the $ 12 million the court approved earlier this year to expand mail-in voting amid fears that in-person balloting could spread the coronavirus during the ongoing pandemic .
The clerk ’ s plan includes extended early balloting hours , including multiple nights to 10 p.m. and one 24-hour voting session , drive-through options , as well as new equipment to process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There are plans in place that make voting as safe as possible in November .
This is an unnecessary , wasted expense for voters that will not allow the Democrats to get the result they want – universal mail-in voting in Texas .
Never let a crisis go to waste and let the taxpayer pay for it , amirite ?

Elections have consequences and one of the most obvious consequences of the 2018 election in Harris County, Texas (Houston) was the sweep of county officeholders for Democrats. Harris County is the third-largest county in the United States. The political party that controls it matters.
The new county clerk, Democrat Chris Hollins, is doing what other Democrats are doing across the country. He is encouraging Houstonians to vote by mail in the November election. He not only supports voting by mail but he is doubling down on his efforts to accomplish that goal. This week his office announced that it will send out mail-in ballot applications to all registered voters in Harris County. There are more than 2.4 million residents on its voter roll. What could possibly go wrong?
Hollins sent out mail-in ballot applications to every registered voter aged 65 or older earlier this summer for the July primary run-off races. That wasn’t as radical of a move because people 65 and older qualify for mail-in voting in any election. Since times are different now because of the coronavirus and lockdowns, it seemed like a sensible thing to do. So, since Hollins was pleased with the success of that initiative, he has decided to ramp it up and include every registered voter.
Since the coronavirus spread to Texas, concerns about voting in the November election have been a focus for county officials. Texas has specific qualifications for eligibility for a mail-in ballot. The voter must be 65 years of age or older, out of the county during the voting period, in jail but still eligible to vote, or ill or disabled. Democrats have been working diligently to include fears of the coronavirus into the illness requirement. The fear of catching the virus at a polling place is enough for Democrats to claim that this qualifies as a reason to get a mail-in ballot to use. Legal challenges continue.
For the July primary elections, Hollins thought voters should be able to cast ballots online because of the coronavirus. That idea was shot down. Never mind that Harris County has never done online voting and isn’t set up to handle that. So, he persists.
Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins has said he was encouraged by the county’s return rate ahead of the July primary runoff election when it sent applications to every registered voter who was 65 or older. Typically, voters must print out or request applications for ballots by mail from the county or the state and deliver or mail them to their local elections office. In between the March primary election and the July primary runoff, the county saw a more than 100% increase in vote-by-mail applications, Hollins said. “If you’re eligible to vote by mail, we want you to vote by mail. It’s safest for you. It’s safest for all your neighbors,” Hollins said in a previous interview, arguing that every additional mail-in voter would make the election safer for those voting in person because they’d have to stand behind one less voter who could potentially infect them. “Voting by mail is the safest way to vote, and all those who are eligible to vote should strongly consider casting their vote in that manner — not only for themselves but as a service, a duty to other residents.”
Not all voters who apply for mail-in ballots will be eligible under the traditional requirements. This mass-mailing scheme has disaster written all over it. People are going to assume they qualify for mail-in voting because they receive an application. Moving ahead with his own agenda – and that of the county Democrats – is not the way to run an election with integrity.
Hollins has also sent a letter to Governor Abbott that requests extending the deadline by which county election administrators can receive mail-in ballots. Hollins is taking advantage of the conspiracy theory that Democrats are scaring voters with – that President Trump is suppressing their vote and using the USPS to do it.
Voter turn-out is expected to be strong in November. The county is preparing by doing it the right way – additional polling places, increasing the number of poll workers, and an extension of early voting days. That is a legitimate way of handling the needs of an election. There will even be drive-through locations for voting. The Commissioners Court has approved additional money to fund Hollins’ “ambitious election plan”.
Harris County voters this November will have more time and more than a hundred additional places to cast ballots in the presidential election, including drive-through locations and one day of 24-hour voting, under an expansive plan approved by Commissioners Court Tuesday. With the additional polling locations, an extra week of early voting and up to 12,000 election workers, Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins is pledging a smooth November election. On a 3-2 vote, the court agreed to spend an additional $17.1 million — all but about $1 million to come from federal CARES Act dollars — to fund Hollins’s ambitious election plan. The money is on top of the $12 million the court approved earlier this year to expand mail-in voting amid fears that in-person balloting could spread the coronavirus during the ongoing pandemic. The clerk’s plan includes extended early balloting hours, including multiple nights to 10 p.m. and one 24-hour voting session, drive-through options, as well as new equipment to process an expected record number of mail ballots.
There are plans in place that make voting as safe as possible in November. This is an unnecessary, wasted expense for voters that will not allow the Democrats to get the result they want – universal mail-in voting in Texas. Never let a crisis go to waste and let the taxpayer pay for it, amirite?


hotair--2020-08-27--Missouri "guns to kids" bill is just dumb from both sides of the debate

This story out of Missouri popped up in my Twitter feed yesterday and the subject immediately grabbed my attention .
What ’ s this ?
The legislature in Missouri wants to start handing out guns to children without getting their parents ’ permission first ?
The phrase “ making it legal to give guns to kids without parents ’ permission ” certainly sounds alarming .
But that can ’ t be right , can it ?
I decided to dig into the story at The Hill to see what was going on .
The bill comes after Gov .
Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a special summer session on crime and asked the legislature to penalize criminals who unlawfully use firearms , then pass them off on children to avoid detection .
The legislation is the exact opposite of what Parson called for , according to The Associated Press .
It is currently a misdemeanor crime to “ recklessly ” give a child a gun without their parents ’ permission .
On Tuesday , the state House voted to toss out the existing law and only make it a felony to give firearms to minors if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal investigation .
The only thing that seems obvious at this point is that this bill needs to be sent back to the shop for some retooling .
There doesn ’ t seem to be anything evil going on here , but rather an attempt to beef up the state ’ s laws against gun crimes while ensuring that families teaching their children to safely shoot or take them hunting don ’ t get swept up in it .
The felony part of the bill makes sense , though proving the crime and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re clearly targeting felons who use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime and then dump the weapon off on a minor to avoid detection .
The minor would obviously face far less dire consequences in court on a possession charge than the presumably adult felon would for committing murder or other crimes involving the use of a firearm .
That ’ s a laudable goal .
At the same time , handing a rifle to your son , daughter , niece or nephew for the purpose of providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or hunting rabbits is clearly not something the law would intend to thwart .
But if the wording is constructed too loosely , I suppose it ’ s theoretically possible that someone could be charged with it under those circumstances if the law enforcement officer either had a grudge against them or was very confused .
I still recall receiving my first rifle at the age of eleven and I ’ d been getting lessons from my father and my uncles for a few years before that .
I can ’ t imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haul them in over it .
But would any prosecutor actually entertain taking such a charge to court ?
It strikes me as unlikely in the extreme , particularly if the underage witness was available and willing to explain what had been going on .
Still , if you ’ re going to go to all the trouble of calling a special session of the legislature just to pass a law like this , why not take the time to ensure you ’ ve gotten it right before sending it to the governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to chalk this one up as a self-inflicted wound on the part of the Missouri legislature ( at least for now ) but it ’ s far from the biggest blunder we ’ ve ever seen in the history of U.S. governance .

This story out of Missouri popped up in my Twitter feed yesterday and the subject immediately grabbed my attention. What’s this? The legislature in Missouri wants to start handing out guns to children without getting their parents’ permission first?
Missouri lawmakers pass bill making it legal to give guns to kids without parents' permission https://t.co/1B2nAu6eJo pic.twitter.com/EusPvuP1Cv — The Hill (@thehill) August 26, 2020
The phrase “making it legal to give guns to kids without parents’ permission” certainly sounds alarming. But that can’t be right, can it? I decided to dig into the story at The Hill to see what was going on.
The bill comes after Gov. Mike Parson (R) called lawmakers back for a special summer session on crime and asked the legislature to penalize criminals who unlawfully use firearms, then pass them off on children to avoid detection. The legislation is the exact opposite of what Parson called for, according to The Associated Press. It is currently a misdemeanor crime to “recklessly” give a child a gun without their parents’ permission. On Tuesday, the state House voted to toss out the existing law and only make it a felony to give firearms to minors if the intent is to avoid arrest or criminal investigation.
The only thing that seems obvious at this point is that this bill needs to be sent back to the shop for some retooling. There doesn’t seem to be anything evil going on here, but rather an attempt to beef up the state’s laws against gun crimes while ensuring that families teaching their children to safely shoot or take them hunting don’t get swept up in it.
The felony part of the bill makes sense, though proving the crime and enforcing the law might be tricky. They’re clearly targeting felons who use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime and then dump the weapon off on a minor to avoid detection. The minor would obviously face far less dire consequences in court on a possession charge than the presumably adult felon would for committing murder or other crimes involving the use of a firearm. That’s a laudable goal.
At the same time, handing a rifle to your son, daughter, niece or nephew for the purpose of providing safety training, do some target shooting or hunting rabbits is clearly not something the law would intend to thwart. But if the wording is constructed too loosely, I suppose it’s theoretically possible that someone could be charged with it under those circumstances if the law enforcement officer either had a grudge against them or was very confused. I still recall receiving my first rifle at the age of eleven and I’d been getting lessons from my father and my uncles for a few years before that. I can’t imagine a cop showing up and trying to haul them in over it.
But would any prosecutor actually entertain taking such a charge to court? It strikes me as unlikely in the extreme, particularly if the underage witness was available and willing to explain what had been going on. Still, if you’re going to go to all the trouble of calling a special session of the legislature just to pass a law like this, why not take the time to ensure you’ve gotten it right before sending it to the governor for their signature?
I’m going to chalk this one up as a self-inflicted wound on the part of the Missouri legislature (at least for now) but it’s far from the biggest blunder we’ve ever seen in the history of U.S. governance.


hotair--2020-08-27--Court again shoves Virginia transgender bathroom rights case into spotlight

The armies of the woke will no doubt be marching in victory after yet another flawed ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding transgender issues .
In a case that has been going up and down the judicial ladder for several years now , the court ruled in favor of Gavin Grimm , the former Gloucester County , Virginia transgender high school student who sued to be allowed to use the boys ’ bathrooms , locker rooms , showers and other facilities despite being a biological girl .
( Or , let ’ s be honest… a girl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court had this case dumped in its lap , the justices declined to rule because the Trump administration had rescinded the Obama-era Department of Education mandate upon which the Gloucester County school board had based its rules .
So why did the 4th Circuit get another bite at the apple ?
After SCOTUS sent it back to them for a fresh look , the Supremes delivered their incredibly flawed and poorly worded 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County , Georgia .
Two of the three judges in this week ’ s case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their decision , joyously declaring that their answer in Grimm ’ s case was “ resoundingly yes.
” ( Politico ) A federal appeals court dealt a major victory Wednesday for proponents of transgender rights , ruling that it is unconstitutional and a violation of Title IX for schools to bar students from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity .
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Gavin Grimm , the transgender man who sued his Virginia high school for barring him from using the boys restroom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a flashpoint in the battle over LGBTQ rights in education .
The appeals court previously backed Grimm in 2016 .
The Supreme Court was set to hear the case in 2017 but sent it back to the lower courts after the Trump administration , during President Donald Trump ’ s first months in office , revoked Obama-era guidance on the rights of transgender students .
First of all , I will note that Politico quickly jumped on the “ resoundingly yes ” theme for the title of their piece , but that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same three-judge panel who ruled on it last time and the same two Obama appointees voted in favor of Grimm and the same Bush 41 appointee dissented .
Nothing has changed .
The important point here , however , is the fact that this is the third ruling we ’ ve seen where appellate courts have latched onto Bostock v. Clayton County and attempted to vastly expand it .
The damage that both John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch did with that ruling is rapidly becoming evident .
Until that ruling , the Supremes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like turkeys the week before Thanksgiving .
In Bostock , however , SCOTUS ruled that employers couldn ’ t discriminate against transgender employees based on their “ gender identity.
” As I wrote at the time , that much should have been obvious .
As long as the worker is qualified for the position and performing adequately , how they dress ( within reasonable limits of professional standards appropriate to the position ) , what they call themselves or what they do in their free time is up to them .
Firing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the justices screwed the pooch when they decided to define such guidelines as a prohibition against “ workplace discrimination on the basis of sex ” and extend the word “ sex ” in that case to include “ gender identity.
” And now we have lower courts pouncing on that wording to claim that the definition of the word “ sex ” has been changed by our highest court .
The problem is that these bathroom policy cases ( and others ) are almost entirely unrelated to the matter being decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a person couldn ’ t be dismissed from a job based on their transgender status .
Nobody was attempting to kick Gavin Grimm out of the school .
In fact , they altered their policies to provide both single-user and unisex bathrooms for those who chose to use them .
At the heart of Grimm ’ s case was the question of whether or not children – particularly young girls – have the right to privacy when they may be disrobing and to not be subjected to the presence of students of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The ruling in Bostock said absolutely nothing about whether the employee at the heart of the case was technically one sex or the other .
It also said absolutely nothing about expanding the definition of either “ sex ” or “ gender ” to include how people “ feel ” about their identity or the medical science behind the question .
But the 4th Circuit has picked up on that error by Roberts and Gorsuch and run with it .
The same happened in the 11th Circuit case of a transgender Florida teenager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invoked this month in an Idaho case where a federal judge ruled that boys can ’ t be barred from competing in girls ’ sports if they claim to be female .
Roberts and Gorsuch opened the floodgates to this debacle and now activists are finding judges willing to help them rush through the breach .
One or more of these cases most certainly need to reach the Supreme Court for further clarification .
If there ’ s any common sense left in the world , the justices will be able to undo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bostock ruling .
EDIT : ( Jazz ) Original article corrected to note that Neil Gorsuch , not Kavanaugh , joined Roberts in the Bostick decision .
An error I can only attribute to advanced age .
Perhaps I should have run for the Democratic nomination .

The armies of the woke will no doubt be marching in victory after yet another flawed ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding transgender issues. In a case that has been going up and down the judicial ladder for several years now, the court ruled in favor of Gavin Grimm, the former Gloucester County, Virginia transgender high school student who sued to be allowed to use the boys’ bathrooms, locker rooms, showers and other facilities despite being a biological girl. (Or, let’s be honest… a girl.) The last time the Supreme Court had this case dumped in its lap, the justices declined to rule because the Trump administration had rescinded the Obama-era Department of Education mandate upon which the Gloucester County school board had based its rules.
So why did the 4th Circuit get another bite at the apple? After SCOTUS sent it back to them for a fresh look, the Supremes delivered their incredibly flawed and poorly worded 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. Two of the three judges in this week’s case latched onto that ruling as a basis for their decision, joyously declaring that their answer in Grimm’s case was “resoundingly yes.” (Politico)
A federal appeals court dealt a major victory Wednesday for proponents of transgender rights, ruling that it is unconstitutional and a violation of Title IX for schools to bar students from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Gavin Grimm, the transgender man who sued his Virginia high school for barring him from using the boys restroom. The long-running legal fight has become a flashpoint in the battle over LGBTQ rights in education. The appeals court previously backed Grimm in 2016. The Supreme Court was set to hear the case in 2017 but sent it back to the lower courts after the Trump administration, during President Donald Trump’s first months in office, revoked Obama-era guidance on the rights of transgender students.
First of all, I will note that Politico quickly jumped on the “resoundingly yes” theme for the title of their piece, but that’s simply hype. This is the same three-judge panel who ruled on it last time and the same two Obama appointees voted in favor of Grimm and the same Bush 41 appointee dissented. Nothing has changed.
The important point here, however, is the fact that this is the third ruling we’ve seen where appellate courts have latched onto Bostock v. Clayton County and attempted to vastly expand it. The damage that both John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch did with that ruling is rapidly becoming evident. Until that ruling, the Supremes had been dodging the entire transgender question like turkeys the week before Thanksgiving. In Bostock, however, SCOTUS ruled that employers couldn’t discriminate against transgender employees based on their “gender identity.” As I wrote at the time, that much should have been obvious. As long as the worker is qualified for the position and performing adequately, how they dress (within reasonable limits of professional standards appropriate to the position), what they call themselves or what they do in their free time is up to them. Firing them on that basis alone is clearly discriminatory.
But the justices screwed the pooch when they decided to define such guidelines as a prohibition against “workplace discrimination on the basis of sex” and extend the word “sex” in that case to include “gender identity.” And now we have lower courts pouncing on that wording to claim that the definition of the word “sex” has been changed by our highest court.
The problem is that these bathroom policy cases (and others) are almost entirely unrelated to the matter being decided in Bostock. That case only clarified that a person couldn’t be dismissed from a job based on their transgender status. Nobody was attempting to kick Gavin Grimm out of the school. In fact, they altered their policies to provide both single-user and unisex bathrooms for those who chose to use them. At the heart of Grimm’s case was the question of whether or not children – particularly young girls – have the right to privacy when they may be disrobing and to not be subjected to the presence of students of the opposite gender while doing so.
The ruling in Bostock said absolutely nothing about whether the employee at the heart of the case was technically one sex or the other. It also said absolutely nothing about expanding the definition of either “sex” or “gender” to include how people “feel” about their identity or the medical science behind the question. But the 4th Circuit has picked up on that error by Roberts and Gorsuch and run with it. The same happened in the 11th Circuit case of a transgender Florida teenager earlier this month. Bostock was also invoked this month in an Idaho case where a federal judge ruled that boys can’t be barred from competing in girls’ sports if they claim to be female.
Roberts and Gorsuch opened the floodgates to this debacle and now activists are finding judges willing to help them rush through the breach. One or more of these cases most certainly need to reach the Supreme Court for further clarification. If there’s any common sense left in the world, the justices will be able to undo some of the damage they did in the Bostock ruling.
EDIT: (Jazz) Original article corrected to note that Neil Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh, joined Roberts in the Bostick decision. An error I can only attribute to advanced age. Perhaps I should have run for the Democratic nomination.


hotair--2020-08-27--Trump: "We're going to call for a drug test" before debate with Biden

President Trump said in an interview Wednesday that he is calling for drug tests to be administered to both him and Joe Biden before the first presidential debate .
Why ?
Because Trump says there is no way Joe Biden could have done as well as he did against Bernie Sanders during their last debate during the Democrat primaries without a little help from the pharmacy .
Trump is suspicious about Biden ’ s last debate performance against Bernie because he said it was noticeably better than his performances in previous debates .
He doesn ’ t have any proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a good judge about such things .
It ’ s just his personal observations of Biden .
“ Nobody thought that he was even going to win , ” Trump said .
“ Because his debate performances were so bad .
Frankly , his best performance was against Bernie .
We ’ re going to call for a drug test , by the way , because his best performance was against Bernie .
It wasn ’ t that he was Winston Churchill because he wasn ’ t , but it was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nothing amazing happened .
And we are going to call for a drug test because there ’ s no way — you can ’ t do that.
” “ I don ’ t know how he could have been so incompetent in his debate performances and then all of a sudden be OK against Bernie , ” he added when pressed to clarify .
“ My point is , if you go back and watch some of those numerous debates , he was so bad .
He wasn ’ t even coherent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we ’ re calling for a drug test.
” The first debate is scheduled for September 29 .
Perhaps he just has it on his mind .
Trump was asked if it is like a prizefight .
Then he compared the debates to prizefights and the drug testing that goes with them .
He said someone commented to him after the debate that Biden must be on drugs .
“ I don ’ t know if that ’ s true or not , but I ’ m asking for a drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
I take an aspirin a day.
” I suppose we shouldn ’ t be surprised by this request .
He did the same with Hillary Clinton in 2016 , though I had forgotten about that .
This is not the first time Trump has accused his competitors of being on drugs .
He claimed in October 2016 , after the second presidential debate , that Hillary Clinton did better because she had taken drugs .
‘ I think we should take a drug test prior to the debate .
We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know what ’ s going on with her , ’ Trump said at the time – and no drug tests were administered during those debates .
It ’ s unlikely that this will happen .
It is something that is good to poke at Biden with , though , and remind voters that Biden has definitely lost a step since he was last in office .
And , by him saying his campaign is insisting that both candidates stand throughout the debates , he is implying Biden is too physically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate on his feet .
He ’ s messing with Joe ’ s head .
Both campaigns have settled on participating in three debates .
Let the games begin .

President Trump said in an interview Wednesday that he is calling for drug tests to be administered to both him and Joe Biden before the first presidential debate. Why? Because Trump says there is no way Joe Biden could have done as well as he did against Bernie Sanders during their last debate during the Democrat primaries without a little help from the pharmacy.
Trump is suspicious about Biden’s last debate performance against Bernie because he said it was noticeably better than his performances in previous debates. He doesn’t have any proof of drug use but he said he is a good judge about such things. It’s just his personal observations of Biden.
“Nobody thought that he was even going to win,” Trump said. “Because his debate performances were so bad. Frankly, his best performance was against Bernie. We’re going to call for a drug test, by the way, because his best performance was against Bernie. It wasn’t that he was Winston Churchill because he wasn’t, but it was a normal, boring debate. You know, nothing amazing happened. And we are going to call for a drug test because there’s no way — you can’t do that.” “I don’t know how he could have been so incompetent in his debate performances and then all of a sudden be OK against Bernie,” he added when pressed to clarify. “My point is, if you go back and watch some of those numerous debates, he was so bad. He wasn’t even coherent. And against Bernie, he was. And we’re calling for a drug test.”
The first debate is scheduled for September 29. Perhaps he just has it on his mind. Trump was asked if it is like a prizefight. Then he compared the debates to prizefights and the drug testing that goes with them.
“Well, it is a prizefight,” Trump answered. “It’s no different from the gladiators, except we have to use our brain and our mouth. And our body to stand. I want all standing; they want to sit down.”
He said someone commented to him after the debate that Biden must be on drugs. “I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I’m asking for a drug test. Both candidates. Me, too. I take an aspirin a day.”
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by this request. He did the same with Hillary Clinton in 2016, though I had forgotten about that.
This is not the first time Trump has accused his competitors of being on drugs. He claimed in October 2016, after the second presidential debate, that Hillary Clinton did better because she had taken drugs. ‘I think we should take a drug test prior to the debate. We should take a drug test prior because I don’t know what’s going on with her,’ Trump said at the time – and no drug tests were administered during those debates.
It’s unlikely that this will happen. It is something that is good to poke at Biden with, though, and remind voters that Biden has definitely lost a step since he was last in office. And, by him saying his campaign is insisting that both candidates stand throughout the debates, he is implying Biden is too physically feeble to endure the length of a debate on his feet. He’s messing with Joe’s head.
Both campaigns have settled on participating in three debates. Let the games begin.


hotair--2020-08-27--Judge once again refuses to shut down in-person worship at Los Angeles County church

Earlier this week , we looked at the story of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley , California and Pastor John MacArthur ’ s battle with the county and the state over holding in-person , indoor services at his church .
Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff had ruled in favor of the church based on the fact that there were “ no previous court rulings ” forbidding the church from holding such services .
But at the same time , the judge left open the question of whether or not the county could impose fines of up to $ 20,000 on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the county government regarding large assemblies during the pandemic .
Now the second round of appeals has been heard and Judge Beckloff appears content to allow things to continue as they have been thus far .
The county had moved to request a restraining order on the pastor , preventing him from continuing to hold indoor services .
The judge shot them down yet again , but he still failed to rule on the larger question of whether or not the county ’ s rules violated the church ’ s First Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet another technical argument .
( CBS Los Angeles ) A judge has denied a fourth attempt by Los Angeles County for a temporary restraining order against a Sun Valley church for holding indoor worship services under the county ’ s coronavirus orders .
California Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff found the latest filing against Grace Community Church and pastor John MacArthur both procedurally and substantively defective .
The court held that the county ’ s attempt to obtain a restraining order did not meet statutory requirements and that a previous order did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but simply stayed an Aug. 14 order and gave the county permission to enforce its own health order .
It seems rather obvious to me why these dramatic courtroom debates are playing out this way .
The county wants its executive dictates enforced , but they don ’ t want to be responsible for the headlines and video of law enforcement dragging Pastor MacArthur out of his church in handcuffs .
They would prefer to have the court issue an injunction and then ask the state to do the dirty work if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules .
Pastor MacArthur originally went after Governor Newsom in his lawsuit , but the Governor doesn ’ t want to touch this hot mess with a ten-foot pole .
That means both sides are leaning on the judge to play the tough cop so they don ’ t have to get their hands dirty .
Unfortunately for them , Judge Beckloff is having none of it .
The only ruling the judge was willing to make said that the request for an injunction was “ procedurally and substantively defective ” and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In other words , it ’ s possible that the court might grant them an injunction against the pastor , but they ’ ll have to send their attorneys back to the drawing board to clean up their work and submit the request yet again .
The judge further refused to comment on the threat to impose tens of thousands of dollars in fines on the church .
He ’ s basically telling the county that they can try to fine the pastor if they like .
He ’ s not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the moment they do it the pastor will appeal the fines and they ’ ll be right back in the same court where they started .
What the judge may inadvertently be doing here is offering both the church and the county an opportunity to run out the clock .
While California has been experiencing some periodic incidents of resurgence of the virus , the state is still slowly but surely moving through the phases of reopening .
Sooner or later , the ban on indoor church services is going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire lawsuit will be moot and the county can walk away without looking like they caved to the church .
But the pastor will still have been able to continue his services without the thumb of the government on his back .
While that may not be satisfying to some religious freedom enthusiasts , it might wind up being the best we could hope for .

Earlier this week, we looked at the story of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California and Pastor John MacArthur’s battle with the county and the state over holding in-person, indoor services at his church. Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff had ruled in favor of the church based on the fact that there were “no previous court rulings” forbidding the church from holding such services. But at the same time, the judge left open the question of whether or not the county could impose fines of up to $20,000 on the church for violating executive orders issued by the county government regarding large assemblies during the pandemic.
Now the second round of appeals has been heard and Judge Beckloff appears content to allow things to continue as they have been thus far. The county had moved to request a restraining order on the pastor, preventing him from continuing to hold indoor services. The judge shot them down yet again, but he still failed to rule on the larger question of whether or not the county’s rules violated the church’s First Amendment rights. Instead, he went with yet another technical argument. (CBS Los Angeles)
A judge has denied a fourth attempt by Los Angeles County for a temporary restraining order against a Sun Valley church for holding indoor worship services under the county’s coronavirus orders. California Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff found the latest filing against Grace Community Church and pastor John MacArthur both procedurally and substantively defective. The court held that the county’s attempt to obtain a restraining order did not meet statutory requirements and that a previous order did not justify a new temporary restraining order, but simply stayed an Aug. 14 order and gave the county permission to enforce its own health order.
It seems rather obvious to me why these dramatic courtroom debates are playing out this way. The county wants its executive dictates enforced, but they don’t want to be responsible for the headlines and video of law enforcement dragging Pastor MacArthur out of his church in handcuffs. They would prefer to have the court issue an injunction and then ask the state to do the dirty work if the Pastor remains in defiance of its rules. Pastor MacArthur originally went after Governor Newsom in his lawsuit, but the Governor doesn’t want to touch this hot mess with a ten-foot pole.
That means both sides are leaning on the judge to play the tough cop so they don’t have to get their hands dirty. Unfortunately for them, Judge Beckloff is having none of it. The only ruling the judge was willing to make said that the request for an injunction was “procedurally and substantively defective” and that it failed to meet statutory requirements. In other words, it’s possible that the court might grant them an injunction against the pastor, but they’ll have to send their attorneys back to the drawing board to clean up their work and submit the request yet again.
The judge further refused to comment on the threat to impose tens of thousands of dollars in fines on the church. He’s basically telling the county that they can try to fine the pastor if they like. He’s not going to stop them. But, of course, the moment they do it the pastor will appeal the fines and they’ll be right back in the same court where they started.
What the judge may inadvertently be doing here is offering both the church and the county an opportunity to run out the clock. While California has been experiencing some periodic incidents of resurgence of the virus, the state is still slowly but surely moving through the phases of reopening. Sooner or later, the ban on indoor church services is going to be lifted. At that point, this entire lawsuit will be moot and the county can walk away without looking like they caved to the church. But the pastor will still have been able to continue his services without the thumb of the government on his back. While that may not be satisfying to some religious freedom enthusiasts, it might wind up being the best we could hope for.