hotair--2020-08-17--Special prosecutor finds 'substantial abuses of discretion' in Jussie Smollett case

Last August a judge appointed special prosecutor Dan Webb to look into Kim Foxx ’ s handling of the Jussie Smollett case .
Today , Webb concluded that investigation and revealed he had found “ substantial abuses of discretion ” in Foxx ’ s handling of the case .
However , he did not find anything that would lead to charges against Foxx or others in her office .
Here are the five major findings in Webb ’ s report : Overall , Webb said he found : • Evidence establishing “ substantial abuses of discretion ” in prosecuting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Smollett .
• Evidence “ that may rise to the level of a violation of legal ethics by State ’ s Attorney Foxx ” and other Cook County prosecutors “ relating to false and/or misleading public statements made about the prosecution.
” • Evidence showing Foxx was given frequent updates about the case against Smollett following her declared recusal , though there was no evidence showing Foxx was involved in decision-making after that point .
• No evidence that would support criminal charges against Foxx or any other Cook County prosecutor .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any outside third parties ” in the decision-making by Foxx ’ s office regarding the initial charges against Smollett .
That ’ s the bottom line but the details are interesting .
Webb found lots of evidence that Kim Foxx absued her discretion in the case .
He breaks down that first bullet point above into four separate sub-findings .
The first relates to Foxx ’ s dismissal of the case which seems to have been very unusual .
( Note that CCSAO refers to Cook County State ’ s Attorney ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lawyers who currently work in or previously worked in the CCSAO ’ s criminal division who were interviewed by the OSP—including State ’ s Attorney Foxx—were “ surprised ” or “ shocked ” by at least some facet of the dismissal terms .
The CCSAO decision-makers on the Initial Smollett Case ( Acting State ’ s Attorney Joseph Magats and Lead Prosecutor Risa Lanier ) did not learn of any new evidence between when the CCSAO filed a 16-count indictment against Mr. Smollett on March 7 , 2019 , when the CCSAO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Smollett , and March 26 , 2019 , when the entire indictment was dismissed , as described above… The CCSAO did not rely upon any specific similar CCSAO cases when resolving the Initial Smollett Case .
The second sub-finding is made up of the numerous false statements Foxx ’ s office made to the media about the dismissal , i.e .
the cover-up : The CCSAO issued a press statement on March 26 , 2019 ( the day of the dismissal ) that stated : “ In the last two years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Office has referred more than 5,700 cases for alternative prosecution .
This is not a new or unusual practice .
An alternative disposition does not mean that there were any problems or infirmities with the case or the evidence…This outcome was met under the same criteria that would occur for and is available to any defendant with similar circumstances.
” State ’ s Attorney Foxx and Mr. Magats made similar statements during interviews with reporters on March 26 and 27 , 2019 respectively .
However , the evidence the OSP developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts that are inconsistent with the CCSAO , Mr. Magats , and State ’ s Attorney Foxx ’ s messaging in at least two ways : § The Initial Smollett Case did not fit the criteria the CCSAO ’ s Chief Data Officer used to identify the cited 5,700 figure because all of those cases were referred to a diversion program , unlike Mr. Smollett ’ s case ; therefore , the resolution of the Initial Smollett Case was meaningfully different from how those 5,700 cases were resolved .
§ There were not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) similar cases that the CCSAO resolved in a similar way to the Initial Smollett Case .
The CCSAO could not identify any specific similar CCSAO cases it relied upon when resolving the Initial Smollett Case .
In short , the office tried to present the dismissal as business as usual but the comparisons they made were not similar to what happened in the Smollett case .
There were several more lies about the dismissal , including this one .
The office also lied about Kim Foxx ’ s recusal from the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently because they knew the action they ’ d taken was improper but didn ’ t want to admit it : After State ’ s Attorney Foxx made the decision to recuse herself from Initial Smollett Case , she and the CCSAO came to realize that her recusal was legally defective in a major way—namely , that she could not simply appoint Mr. Magats to be “ Acting State ’ s Attorney ” on the case , but instead needed to recuse the entire CCSAO and petition the court to appoint a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal course to carry out the recusal once this defect was brought to their attention , the CCSAO and State ’ s Attorney Foxx made the decision to ignore this major legal defect seemingly because they did not want to admit that they had made such a major mistake of judgment regarding State ’ s Attorney Foxx ’ s recusal .
The CCSAO and State ’ s Attorney Foxx then compounded the problem by making false statements to the media on April 17 , 2019 about State ’ s Attorney Foxx ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defect in carrying out the recusal .
That ’ s all from point 1 , i.e .
abuses of discretion .
Point two is a finding that Foxx ’ s office lied to the media and the public so many times that it may rise to the level of a violation of legal ethics : As summarized above in Conclusion # 1 , the OSP developed evidence that the CCSAO , State ’ s Attorney Foxx , and/or Mr. Magats made at least six false and/or misleading public statements relating to the nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Initial Smollett Case and State ’ s Attorney Foxx ’ s recusal .
Some of these public statements were made on more than one occasion .
The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that the language in Rule 8.4 ( c ) , which prohibits lawyers from engaging in “ conduct involving dishonesty , fraud , deceit , or misrepresentation , ” is “ broadly construed to include anything calculated to deceive , including the suppression of truth and the suggestion of falsity.
” In re Edmonds , 2014 IL 117696 , ¶ 53 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Furthermore , of particular relevance given State ’ s Attorney Foxx ’ s role as an elected official , the comments to Rule 8.4 state : “ Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens .
A lawyer ’ s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers.
” As a result , the OSP has concluded that the six false and/or misleading public statements discussed above in Conclusion # 1 could potentially be deemed violations of Rule 8.4 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Office of Special Prosecutor has no authority to find that an attorney has violated professional ethics , so Webb can ’ t do anything about this himself but he ’ s clearly waving a flag that maybe this conduct is worthy of some additional action by the “ Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.
” The good news for Kim Foxx in the report is that Webb didn ’ t find any evidence of a crime ( finding # 4 ) : Also , there was no evidence of undue influence ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Jurnee Smollett ( Jussie ’ s sister ) , Tina Tchen ( Michelle Obama ’ s former Chief of Staff ) and Sherrilyn Ifill ( President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund ) .
To sum all of this up , it appears Foxx ’ s office didn ’ t violate the law but it did dismiss the case with no clear precedent and then lie to the media repeatedly about its justifications .
I guess we ’ ll have to wait and see if there is any additional fallout from this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t reacted to it publicly .

Last August a judge appointed special prosecutor Dan Webb to look into Kim Foxx’s handling of the Jussie Smollett case. Today, Webb concluded that investigation and revealed he had found “substantial abuses of discretion” in Foxx’s handling of the case. However, he did not find anything that would lead to charges against Foxx or others in her office. Here are the five major findings in Webb’s report:
Overall, Webb said he found: • Evidence establishing “substantial abuses of discretion” in prosecuting and dismissing the initial criminal charges filed against Smollett. • Evidence “that may rise to the level of a violation of legal ethics by State’s Attorney Foxx” and other Cook County prosecutors “relating to false and/or misleading public statements made about the prosecution.” • Evidence showing Foxx was given frequent updates about the case against Smollett following her declared recusal, though there was no evidence showing Foxx was involved in decision-making after that point. • No evidence that would support criminal charges against Foxx or any other Cook County prosecutor. • No evidence of “improper influence by any outside third parties” in the decision-making by Foxx’s office regarding the initial charges against Smollett.
That’s the bottom line but the details are interesting. Webb found lots of evidence that Kim Foxx absued her discretion in the case. He breaks down that first bullet point above into four separate sub-findings. The first relates to Foxx’s dismissal of the case which seems to have been very unusual. (Note that CCSAO refers to Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.)
Almost across the board, lawyers who currently work in or previously worked in the CCSAO’s criminal division who were interviewed by the OSP—including State’s Attorney Foxx—were “surprised” or “shocked” by at least some facet of the dismissal terms. The CCSAO decision-makers on the Initial Smollett Case (Acting State’s Attorney Joseph Magats and Lead Prosecutor Risa Lanier) did not learn of any new evidence between when the CCSAO filed a 16-count indictment against Mr. Smollett on March 7, 2019, when the CCSAO believed it had a strong case against Mr. Smollett, and March 26, 2019, when the entire indictment was dismissed, as described above… The CCSAO did not rely upon any specific similar CCSAO cases when resolving the Initial Smollett Case.
The second sub-finding is made up of the numerous false statements Foxx’s office made to the media about the dismissal, i.e. the cover-up:
The CCSAO issued a press statement on March 26, 2019 (the day of the dismissal) that stated: “In the last two years, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office has referred more than 5,700 cases for alternative prosecution. This is not a new or unusual practice. An alternative disposition does not mean that there were any problems or infirmities with the case or the evidence…This outcome was met under the same criteria that would occur for and is available to any defendant with similar circumstances.” State’s Attorney Foxx and Mr. Magats made similar statements during interviews with reporters on March 26 and 27, 2019 respectively. However, the evidence the OSP developed makes it clear that there are fundamental facts that are inconsistent with the CCSAO, Mr. Magats, and State’s Attorney Foxx’s messaging in at least two ways: § The Initial Smollett Case did not fit the criteria the CCSAO’s Chief Data Officer used to identify the cited 5,700 figure because all of those cases were referred to a diversion program, unlike Mr. Smollett’s case; therefore, the resolution of the Initial Smollett Case was meaningfully different from how those 5,700 cases were resolved. § There were not thousands of (or, arguably any) similar cases that the CCSAO resolved in a similar way to the Initial Smollett Case. The CCSAO could not identify any specific similar CCSAO cases it relied upon when resolving the Initial Smollett Case.
In short, the office tried to present the dismissal as business as usual but the comparisons they made were not similar to what happened in the Smollett case. There were several more lies about the dismissal, including this one.
After telling reporters on March 27, 2019 that the CCSAO had a strong case and would have prevailed at trial, State’s Attorney Foxx published an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune on March 29, 2019 where she falsely represented that the “office believed the likelihood of securing a conviction was not certain.”
The office also lied about Kim Foxx’s recusal from the case. The report says they did this apparently because they knew the action they’d taken was improper but didn’t want to admit it:
After State’s Attorney Foxx made the decision to recuse herself from Initial Smollett Case, she and the CCSAO came to realize that her recusal was legally defective in a major way—namely, that she could not simply appoint Mr. Magats to be “Acting State’s Attorney” on the case, but instead needed to recuse the entire CCSAO and petition the court to appoint a special prosecutor. Instead of implementing the proper legal course to carry out the recusal once this defect was brought to their attention, the CCSAO and State’s Attorney Foxx made the decision to ignore this major legal defect seemingly because they did not want to admit that they had made such a major mistake of judgment regarding State’s Attorney Foxx’s recusal. The CCSAO and State’s Attorney Foxx then compounded the problem by making false statements to the media on April 17, 2019 about State’s Attorney Foxx’s lack of knowledge about this major legal defect in carrying out the recusal.
That’s all from point 1, i.e. abuses of discretion. Point two is a finding that Foxx’s office lied to the media and the public so many times that it may rise to the level of a violation of legal ethics:
As summarized above in Conclusion #1, the OSP developed evidence that the CCSAO, State’s Attorney Foxx, and/or Mr. Magats made at least six false and/or misleading public statements relating to the nature and reason for the dismissal of the Initial Smollett Case and State’s Attorney Foxx’s recusal. Some of these public statements were made on more than one occasion. The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that the language in Rule 8.4(c), which prohibits lawyers from engaging in “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,” is “broadly construed to include anything calculated to deceive, including the suppression of truth and the suggestion of falsity.” In re Edmonds, 2014 IL 117696, ¶ 53 (2014) (emphasis added). Furthermore, of particular relevance given State’s Attorney Foxx’s role as an elected official, the comments to Rule 8.4 state: “Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers.” As a result, the OSP has concluded that the six false and/or misleading public statements discussed above in Conclusion #1 could potentially be deemed violations of Rule 8.4(c).
The report notes that the Office of Special Prosecutor has no authority to find that an attorney has violated professional ethics, so Webb can’t do anything about this himself but he’s clearly waving a flag that maybe this conduct is worthy of some additional action by the “Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.”
The good news for Kim Foxx in the report is that Webb didn’t find any evidence of a crime (finding #4):
Based on the voluminous documentary evidence gathered and witness interviews conducted, the OSP did not develop evidence that would support any criminal charges based on bribery, failure to report a bribe, official misconduct, obstruction of justice, perjury, or any other criminal statute.
Also, there was no evidence of undue influence (finding #5) after Foxx spoke to Jurnee Smollett (Jussie’s sister), Tina Tchen (Michelle Obama’s former Chief of Staff) and Sherrilyn Ifill (President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund).
To sum all of this up, it appears Foxx’s office didn’t violate the law but it did dismiss the case with no clear precedent and then lie to the media repeatedly about its justifications. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if there is any additional fallout from this report. So far, Kim Foxx hasn’t reacted to it publicly.


hotair--2020-08-17--No, seriously: Does New York have herd immunity?

If you think the spin about New York ’ s alleged “ success ” in managing the pandemic is insufferable now , wait until it turns out that NYC has herd immunity because the virus was allowed to rip through the city unchecked in early March while Cuomo pulled his chin and wondered what to do .
The media will be looking to give him a Nobel prize for medicine .
He ’ s been posting daily updates of New York State ’ s latest case count every morning for months .
And every time he does , I look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and think , “ This can ’ t be luck.
” There has to be an explanation : Day after day after day after day , for two months , New York ’ s postivity rate is one percent or less .
Granted , schools and many businesses there are still shut down .
Granted , after their horrific ordeal this past spring , New Yorkers are probably more diligent about wearing masks , washing their hands , and keeping their distance than the average American is .
Even so — not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blip at the tail end of that curve even though surely there are many younger New Yorkers who are partying , socializing , and otherwise bending or breaking the rules about proper pandemic behavior .
Not one brief rough patch in two months .
Other places that were ravaged by the virus haven ’ t been as fortunate .
Here ’ s Spain ’ s curve , which looks a lot like New York ’ s … until it doesn ’ t : Sweden ’ s curve took longer to develop than New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen great progress lately too — but note the slight rise in cases lately : There is one country whose curve looks a lot like New York ’ s .
That would be Italy , which endured its own apocalyptic COVID outbreak in February , only to recover and drive cases down nearly to nothing .
Even here , though , there ’ s been an upswing in the past two weeks , with yesterday ’ s case count ( 478 ) well more than twice the lowest number ( 190 ) recorded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to have crushed the curve and kept it thoroughly crushed ( so far ) .
Why ?
Have they reached herd immunity ?
One reason why that seems likelier in NYC than in Italy , Spain , and Sweden is density .
Those last three are nations , of course , with the population spread out across huge distances .
Northern Italy was decimated by the virus this spring but there may be large numbers of Italians in the south who have yet to encounter the virus and thus are dry tinder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a more limited outbreak .
That ’ s less true in NYC , where people are packed cheek by jowl on a small island and its surrounding boroughs .
The odds that any random resident of New York City has encountered SARS-CoV-2 surely must be higher than that of any random Italian , Spaniard , or Swede .
Is the city immune ?
The Times reports today that scientists are asking themselves this same question , and not just about New York .
London and Mumbai are under the microscope too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreaks may have turned the corner on COVID-19 .
In interviews with The New York Times , more than a dozen scientists said that the threshold is likely to be much lower : just 50 percent , perhaps even less .
If that ’ s true , then it may be possible to turn back the coronavirus more quickly than once thought… Assuming the virus ferrets out the most outgoing and most susceptible in the first wave , immunity following a wave of infection is distributed more efficiently than with a vaccination campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Britton , a mathematician at Stockholm University .
His model puts the threshold for herd immunity at 43 percent — that is , the virus can not hang on in a community after that percentage of residents has been infected and recovered… Researchers in Mumbai conducted … a random household survey , knocking on every fourth door — or , if it was locked , the fifth — and took blood for antibody testing .
They found a startling disparity between the city ’ s poorest neighborhoods and its more affluent enclaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents in poor areas had antibodies , versus 11 to 17 percent elsewhere in the city .
The point about efficient distribution is important .
Other research has suggested that “ superspreader events ” are responsible for a huge number of COVID transmissions , with one estimate claiming that just 10 percent of infected people are responsible for 80 percent ( ! )
of transmissions .
Logically , one would think that many/most people who are likely to attend a superspreader event are getting infected early in the epidemic , precisely because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , e.g.
, going to crowded bars .
Once most of that group has gotten infected and either died or recovered and gained immunity , suddenly the “ freeways ” of transmission are no longer available to the virus .
It has to take side streets instead , where spread is slower and less efficient .
That is , it ’ s not just that a random 40 percent or whatever of New Yorkers has gotten infected at this point .
It may be that it ’ s the 40 percent that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now that those people are immunized , there ’ s an outsized effect of reduced transmission across the entire remaining population that ’ s vulnerable .
Of course , in order for herd immunity to be possible , it would have to be the case that even people with mild cases of COVID are immune afterward .
Most seem to have mild infections , after all ; if all of them are still susceptible to infection after recovering , or if they ’ re immune only briefly before becoming susceptible again , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think to attain .
Coincidentally , though , the Times has another story about that today .
As far as scientists can tell , it seems that mild cases do produce durable immunity .
So herd immunity is possible in NYC , at least theoretically — although the mechanics are still in dispute .
Some scientists have proposed the possibility of cross-immunity stemming from earlier infections by other , much milder coronaviruses .
The idea is that T-cells in a person with cross-immunity “ remember ” those previous viruses and thus “ recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s system , spurring a strong initial immune response that fights the virus off .
A recent Oxford study speculated that that cross-immunity could help explain why the virus is having so much trouble regaining traction in hot spots like London , and could mean that the true threshold for “ herd immunity ” from COVID is much lower than 50-60 percent .
Between the protective measures people are taking ( masks , hand-washing , social distancing ) and cross-immunity , Oxford suggested that herd immunity may be reached with as little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having been infected and recovered .
A study by the state government of New York found roughly 25 percent of New York City residents had antibodies as of mid-April .
The percentage is surely higher , maybe much higher , today .
If Oxford is right then NYC ’ s crushed curve has an obvious explanation : They ’ ve reached herd immunity — at least as long as they keep social distancing in effect .
What we ’ re really talking about in all this isn ’ t true herd immunity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop all precautions against the virus , but immunity when a certain level of precautions are taken .
Call it , uh , qualified immunity if you like .
If New Yorkers were to go back to normal and everyone was suddenly cheek by jowl again , no doubt some who had thus far managed to avoid an encounter with the virus would find that their luck had run out .
The possibility of herd immunity raises another question .
If , as pretty much everyone assumes , Wuhan ’ s outbreak was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let on , is it possible that parts of China have reached herd immunity as well ?
Hmmmm : It ’ s also hard to avoid speculating that maybe one reason why China ’ s neighbors have had such dramatically better outcomes with COVID than the U.S. is that they ’ ve developed more extensive cross-immunity over time from exposure to other regional coronaviruses .
SARS is the most famous example , but if it ’ s true that China ’ s wet markets are a virus factory , it may be that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Far East .
When a not-so-mild one finally came along , much of the population may have already developed T-cell defenses for it .
That ’ s just speculation , but I ’ d curious to hear what someone who knows what they ’ re talking about thinks of it .
An obvious objection : If there ’ s regional cross-immunity due to proximity with China , why has Russia had such a hard time of it with COVID ?
Anyway , a little back-of-the-envelope math for you .
If we assume ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hot spots in the U.S. plus NYC have reached herd immunity by dint of their outbreaks — that ’ s California , Texas , Arizona , and Florida — that would account for a population of around 105 million people or so , about a third of the U.S .
It cost us 170,000 deaths to reach that point .
The bad news is that it ’ s surely not the case that huge states like California have had the same percentage of people exposed to the virus as a tiny enclave like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about density up top — so California surely is not immune and realistically may not be close to reaching immunity .
The good news , though , is that there may be sufficient immunity in each state at this point to foreclose the possibility of a truly nasty second wave this fall .
We may see Spain-type second waves from time to time in those states but we ’ re never going to see curves as steep as we have already , one would think .

If you think the spin about New York’s alleged “success” in managing the pandemic is insufferable now, wait until it turns out that NYC has herd immunity because the virus was allowed to rip through the city unchecked in early March while Cuomo pulled his chin and wondered what to do.
The media will be looking to give him a Nobel prize for medicine.
He’s been posting daily updates of New York State’s latest case count every morning for months. And every time he does, I look at this curve, rub my eyes, and think, “This can’t be luck.” There has to be an explanation:
Today's update on the numbers: Of the 56,891 tests reported yesterday, 408 were positive (0.71% of total). Total hospitalizations are at 534. Sadly, there were 6 COVID fatalities yesterday. pic.twitter.com/eHQ7XckueH — Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) August 17, 2020
Day after day after day after day, for two months, New York’s postivity rate is one percent or less. Granted, schools and many businesses there are still shut down. Granted, after their horrific ordeal this past spring, New Yorkers are probably more diligent about wearing masks, washing their hands, and keeping their distance than the average American is. Even so — not a single outbreak. Not one little blip at the tail end of that curve even though surely there are many younger New Yorkers who are partying, socializing, and otherwise bending or breaking the rules about proper pandemic behavior. Not one brief rough patch in two months.
Other places that were ravaged by the virus haven’t been as fortunate. Here’s Spain’s curve, which looks a lot like New York’s … until it doesn’t:
Sweden’s curve took longer to develop than New York’s and they’ve seen great progress lately too — but note the slight rise in cases lately:
There is one country whose curve looks a lot like New York’s. That would be Italy, which endured its own apocalyptic COVID outbreak in February, only to recover and drive cases down nearly to nothing. Even here, though, there’s been an upswing in the past two weeks, with yesterday’s case count (478) well more than twice the lowest number (190) recorded on June 29:
Only New York appears to have crushed the curve and kept it thoroughly crushed (so far). Why?
Have they reached herd immunity? One reason why that seems likelier in NYC than in Italy, Spain, and Sweden is density. Those last three are nations, of course, with the population spread out across huge distances. Northern Italy was decimated by the virus this spring but there may be large numbers of Italians in the south who have yet to encounter the virus and thus are dry tinder for a “second wave” or even a more limited outbreak. That’s less true in NYC, where people are packed cheek by jowl on a small island and its surrounding boroughs. The odds that any random resident of New York City has encountered SARS-CoV-2 surely must be higher than that of any random Italian, Spaniard, or Swede.
Is the city immune? The Times reports today that scientists are asking themselves this same question, and not just about New York. London and Mumbai are under the microscope too. Large dense metropolises that have experienced ferocious outbreaks may have turned the corner on COVID-19.
In interviews with The New York Times, more than a dozen scientists said that the threshold is likely to be much lower: just 50 percent, perhaps even less. If that’s true, then it may be possible to turn back the coronavirus more quickly than once thought… Assuming the virus ferrets out the most outgoing and most susceptible in the first wave, immunity following a wave of infection is distributed more efficiently than with a vaccination campaign that seeks to protect everyone, said Tom Britton, a mathematician at Stockholm University. His model puts the threshold for herd immunity at 43 percent — that is, the virus cannot hang on in a community after that percentage of residents has been infected and recovered… Researchers in Mumbai conducted … a random household survey, knocking on every fourth door — or, if it was locked, the fifth — and took blood for antibody testing. They found a startling disparity between the city’s poorest neighborhoods and its more affluent enclaves. Between 51 and 58 percent of residents in poor areas had antibodies, versus 11 to 17 percent elsewhere in the city.
The point about efficient distribution is important. Other research has suggested that “superspreader events” are responsible for a huge number of COVID transmissions, with one estimate claiming that just 10 percent of infected people are responsible for 80 percent(!) of transmissions. Logically, one would think that many/most people who are likely to attend a superspreader event are getting infected early in the epidemic, precisely because they’re more willing to take risks, e.g., going to crowded bars. Once most of that group has gotten infected and either died or recovered and gained immunity, suddenly the “freeways” of transmission are no longer available to the virus. It has to take side streets instead, where spread is slower and less efficient.
That is, it’s not just that a random 40 percent or whatever of New Yorkers has gotten infected at this point. It may be that it’s the 40 percent that’s most likely to infect others. Now that those people are immunized, there’s an outsized effect of reduced transmission across the entire remaining population that’s vulnerable.
Of course, in order for herd immunity to be possible, it would have to be the case that even people with mild cases of COVID are immune afterward. Most seem to have mild infections, after all; if all of them are still susceptible to infection after recovering, or if they’re immune only briefly before becoming susceptible again, then true immunity is much harder than we think to attain. Coincidentally, though, the Times has another story about that today. As far as scientists can tell, it seems that mild cases do produce durable immunity.
Scientists who have been monitoring immune responses to the coronavirus for months are now starting to see encouraging signs of strong, lasting immunity, even in people who developed only mild symptoms of Covid-19, a flurry of new studies has found. Disease-fighting antibodies, as well as immune cells called B cells and T cells capable of recognizing the virus, appear to persist months after infections have resolved — an encouraging echo of the body’s robust immune response to other viruses… “This is very promising,” said Smita Iyer, an immunologist at the University of California, Davis, who is studying immune responses to the coronavirus in rhesus macaques and was not involved in these papers. “This calls for some optimism about herd immunity, and potentially a vaccine.”
So herd immunity is possible in NYC, at least theoretically — although the mechanics are still in dispute. Some scientists have proposed the possibility of cross-immunity stemming from earlier infections by other, much milder coronaviruses. The idea is that T-cells in a person with cross-immunity “remember” those previous viruses and thus “recognize” SARS-CoV-2 when it enters that person’s system, spurring a strong initial immune response that fights the virus off. A recent Oxford study speculated that that cross-immunity could help explain why the virus is having so much trouble regaining traction in hot spots like London, and could mean that the true threshold for “herd immunity” from COVID is much lower than 50-60 percent. Between the protective measures people are taking (masks, hand-washing, social distancing) and cross-immunity, Oxford suggested that herd immunity may be reached with as little as 25 percent of the relevant population having been infected and recovered.
A study by the state government of New York found roughly 25 percent of New York City residents had antibodies as of mid-April. The percentage is surely higher, maybe much higher, today. If Oxford is right then NYC’s crushed curve has an obvious explanation: They’ve reached herd immunity — at least as long as they keep social distancing in effect. What we’re really talking about in all this isn’t true herd immunity, after all, where we get to drop all precautions against the virus, but immunity when a certain level of precautions are taken. Call it, uh, qualified immunity if you like. If New Yorkers were to go back to normal and everyone was suddenly cheek by jowl again, no doubt some who had thus far managed to avoid an encounter with the virus would find that their luck had run out.
The possibility of herd immunity raises another question. If, as pretty much everyone assumes, Wuhan’s outbreak was much more extensive than the Chinese government let on, is it possible that parts of China have reached herd immunity as well? Hmmmm:
VIDEO: 🇨🇳 Crowds packed out a water park over the weekend in the central Chinese city of #Wuhan, where the #coronavirus first emerged late last year, keen to party as the city edges back to normal life pic.twitter.com/SJFBmx5sU8 — AFP News Agency (@AFP) August 17, 2020
It’s also hard to avoid speculating that maybe one reason why China’s neighbors have had such dramatically better outcomes with COVID than the U.S. is that they’ve developed more extensive cross-immunity over time from exposure to other regional coronaviruses. SARS is the most famous example, but if it’s true that China’s wet markets are a virus factory, it may be that mild coronaviruses circulate more frequently in the Far East. When a not-so-mild one finally came along, much of the population may have already developed T-cell defenses for it. That’s just speculation, but I’d curious to hear what someone who knows what they’re talking about thinks of it. An obvious objection: If there’s regional cross-immunity due to proximity with China, why has Russia had such a hard time of it with COVID?
Anyway, a little back-of-the-envelope math for you. If we assume (incorrectly) that all of the recent hot spots in the U.S. plus NYC have reached herd immunity by dint of their outbreaks — that’s California, Texas, Arizona, and Florida — that would account for a population of around 105 million people or so, about a third of the U.S. It cost us 170,000 deaths to reach that point. The bad news is that it’s surely not the case that huge states like California have had the same percentage of people exposed to the virus as a tiny enclave like NYC has — that was my point about density up top — so California surely is not immune and realistically may not be close to reaching immunity. The good news, though, is that there may be sufficient immunity in each state at this point to foreclose the possibility of a truly nasty second wave this fall. We may see Spain-type second waves from time to time in those states but we’re never going to see curves as steep as we have already, one would think.


hotair--2020-08-17--Mother seeking to turn son into daughter gets sole custody

As some of you may recall , last October I wrote about the case of ( then ) seven-year-old James Younger of Texas .
His parents were divorcing , in large part because James ’ mother had begun addressing him as a girl at the age of three and at seven was preparing to begin working with a doctor to “ transition ” James into Luna , the daughter she apparently always wanted .
These plans included introducing artificial hormones into James and then moving to puberty-blocking medication .
The alarmed father went to court to ensure that he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to veto the idea of such mad-scientist experimentation on his son .
In the end , he was awarded joint custody and the matter appeared settled .
Now , less than a year later , this situation has flashed back to critical levels .
The mother has landed a court victory on appeal and been granted sole custody of eight-year-old James .
She is now free to proceed with these insane plans .
( Christian Post ) A mother who ’ s attempting to gender-transition her 8-year-old son into a girl has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s healthcare and schooling , essentially reversing a previous ruling that granted the father co-parenting rights .
In the ongoing case of 8-year-old James Younger , Dallas Judge Mary Brown canceled a hearing that was scheduled for Tuesday and removed his father , Jeffrey Younger , from having any say in his son ’ s medical , psychological , and psychiatric care .
Instead , the judge gave all decision-making power to Dr. Anne Georgulas , a pediatrician and non-biological mother of James and his twin brother , Jude , LifeSite News reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court to pay for trans-affirming counseling sessions , which he had previously objected to as he was not permitted to help select his son ’ s counselors .
This is exactly what I was afraid might happen and I attempted to generate some awareness of this possibility last year .
At the time , the Governor of Texas , the Attorney General , and Family Protective Services were investigating the Younger case to determine if any sort of child abuse was taking place .
( We ’ ll try to avoid too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive amount of child abuse about to unfold . )
At that time I wrote the following : If the Texas Governor , Attorney General , and Family Protective Services take this ruling as a signal that the issue is now moot and no further investigation is required , we ’ re right back where we started .
Drawing national attention to the case of a mother who began calling their son a girl at the age of three and was preparing “ transition ” plans at the age of seven seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that opportunity was lost last year and now James Younger is once again in jeopardy .
If his non-biological mother is allowed to proceed with her plans , James will be subjected to medical procedures that should never be performed on an otherwise healthy child .
The effects of unnaturally unbalanced hormone levels and the chemical delay of the normal onset of puberty may very well produce side effects that can never be overcome .
The drug most commonly used to block puberty , Leuprolide Acetate ( Lupron ) is used only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( precocious ) puberty and then only for a limited time until the child ’ s body is prepared to undergo the natural transition to come .
And that drug has never been approved for this use by the FDA .
This isn ’ t the legal and necessary practice of medicine unless you consider The Island of Dr. Moreau to be a documentary about a health clinic .
It ’ s time for Governor Abbott , his Attorney General and Child Protective Services to saddle up the horses again and go step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young to understand what ’ s going on and he is in extreme danger at this moment .
A failure to act would be nothing short of criminal .
As I ’ ve said here repeatedly , what adults capable of giving informed consent do to their own bodies is their business .
If you want to fill your system with foreign hormones and have your genitals chopped up , that ’ s up to you , provided you ’ re willing to live with the consequences .
( Sadly , the suicide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that far too many don ’ t wind up taking advantage of that option . )
But when it comes to children , that ’ s not the case .
They are unable to provide informed consent and the fact that we have doctors in this country engaging in this sort of demented experimentation on their bodies is unconscionable .

As some of you may recall, last October I wrote about the case of (then) seven-year-old James Younger of Texas. His parents were divorcing, in large part because James’ mother had begun addressing him as a girl at the age of three and at seven was preparing to begin working with a doctor to “transition” James into Luna, the daughter she apparently always wanted. These plans included introducing artificial hormones into James and then moving to puberty-blocking medication. The alarmed father went to court to ensure that he would retain joint custody and have the power to veto the idea of such mad-scientist experimentation on his son. In the end, he was awarded joint custody and the matter appeared settled.
Now, less than a year later, this situation has flashed back to critical levels. The mother has landed a court victory on appeal and been granted sole custody of eight-year-old James. She is now free to proceed with these insane plans. (Christian Post)
A mother who’s attempting to gender-transition her 8-year-old son into a girl has been awarded decision-making power regarding her son’s healthcare and schooling, essentially reversing a previous ruling that granted the father co-parenting rights. In the ongoing case of 8-year-old James Younger, Dallas Judge Mary Brown canceled a hearing that was scheduled for Tuesday and removed his father, Jeffrey Younger, from having any say in his son’s medical, psychological, and psychiatric care. Instead, the judge gave all decision-making power to Dr. Anne Georgulas, a pediatrician and non-biological mother of James and his twin brother, Jude, LifeSite News reported. Younger has also been ordered by the court to pay for trans-affirming counseling sessions, which he had previously objected to as he was not permitted to help select his son’s counselors.
This is exactly what I was afraid might happen and I attempted to generate some awareness of this possibility last year. At the time, the Governor of Texas, the Attorney General, and Family Protective Services were investigating the Younger case to determine if any sort of child abuse was taking place. (We’ll try to avoid too much eye-rolling here since there was obviously a massive amount of child abuse about to unfold.) At that time I wrote the following:
If the Texas Governor, Attorney General, and Family Protective Services take this ruling as a signal that the issue is now moot and no further investigation is required, we’re right back where we started. Drawing national attention to the case of a mother who began calling their son a girl at the age of three and was preparing “transition” plans at the age of seven seemed like a moment of opportunity.
Well, that opportunity was lost last year and now James Younger is once again in jeopardy. If his non-biological mother is allowed to proceed with her plans, James will be subjected to medical procedures that should never be performed on an otherwise healthy child. The effects of unnaturally unbalanced hormone levels and the chemical delay of the normal onset of puberty may very well produce side effects that can never be overcome. The drug most commonly used to block puberty, Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron) is used only in vanishingly rare cases of extremely early-onset (precocious) puberty and then only for a limited time until the child’s body is prepared to undergo the natural transition to come. And that drug has never been approved for this use by the FDA.
This isn’t the legal and necessary practice of medicine unless you consider The Island of Dr. Moreau to be a documentary about a health clinic. It’s time for Governor Abbott, his Attorney General and Child Protective Services to saddle up the horses again and go step in. James Younger is far too young to understand what’s going on and he is in extreme danger at this moment. A failure to act would be nothing short of criminal.
As I’ve said here repeatedly, what adults capable of giving informed consent do to their own bodies is their business. If you want to fill your system with foreign hormones and have your genitals chopped up, that’s up to you, provided you’re willing to live with the consequences. (Sadly, the suicide rates among transgender surgery recipients tells us that far too many don’t wind up taking advantage of that option.) But when it comes to children, that’s not the case. They are unable to provide informed consent and the fact that we have doctors in this country engaging in this sort of demented experimentation on their bodies is unconscionable.


hotair--2020-08-17--Fact-checking Kamala's claim that Trump is afraid of strong women: Pants on fire

It ’ s time to ramp up the divisive liberal war on women .
Kamala Harris set the tone of her role in the Biden campaign as she was introduced to voters last week .
The vice-presidential pick will be the attack dog to balance out Sleepy Joe ’ s soft-spoken grandfatherly schtick .
Team Biden doesn ’ t want to get bogged down defending Kamala ’ s record either in California as that state ’ s top cop or as the U.S .
Senator ranked number one with the most liberal voting record .
It is a standard procedure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican presidential candidate of being a racist , a homophobe , and a sexist .
It doesn ’ t matter who the Republican at the top of the ticket is , the playbook is the same .
With President Trump in the White House , these kinds of personal attacks have gone off the charts with vitriol .
Trump is no shrinking violet , mind you , and he gives as good as he gets .
Democrats are not accustomed to a Republican presidential candidate punching back which makes the current political atmosphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a return to civility in politics and failing miserably .
When Kamala spoke to the few members of the press allowed into the venue ( no regular supporters were allowed to attend ) , she waxed poetically about Joe Biden , as she was required to do , and then she took off on Trump .
“ Is anyone surprised Donald Trump has a problem with strong women ?
” No points for creativity on this one , Kamala .
We ’ ve all heard this riff over and over .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t bear out that accusation .
In both the White House and in his personal life , Trump has surrounded himself with strong women .
The Washington Examiner has some numbers to report .
For a man who is accused of being anti-woman , especially in policy , almost half of his staff are women .
What ’ s more , one-quarter , or 56 , hold top “ commissioned ” jobs , including the directors of domestic policy , legislative affairs , political affairs , cabinet affairs , the press and communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 others .
“ That seems sizable , ” said Kathryn Tenpas , a nonresident senior fellow for Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution .
“ I don ’ t think the numbers look bad , ” she added .
Forty-eight percent of the overall White House staff are women : 216 to 234 men .
Three hundred fifteen are political appointees : 169 men , 146 women .
The staff of the president and first lady is 48 % women : 181 women , 194 men .
The vice president has 26 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president ’ s wife , Karen Pence , employs nine women , no men .
Half of the national security council staff are women .
For comparison purposes , Trump ’ s numbers there are a little better than the general workforce in America , which is 47 % women .
The press , however , trails Trump .
Newsrooms are comprised of just 41 % women .
And , Trump ’ s record is better than Obama ’ s .
Obama had more women than men on staff but his staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as top advisers than Obama did .
We know that of his top advisers , his daughter Ivanka is easily in first place on the list .
Trump brought on Kellyanne Conway in 2016 as campaign manager and she became the first woman in either party to run a winning presidential campaign .
Dr. Deborah Birx leads the White House coronavirus task force .
Democrats are taken aback when Trump attacks women as aggressively as he does men .
The irony is that Democrats are supposed to be the enlightened ones who believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means at the expense of men , right ?
Equality means treating both women and men the same .
As I said , he gives as good as he gets and he doesn ’ t care if it is in response to a woman or a man .
Frankly , when Trump calls Kamala or any other female opponent “ nasty ” she probably deserves the criticism .
She shouldn ’ t expect Trump to suddenly start sugar-coating his remarks just because she is female .
The war on women was created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ironic , given the history of the Republican Party versus that of the Democrat Party .
The first woman to serve in Congress , for example , was a Republican .
The first female Supreme Court Justice was a Republican woman .
Remember the snark against Mitt Romney over his “ binders full of women ” remark ?
It was his way of saying he had lots of solid choices available of qualified women to serve in his administration , should he win the election .
Let ’ s not forget that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running mate was led by former Senator Chris Dodd .
The same Chris Dodd made famous for his love of waitress sandwiches with his pal , Ted Kennedy .
When Democrats attack Trump as anti-woman they do a huge disservice to all the women working for him .
It is as though they do not exist .
The media is going all-in for Kamala , just as they did for Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Kamala was lauded as a ground-breaking choice but that is due to her racial heritage , not her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the advantage of soft and swooning press coverage that Kamala will have for the next seventy-plus days .
The media was given their marching orders from prominent Democrat women and they immediately fell into line .
If Team Biden loses the election in November , it will show that criticism of Kamala Harris resonated with voters not because of her gender or race but because she wears really thin on people over time .
She starts out strong and then she flops spectacularly .
Remember she dropped out of the Democrat primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary in January .
Remember , too , that she claims she moved to Iowa to work the state before the Iowa caucus .
She clearly didn ’ t impress voters in middle America which is her challenge during this campaign .
The media is only going to be able to carry her so far .

It’s time to ramp up the divisive liberal war on women. Kamala Harris set the tone of her role in the Biden campaign as she was introduced to voters last week. The vice-presidential pick will be the attack dog to balance out Sleepy Joe’s soft-spoken grandfatherly schtick. Team Biden doesn’t want to get bogged down defending Kamala’s record either in California as that state’s top cop or as the U.S. Senator ranked number one with the most liberal voting record.
It is a standard procedure for the Democrat ticket to accuse the Republican presidential candidate of being a racist, a homophobe, and a sexist. It doesn’t matter who the Republican at the top of the ticket is, the playbook is the same. With President Trump in the White House, these kinds of personal attacks have gone off the charts with vitriol. Trump is no shrinking violet, mind you, and he gives as good as he gets. Democrats are not accustomed to a Republican presidential candidate punching back which makes the current political atmosphere interesting. Biden is trying to run on a return to civility in politics and failing miserably.
When Kamala spoke to the few members of the press allowed into the venue (no regular supporters were allowed to attend), she waxed poetically about Joe Biden, as she was required to do, and then she took off on Trump. “Is anyone surprised Donald Trump has a problem with strong women?” No points for creativity on this one, Kamala. We’ve all heard this riff over and over. The problem is that the facts don’t bear out that accusation. In both the White House and in his personal life, Trump has surrounded himself with strong women. The Washington Examiner has some numbers to report. For a man who is accused of being anti-woman, especially in policy, almost half of his staff are women.
What’s more, one-quarter, or 56, hold top “commissioned” jobs, including the directors of domestic policy, legislative affairs, political affairs, cabinet affairs, the press and communications offices, the personnel office, and 11 others. “That seems sizable,” said Kathryn Tenpas, a nonresident senior fellow for Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think the numbers look bad,” she added. Here is the raw data: Forty-eight percent of the overall White House staff are women: 216 to 234 men.
Three hundred fifteen are political appointees: 169 men, 146 women.
The staff of the president and first lady is 48% women: 181 women, 194 men.
The vice president has 26 female staffers and 40 men.
The vice president’s wife, Karen Pence, employs nine women, no men.
Half of the national security council staff are women.
For comparison purposes, Trump’s numbers there are a little better than the general workforce in America, which is 47% women. The press, however, trails Trump. Newsrooms are comprised of just 41% women. And, Trump’s record is better than Obama’s. Obama had more women than men on staff but his staff was bigger. Trump has more women as top advisers than Obama did. We know that of his top advisers, his daughter Ivanka is easily in first place on the list. Trump brought on Kellyanne Conway in 2016 as campaign manager and she became the first woman in either party to run a winning presidential campaign. Dr. Deborah Birx leads the White House coronavirus task force.
Democrats are taken aback when Trump attacks women as aggressively as he does men. The irony is that Democrats are supposed to be the enlightened ones who believe in equality of women even if that means at the expense of men, right? Equality means treating both women and men the same. As I said, he gives as good as he gets and he doesn’t care if it is in response to a woman or a man. Frankly, when Trump calls Kamala or any other female opponent “nasty” she probably deserves the criticism. She shouldn’t expect Trump to suddenly start sugar-coating his remarks just because she is female.
The war on women was created by Democrats to slam Republicans. It’s ironic, given the history of the Republican Party versus that of the Democrat Party. The first woman to serve in Congress, for example, was a Republican. The first female Supreme Court Justice was a Republican woman. Remember the snark against Mitt Romney over his “binders full of women” remark? It was his way of saying he had lots of solid choices available of qualified women to serve in his administration, should he win the election. Let’s not forget that Biden’s team that chose his running mate was led by former Senator Chris Dodd. The same Chris Dodd made famous for his love of waitress sandwiches with his pal, Ted Kennedy. When Democrats attack Trump as anti-woman they do a huge disservice to all the women working for him. It is as though they do not exist.
The media is going all-in for Kamala, just as they did for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Kamala was lauded as a ground-breaking choice but that is due to her racial heritage, not her gender. Sarah Palin didn’t have the advantage of soft and swooning press coverage that Kamala will have for the next seventy-plus days. The media was given their marching orders from prominent Democrat women and they immediately fell into line.
If Team Biden loses the election in November, it will show that criticism of Kamala Harris resonated with voters not because of her gender or race but because she wears really thin on people over time. She starts out strong and then she flops spectacularly. Remember she dropped out of the Democrat primary in December 2019, before the Iowa primary in January. Remember, too, that she claims she moved to Iowa to work the state before the Iowa caucus. She clearly didn’t impress voters in middle America which is her challenge during this campaign. The media is only going to be able to carry her so far.


hotair--2020-08-17--New CNN poll shows Biden's national lead shrinking to four points, but...

Remember that time Trump ’ s campaign pretend-threatened to sue CNN because one of their polls showed Biden leading nationally by 14 points ?
I ’ m going to guess that , after this one , MAGA World is satisfied that all flaws in their methodology have since been resolved .
Every data nerd in America responded the same way to the uproar over CNN ’ s latest when it dropped last night : Do not cherry-pick polls .
It ’ s the polling averages that matter , not the occasional outliers that crop up .
To hell with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man .
Cherry-picking data to suit people ’ s personal prejudices is what partisan media is all about .
Headline : TRUMP NOW WITHIN FOUR OF BIDEN NATIONALLY .
Across 15 battleground states , the survey finds Biden has the backing of 49 % of registered voters , while Trump lands at 48 % .
The pool of battleground states in this poll includes more that Trump carried in 2016 ( 10 ) than were won by Hillary Clinton ( 5 ) , reflecting the reality that the President ’ s campaign is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
Taken together , though , they represent a more Republican-leaning playing field than the nation as a whole .
The movement in the poll among voters nationwide since June is concentrated among men ( they split about evenly in June , but now 56 % back Trump , 40 % Biden ) , those between the ages of 35 and 64 ( they tilt toward Trump now , but were Biden-leaning in June ) and independents ( in June , Biden held a 52 % to 41 % lead , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 46 % Biden to 45 % Trump divide ) .
Trump has also solidified his partisans since June .
While 8 % of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents in June said they would back Biden , that figure now stands at just 4 % .
Trump leads on the economy and also on which candidate has the “ stamina and sharpness ” to be president , although by only two points .
( Biden leads more comfortably on various other measures of personal fitness . )
This isn ’ t the only national poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The HarrisX surveys conducted for The Hill consistently show a Biden lead of three or four , as they include a much larger “ undecided ” contingent than other pollsters .
The last one from Emerson also had Biden up four , and Rasmussen has at times showed a tight race , which isn ’ t surprising given their right-leaning “ house effect ” — although in their most recent poll , Biden led by six .
Sounds like a Trump comeback is under way .
But … is it ?
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ but ” in the headline .
Three other national surveys published in the past three days have Biden leading much more comfortably .
NPR/Marist had the race 53/42 on Friday , up three points from June .
In that one Biden tied Trump among white voters at 48 percent , also up from June and a death sentence for Trump 2020 if it persists .
( He won whites by 20 four years ago . )
Yesterday WSJ/NBC found Biden leading nationally by nine points , 50/41 , a slight decline since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this stage of the race .
Trump leads whites by seven in this one but Biden leads by seven among senior citizens , another must-win constituency for POTUS .
In this poll Biden has a seven-point lead in the swing states , a major difference from CNN ’ s poll .
The explanation may be as simple as CNN including a few reddish states as “ battlegrounds , ” like Texas , that WSJ/NBC omitted .
One more , released just this morning .
ABC/WaPo , which has an excellent track record in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump 44 — among likely voters .
Biden ’ s margin of voting support over Trump is built on stronger support among some groups of voters than Clinton achieved four years ago .
He is winning independent voters by 17 points , for example , a group Trump narrowly won in 2016 , according to network exit polls… Biden and Trump are tied among seniors , a group Trump carried four years ago , although Biden has lost the 10-point advantage he held in May… Among voters in the suburbs , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow eight-point lead .
Trump , who narrowly won suburban voters in 2016 , has tried to appeal to them this year by holding himself out as the sole force preventing an influx of minority and poor residents .
Still , suburban women currently favor Biden by 13 points , while suburban men are about evenly divided .
An interesting detail : The percentage of Republicans and leaners who say they ’ re following the campaign very closely is the same as it was four years ago , 58 percent .
The percentage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same is up 13 points , from 40 percent to 53 .
What will that mean for turnout this year ?
All four of the polls I ’ ve described , including the CNN survey showing a tight race , have something in common .
They all have Biden at 50 percent or better .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton reached an average of 50 percent against Trump for less than one week and that came in March , before he clinched the Republican nomination .
From the end of April until Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as 49 percent once , and that was after the “ Access Hollywood ” debacle .
Granted , Hillary had third-party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein competing for some of her voters whereas Biden doesn ’ t .
But the fact remains that she never quite reached majority support , the level at which a candidate starts to look unbeatable ( barring scandal or some catastrophic collapse ) since there just aren ’ t enough undecided voters left for the underdog to win and overtake him .
Contrast Hillary ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
He just crossed 50 percent for the third time in less than two months in the RCP average .
As I say , for most of the 2016 campaign , 49 percent was Hillary ’ s ceiling .
Since June 1 in the 2020 campaign , 49 percent is close to Biden ’ s floor : He dropped slightly below it for a few days in July but otherwise has been north of it for two and a half months .
In the last 10 national polls tracked by RCP , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher in seven and in two of the other three he hit 49 .
And although odds of a convention bounce seem smaller than usual this year , there ’ s a chance that his lead may grow a bit after this week ’ s spectacle .
It ’ s unprecedented for a challenger to be averaging 50 percent or better at this stage of the race , notes Harry Enten , but that ’ s where we are .
All told , I ’ d say that Biden pulling 54 percent among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least as newsworthy as the smallish margin in CNN ’ s data .
Fifty-four is a *big* number , especially among likelies .
One last point .
Enten flagged a curiosity of the election in a post this weekend , namely that Trump tends to be running behind Republicans on the generic ballot this year .
WSJ/NBC found another instance of it in their new poll : Republicans in Congress stand at 42 percent while Trump stands at 41 against Biden .
On average , says Enten , Trump has done about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP has on the generic ballot — which is surprising , since he has the advantage of incumbency whereas congressional Republicans don ’ t .
Maybe that ’ s a sign that some voters have written off Trump as a sure loser and have begun to consider ticket-splitting in order to check Biden ’ s power , but probably it ’ s just a reflection of the fact that Trump is a weak candidate who ’ s alienated some voters personally who might otherwise be open to voting Republican .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell , in that he might end up holding the Senate after all .
But there ’ s every reason to believe the president is hurting the party ’ s chances in Congress more than he ’ s helping .

Remember that time Trump’s campaign pretend-threatened to sue CNN because one of their polls showed Biden leading nationally by 14 points?
I’m going to guess that, after this one, MAGA World is satisfied that all flaws in their methodology have since been resolved.
Every data nerd in America responded the same way to the uproar over CNN’s latest when it dropped last night: Do not cherry-pick polls. It’s the polling averages that matter, not the occasional outliers that crop up.
To hell with that. I’m a blogger, man. Cherry-picking data to suit people’s personal prejudices is what partisan media is all about. Headline: TRUMP NOW WITHIN FOUR OF BIDEN NATIONALLY.
Across 15 battleground states, the survey finds Biden has the backing of 49% of registered voters, while Trump lands at 48%. The pool of battleground states in this poll includes more that Trump carried in 2016 (10) than were won by Hillary Clinton (5), reflecting the reality that the President’s campaign is more on defense than offense across the states. Taken together, though, they represent a more Republican-leaning playing field than the nation as a whole. The movement in the poll among voters nationwide since June is concentrated among men (they split about evenly in June, but now 56% back Trump, 40% Biden), those between the ages of 35 and 64 (they tilt toward Trump now, but were Biden-leaning in June) and independents (in June, Biden held a 52% to 41% lead, but now it’s a near even 46% Biden to 45% Trump divide). Trump has also solidified his partisans since June. While 8% of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents in June said they would back Biden, that figure now stands at just 4%.
Trump leads on the economy and also on which candidate has the “stamina and sharpness” to be president, although by only two points. (Biden leads more comfortably on various other measures of personal fitness.) This isn’t the only national poll to show a tight race lately either. The HarrisX surveys conducted for The Hill consistently show a Biden lead of three or four, as they include a much larger “undecided” contingent than other pollsters. The last one from Emerson also had Biden up four, and Rasmussen has at times showed a tight race, which isn’t surprising given their right-leaning “house effect” — although in their most recent poll, Biden led by six.
Sounds like a Trump comeback is under way. But … is it? That’s where we come to the “but” in the headline. Three other national surveys published in the past three days have Biden leading much more comfortably. NPR/Marist had the race 53/42 on Friday, up three points from June. In that one Biden tied Trump among white voters at 48 percent, also up from June and a death sentence for Trump 2020 if it persists. (He won whites by 20 four years ago.) Yesterday WSJ/NBC found Biden leading nationally by nine points, 50/41, a slight decline since July but still a hefty lead at this stage of the race. Trump leads whites by seven in this one but Biden leads by seven among senior citizens, another must-win constituency for POTUS. In this poll Biden has a seven-point lead in the swing states, a major difference from CNN’s poll. The explanation may be as simple as CNN including a few reddish states as “battlegrounds,” like Texas, that WSJ/NBC omitted.
One more, released just this morning. ABC/WaPo, which has an excellent track record in presidential races, has it Biden 54, Trump 44 — among likely voters.
Biden’s margin of voting support over Trump is built on stronger support among some groups of voters than Clinton achieved four years ago. He is winning independent voters by 17 points, for example, a group Trump narrowly won in 2016, according to network exit polls… Biden and Trump are tied among seniors, a group Trump carried four years ago, although Biden has lost the 10-point advantage he held in May… Among voters in the suburbs, a traditional electoral battleground, Biden has a narrow eight-point lead. Trump, who narrowly won suburban voters in 2016, has tried to appeal to them this year by holding himself out as the sole force preventing an influx of minority and poor residents. Still, suburban women currently favor Biden by 13 points, while suburban men are about evenly divided.
An interesting detail: The percentage of Republicans and leaners who say they’re following the campaign very closely is the same as it was four years ago, 58 percent. The percentage of Democrats and leaners who say the same is up 13 points, from 40 percent to 53. What will that mean for turnout this year?
All four of the polls I’ve described, including the CNN survey showing a tight race, have something in common. They all have Biden at 50 percent or better. In 2016, Hillary Clinton reached an average of 50 percent against Trump for less than one week and that came in March, before he clinched the Republican nomination. From the end of April until Election Day, she only touched as high as 49 percent once, and that was after the “Access Hollywood” debacle. Granted, Hillary had third-party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein competing for some of her voters whereas Biden doesn’t. But the fact remains that she never quite reached majority support, the level at which a candidate starts to look unbeatable (barring scandal or some catastrophic collapse) since there just aren’t enough undecided voters left for the underdog to win and overtake him.
Contrast Hillary’s predicament with Biden’s polling against Trump. He just crossed 50 percent for the third time in less than two months in the RCP average.
As I say, for most of the 2016 campaign, 49 percent was Hillary’s ceiling. Since June 1 in the 2020 campaign, 49 percent is close to Biden’s floor: He dropped slightly below it for a few days in July but otherwise has been north of it for two and a half months. In the last 10 national polls tracked by RCP, he’s hit 50 percent or higher in seven and in two of the other three he hit 49. And although odds of a convention bounce seem smaller than usual this year, there’s a chance that his lead may grow a bit after this week’s spectacle. It’s unprecedented for a challenger to be averaging 50 percent or better at this stage of the race, notes Harry Enten, but that’s where we are.
All told, I’d say that Biden pulling 54 percent among likely voters in the ABC/WaPo poll is at least as newsworthy as the smallish margin in CNN’s data. Fifty-four is a *big* number, especially among likelies.
One last point. Enten flagged a curiosity of the election in a post this weekend, namely that Trump tends to be running behind Republicans on the generic ballot this year. WSJ/NBC found another instance of it in their new poll: Republicans in Congress stand at 42 percent while Trump stands at 41 against Biden. On average, says Enten, Trump has done about two points worse in polling than the GOP has on the generic ballot — which is surprising, since he has the advantage of incumbency whereas congressional Republicans don’t. Maybe that’s a sign that some voters have written off Trump as a sure loser and have begun to consider ticket-splitting in order to check Biden’s power, but probably it’s just a reflection of the fact that Trump is a weak candidate who’s alienated some voters personally who might otherwise be open to voting Republican. There’s a glimmer of hope in that for McConnell, in that he might end up holding the Senate after all. But there’s every reason to believe the president is hurting the party’s chances in Congress more than he’s helping.


hotair--2020-08-17--Portland: BLM mob drags man into the street, beats him unconscious

There was a mob assault on a man last night in Portland .
At one point , one of the people in the group kicked the man in the head , knocking him unconscious .
He was later taken to the hospital with serious injuries : Other clips show that even before the kick to the head , the same man in the “ Security ” vest , was punching and hitting the driver as he sat in the street .
The alleged justification for this attack was that the man had attempted to run over some protesters a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NY Post reported : He was dragged from the truck and tackled to the ground — getting repeatedly punched as he tried to call his wife while also pleading with his attackers as he sat on the ground , the videos show .
“ I ain ’ t tryna hurt no one , ” he told them , with the only unexplained accusation heard in the clips being that “ COVID is real.
” “ I was trying to get out the way , ” he insisted of crashing his truck , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the face and repeatedly called the white driver the N-word .
As the mob dispersed to watch another fight , the main offender circled back around — kicking the defenseless driver in the face from behind , instantly knocking him out with his head cracking on the road .
Portland police issued a statement about last night ’ s events saying they responded to reports of a crash and were met by a hostile crowd .
It ’ s a bit difficult to parse what happened because there are a bunch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it appears this all started with an assault on someone and a a trans woman objected .
Then she became the focus of this small group including the guy in the “ security ” vest .
The group robbed her and as she fought back with pepper spray they eventually beat her .
Around 1:15 in this clip is the first time we see the driver of the truck ( in a blue shirt with blue shorts ) .
He appears to be interceding on behalf of the trans woman who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatened .
The beating continues until the trans-woman is on the ground and expressing a desire to kill herself .
Again , the driver appears to be trying to intercede and protect the victim of the assault .
At some point the driver gets back into his truck and tries to leave .
The same violent group come up to him and one of them slaps or punches him through the open window .
There is a cut in the clip and now we see a white woman standing in front of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being assaulted by the group .
The driver gets out as things are getting heated but the camera turns away as a woman with the group tackles the white woman in the street .
At this point the man starts his truck and a couple of the protesters get in front of it as if trying to block it .
He revs the engine and they move out of the way .
He starts to advance slowly and someone kicks the truck .
Another person grabs his side mirror and falls down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets clear and guns the engine through a red light .
The group chases him and he is briefly stuck in traffic .
Then as he turned a corner he lost control and hit a tree .
At this point the group that was fighting with him earlier catches up to him and this clip ends as they are about to drag him out of the truck .
So to sum up , a trans-woman who witnessed this small group beating someone interceded and then the group robbed and beat her .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then the group turned on him .
This appears to be one long string of assaults that ended with the kick to this man ’ s head .
So far there doesn ’ t appear to be a status update on the condition of the victim .
As for the man who assaulted him , there are lots of people who claim to have identified him on social media but no arrests have been made yet .
I ’ ll update this story if something changes .

There was a mob assault on a man last night in Portland. At one point, one of the people in the group kicked the man in the head, knocking him unconscious. He was later taken to the hospital with serious injuries:
A crowd is gathered around the unconscious victim’s body; some are pouring water on his head. Others can be heard arguing and establishing BLM responsibility for the attack. pic.twitter.com/I6GUIYkTtZ — Kalen From Scriberr (@FromKalen) August 17, 2020
Other clips show that even before the kick to the head, the same man in the “Security” vest, was punching and hitting the driver as he sat in the street.
Here are more clips of the BLM militant assaulting the man who crashed his truck pic.twitter.com/o2cdleIs9c — Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) August 17, 2020
The alleged justification for this attack was that the man had attempted to run over some protesters a few minutes earlier. Here’s what the NY Post reported:
He was dragged from the truck and tackled to the ground — getting repeatedly punched as he tried to call his wife while also pleading with his attackers as he sat on the ground, the videos show. “I ain’t tryna hurt no one,” he told them, with the only unexplained accusation heard in the clips being that “COVID is real.” “I was trying to get out the way,” he insisted of crashing his truck, as several of the group punched him in the face and repeatedly called the white driver the N-word. As the mob dispersed to watch another fight, the main offender circled back around — kicking the defenseless driver in the face from behind, instantly knocking him out with his head cracking on the road.
Portland police issued a statement about last night’s events saying they responded to reports of a crash and were met by a hostile crowd.
At 10:27p.m., Central Precinct officers responded to a report of an injury accident at Southwest Broadway and Southwest Taylor Street. The report said protesters were chasing the truck before it crashed, and they assaulted the driver after the crash. Officers encounters a hostile crowd and a squad from the Rapid Response Team (RRT) responded to help secure the scene while the investigation was underway. The driver was transported to the hospital by ambulance with serious injuries. The incident is under investigation and no arrests have been made.
It’s a bit difficult to parse what happened because there are a bunch of clips, some posted at different times but it appears this all started with an assault on someone and a a trans woman objected. Then she became the focus of this small group including the guy in the “security” vest. The group robbed her and as she fought back with pepper spray they eventually beat her.
Around 1:15 in this clip is the first time we see the driver of the truck (in a blue shirt with blue shorts). He appears to be interceding on behalf of the trans woman who has been robbed and is being harassed and threatened. The beating continues until the trans-woman is on the ground and expressing a desire to kill herself. Again, the driver appears to be trying to intercede and protect the victim of the assault.
Here are the events that led up to BLM causing a man to crash into a tree tonight in Portland 1. BLM began to aggressively escort a man from the BLM protest then assaulted him 2. A witness defended him verbally, then BLM thugs began to threaten, rob and physically assault her pic.twitter.com/5kXPVNp0GA — Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) August 17, 2020
At some point the driver gets back into his truck and tries to leave. The same violent group come up to him and one of them slaps or punches him through the open window. There is a cut in the clip and now we see a white woman standing in front of the driver’s door and now she is being assaulted by the group. The driver gets out as things are getting heated but the camera turns away as a woman with the group tackles the white woman in the street. At this point the man starts his truck and a couple of the protesters get in front of it as if trying to block it. He revs the engine and they move out of the way. He starts to advance slowly and someone kicks the truck. Another person grabs his side mirror and falls down in the street. Finally, he gets clear and guns the engine through a red light.
The group chases him and he is briefly stuck in traffic. Then as he turned a corner he lost control and hit a tree. At this point the group that was fighting with him earlier catches up to him and this clip ends as they are about to drag him out of the truck.
So to sum up, a trans-woman who witnessed this small group beating someone interceded and then the group robbed and beat her. The driver interceded on behalf of the trans-woman and then the group turned on him. This appears to be one long string of assaults that ended with the kick to this man’s head.
So far there doesn’t appear to be a status update on the condition of the victim. As for the man who assaulted him, there are lots of people who claim to have identified him on social media but no arrests have been made yet. I’ll update this story if something changes.


hotair--2020-08-17--Pittsburgh mayor: "Serious concerns" over arrest of "peaceful" protester by police in unmarked van

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto , a Democrat , is voicing “ serious concerns ” over the arrest of a 25-year-old BLM protester Saturday .
Police conducted what is being reported as a “ low visibility arrest ” .
Armed law enforcement officers grabbed Matthew Cartier , put him in an unmarked white van , and then left the scene .
The mayor is troubled that the tactic used by police scares people .
The police department arrested Cartier in that manner to avoid a crowd gathering and further inciting the protesters .
Cartier is facing charges of obstruction of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct and failure to disperse after blocking traffic at an intersection that is used for hospitals and the University of Pittsburgh .
Commander Ed Trapp of the Special Deployment Division said that Cartier was directing traffic “ with no situational awareness ” and feared a traffic incident might happen .
At the time , the BLM protest march had been going on for about an hour and 45 minutes with about 150 people participating .
The law enforcement officers were incorrectly labeled as federal agents by protesters on social media .
The law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed to be Pittsburgh Police officers by Pittsburgh Public Safety .
So , they were not the federal agents sent into hot spots under orders from President Trump to help contain the chaos brought about when the “ peaceful ” protests devolve into violence and looting .
The mayor and public safety officials held a press conference on Sunday about the arrest .
Police say Cartier was interfering with public safety while protesters say the police are trying to intimidate them by using force .
“ Watching these tactics , his refusal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given…we decided to effect a low visibility arrest of the individual because when high visibility stuff takes place with these marches , it tends to attract a crowd and incite them further .
So we decided low visibility was the best way to do it , ” said one of the incident commanders from yesterday .
“ And it also gave us the ability if he suddenly started cooperating to call the arrest off.
” The incident commander added that they did not call off the arrest after Cartier “ refused ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have reportedly been having cooperation issues with protesters and organizers in the last few weeks and that yesterday ’ s incident was an example of that .
While most demonstrators are peaceful , police say they are worried that a breakdown in communication between protesters and police could lead to someone getting injured or killed by way of a traffic accident .
“ …in recent weeks , they have also become increasingly unsafe .
And for me as Public Safety Director for the City of Pittsburgh , it is alarming when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is superseded by the rights of some , ” said Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich .
“ The unwillingness of protest organizers to consult with police either before or during demonstrations about planned protest routes is beginning to place numerous persons in danger.
” Police say Cartier was warned several times not to block intersections during the protest before he was arrested .
Saturday was also move-in day for the University of Pittsburgh so there was an increase in traffic in that area .
Besides the heavy traffic around the university , police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and from the hospital .
Pittsburgh Police Chief Scott Shubert assured the public during the press conference that this arrest was not like those in Portland where intimidation from federal agents looked to be the name of the game .
“ That is not our intent .
We did not do something to try to make people frightened or not understand what was going on.
” The mayor notified police leadership about his concerns after viewing the video of the arrest .
More than 100 demonstrations have taken place since the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director Wendell Hissrich .
The protests have become a weekly event .
Over time , they have become increasingly unsafe .
The ACLU argues that police officers were “ in clear violation of their own guidelines.
” It sounds as though the mayor sides with the ACLU over the city ’ s own police department .
The statement from the ACLU contradicts the police .
Police say Cartier was warned several times before being arrested , the ACLU say he was “ tricked ” by law enforcement .
It sure sounds like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bus for doing their job and protecting the public – especially college students and ambulances trying to get in and out of the hospital zone .
Activists online called Cartier the “ marshal ” of the protest .
He ran ahead of the protesters to block streets that scared motorists .
He didn ’ t move so he was arrested .
The mayor says that Pittsburgh has not become like Portland with the violent protests of that city .
That ’ s good news for business owners and residents .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain controlled , it would seem he would want to work with the police , not publicly criticize them .
Perhaps he is in survival mode himself .
About 150 – 200 angry protesters showed up at his house Sunday in response to Cartier ’ s arrest .
They call the arrest a kidnapping .
That ’ s how it ’ s done during the Summer of Love – protests turn to personal attacks and intimidating public officials at their own homes .
Sadly too often the liberal politicians in charge of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the agitators .
The mayor put the arrest of Cartier under investigation .

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, a Democrat, is voicing “serious concerns” over the arrest of a 25-year-old BLM protester Saturday. Police conducted what is being reported as a “low visibility arrest”. Armed law enforcement officers grabbed Matthew Cartier, put him in an unmarked white van, and then left the scene.
The mayor is troubled that the tactic used by police scares people. The police department arrested Cartier in that manner to avoid a crowd gathering and further inciting the protesters. Cartier is facing charges of obstruction of a highway or other public passage, disorderly conduct and failure to disperse after blocking traffic at an intersection that is used for hospitals and the University of Pittsburgh. Commander Ed Trapp of the Special Deployment Division said that Cartier was directing traffic “with no situational awareness” and feared a traffic incident might happen. At the time, the BLM protest march had been going on for about an hour and 45 minutes with about 150 people participating. The law enforcement officers were incorrectly labeled as federal agents by protesters on social media.
We out here in PITTSBURGH, PA.
And unidentified, ARMED, federal agents in an unmarked white sprinter van just abducted a peaceful protester just minutes ago! #WakeUpAmerica #fedsgohome #BlackLivesMatter #BLMprotest #pittsburghprotest pic.twitter.com/ejmrUQUuTS — Samm Bones (@samm_bones) August 15, 2020
The law enforcement officers were plainclothed and have been confirmed to be Pittsburgh Police officers by Pittsburgh Public Safety. So, they were not the federal agents sent into hot spots under orders from President Trump to help contain the chaos brought about when the “peaceful” protests devolve into violence and looting. The mayor and public safety officials held a press conference on Sunday about the arrest. Police say Cartier was interfering with public safety while protesters say the police are trying to intimidate them by using force.
“Watching these tactics, his refusal to cooperate and the information that we were given…we decided to effect a low visibility arrest of the individual because when high visibility stuff takes place with these marches, it tends to attract a crowd and incite them further. So we decided low visibility was the best way to do it,” said one of the incident commanders from yesterday. “And it also gave us the ability if he suddenly started cooperating to call the arrest off.” The incident commander added that they did not call off the arrest after Cartier “refused” to cooperate. Police reiterated multiple times that they have reportedly been having cooperation issues with protesters and organizers in the last few weeks and that yesterday’s incident was an example of that. While most demonstrators are peaceful, police say they are worried that a breakdown in communication between protesters and police could lead to someone getting injured or killed by way of a traffic accident. “…in recent weeks, they have also become increasingly unsafe. And for me as Public Safety Director for the City of Pittsburgh, it is alarming when the ability to protect all citizens and visitors is superseded by the rights of some,” said Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich. “The unwillingness of protest organizers to consult with police either before or during demonstrations about planned protest routes is beginning to place numerous persons in danger.”
Police say Cartier was warned several times not to block intersections during the protest before he was arrested. Saturday was also move-in day for the University of Pittsburgh so there was an increase in traffic in that area. Besides the heavy traffic around the university, police were concerned about traffic from ambulances to and from the hospital. Pittsburgh Police Chief Scott Shubert assured the public during the press conference that this arrest was not like those in Portland where intimidation from federal agents looked to be the name of the game. “That is not our intent. We did not do something to try to make people frightened or not understand what was going on.”
The mayor notified police leadership about his concerns after viewing the video of the arrest.
“When we look at pop-out as a tactic, especially with officers who are in plain clothes, we have to examine when that is appropriate,” he said. “We have to have an understanding if that is a tactic that should be utilized for a protest, and if so, when. And if when, why.”
Just a quick reminder of Constitutional rights. They have restrictions. The right to assemble is a guaranteed right, the right to shut down public streets, is a privilege. That privilege is sanctioned by laws and codes. In Pittsburgh, we worked w ACLU & CPRB to create our codes. — bill peduto (@billpeduto) August 16, 2020
More than 100 demonstrations have taken place since the death of George Floyd according to Pittsburgh Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich. The protests have become a weekly event. Over time, they have become increasingly unsafe. The ACLU argues that police officers were “in clear violation of their own guidelines.” It sounds as though the mayor sides with the ACLU over the city’s own police department. The statement from the ACLU contradicts the police. Police say Cartier was warned several times before being arrested, the ACLU say he was “tricked” by law enforcement.
“According to those who were there, the law enforcement officers involved made no effort to work with protest leaders to clear the area and gave no clear dispersal order,” Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. “Instead, they tricked a protest leader to approach them and then whisked him away. The ACLU of Pennsylvania has never suggested that the snatch-and-stash arrest of a peaceful demonstrator is ever acceptable.”
It sure sounds like the mayor is throwing the police department under the bus for doing their job and protecting the public – especially college students and ambulances trying to get in and out of the hospital zone.
Activists online called Cartier the “marshal” of the protest. He ran ahead of the protesters to block streets that scared motorists.
Police say at the intersection of Dithridge Street and Fifth Avenue Cartier blocked traffic again causing cars to stop suddenly and unsafely. At the point, an officer asked him to move and Cartier allegedly refused. The officer told him he was blocking a way to the hospitals in Oakland. And Cartier is accused of saying “show us the ambulance buddy.”
He didn’t move so he was arrested. The mayor says that Pittsburgh has not become like Portland with the violent protests of that city. That’s good news for business owners and residents. However, if he would like the protests to remain controlled, it would seem he would want to work with the police, not publicly criticize them. Perhaps he is in survival mode himself. About 150 – 200 angry protesters showed up at his house Sunday in response to Cartier’s arrest. They call the arrest a kidnapping.
One of the protesters today said they shouldn’t have to comply with their oppressors. “You don’t owe them any explanation,” said one demonstrator to the crowd. “You are not supposed to comply with your oppressor.” The march began with speeches at Mellon Park and then they took to the streets. At one point, protesters began chanting for the removal of Mayor Peduto with chants of, “hey, hey, ho, ho, Mayor Peduto has got to go.”
That’s how it’s done during the Summer of Love – protests turn to personal attacks and intimidating public officials at their own homes. Sadly too often the liberal politicians in charge of the cities dealing with looting and destruction cave to the agitators. The mayor put the arrest of Cartier under investigation.