hotair--2020-09-23--Trump won't commit to a peaceful transfer of power when asked by reporter

About an hour before Trump said this on TV , a friend who ’ s worked on analyzing elections for a long time emailed with the subject header “ We ’ ve had a good run as a country.
” I didn ’ t even need to read the message to know what he meant .
I knew .
I ’ m not sure much needs to be added to what Ken White said either : That ’ s correct .
My earnest advice to anyone who ’ s not bound to stay put here in the U.S. because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply can ’ t extricate themselves is to think seriously about leaving .
And I don ’ t mean “ think seriously of leaving if Trump wins.
” I mean think seriously of leaving , period .
Because even if he loses by 250 electoral votes , more than 60 million people will have watched him say stuff like this for months , insisting repeatedly that any defeat can only be explained by cheating , and will vote .
for .
him .
anyway .
There ’ s no coming all the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will eventually leave the political scene one way or another .
Anyone who ’ s willing to look the other way at what he says here is willing to look the other way at much worse , and that ’ s an enormous population .
That ’ s the reason to leave .
By tomorrow , the right ’ s anti-anti-Trump faction will have long forgotten this clip , assuming they noted it at all .
They ’ ll be right back to the task of confirming Amy Coney Barrett followed by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again get millions fewer votes than his opponent and then govern as if his approval rating is 80 percent .
Speaking of which , he explained earlier today why it ’ s so important for him to have a ninth justice on the Court before November .
Interestingly , this wasn ’ t a concern for the GOP in 2016 , when they preferred an eight-person Court to one with Merrick Garland in Scalia ’ s seat .
Trump wants a full house this time , though , for a specific reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fifth vote for him in invalidating contested ballots that might give Biden the presidency .
He made the same point yesterday in another gaggle with reporters .
Why any fan of Amy Coney Barrett would want her placed in that horrendous situation , knowing what it would do to public perceptions of her and of the Supreme Court if she cast that vote — or if she refused to cast it — I can ’ t imagine .
If it does happen , with Trump ’ s eleventh-hour bizarro-Garland appointee becoming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term , we ’ ll be in a new era in American history .
I ’ m not trying to be dramatic in saying that .
It just is what it is .
The country will be ungovernable .
The Atlantic has a worst-case-scenario piece out today about what Trump might conceivably try to do in the name of clinging to power .
Some were scoffing at it this morning on political Twitter as resistance fanfic but I don ’ t know why .
Go watch the clip above again .
Why would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point ?
According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels , the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority .
With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud , Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly .
The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt , the more pressure legislators will feel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people ’ s will .
Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged , the adviser said , state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended .
“ The state legislatures will say , ‘ All right , we ’ ve been given this constitutional power .
We don ’ t think the results of our own state are accurate , so here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think properly reflect the results of our state , ’ ” the adviser said .
Democrats , he added , have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime .
Far-fetched ?
Maybe .
Righties countered by noting a report last month that Democrats had wargamed a scenario in which John Podesta , in the role of Joe Biden , simply refused to concede the election after losing the electoral college narrowly to Trump and convinced the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with talk of secession . )
That ’ s a hair-raising reminder that , for all of their talk of norms , Trump ’ s enemies are often too eager to abandon norms themselves in the name of dealing him a blow .
But I don ’ t recall high-level GOPers wargaming secession scenarios in case Obama refused to hand over power , nor do I remember high-level Democrats wargaming secession outcomes in case Dubya refused to go .
There was no question with either that they ’ d follow tradition and hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s the fact that the current guy cares nothing about traditions , and palpably can not psychologically tolerate losing a national popularity contest , that stuff like this is now being gamed out .
He ’ s capable of anything , so his adversaries feel pressure to be capable of anything too .
He ’ s been a chaos agent from the start .
We elected him anyway , and now we get our reward .
Here ’ s your exit quotation from a Times article last month after the convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about him trashing another norm , using the physical symbol of his office as a campaign prop .
This is who he is , and this is why we ’ re now facing a national emergency .

About an hour before Trump said this on TV, a friend who’s worked on analyzing elections for a long time emailed with the subject header “We’ve had a good run as a country.”
I didn’t even need to read the message to know what he meant. I knew.
I’m not sure much needs to be added to what Ken White said either:
Even under a best case scenario, we’re not coming all the way back from this. — IncitementToResurrectionHat (@Popehat) September 23, 2020
That’s correct. My earnest advice to anyone who’s not bound to stay put here in the U.S. because of family or employment ties from which they simply can’t extricate themselves is to think seriously about leaving. And I don’t mean “think seriously of leaving if Trump wins.” I mean think seriously of leaving, period. Because even if he loses by 250 electoral votes, more than 60 million people will have watched him say stuff like this for months, insisting repeatedly that any defeat can only be explained by cheating, and will vote. for. him. anyway.
There’s no coming all the way back from that, even though Trump will eventually leave the political scene one way or another. Anyone who’s willing to look the other way at what he says here is willing to look the other way at much worse, and that’s an enormous population. That’s the reason to leave.
The President is asked to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and his answer falls incredibly short pic.twitter.com/y8XbL8ci9k — Acyn (@Acyn) September 23, 2020
By tomorrow, the right’s anti-anti-Trump faction will have long forgotten this clip, assuming they noted it at all. They’ll be right back to the task of confirming Amy Coney Barrett followed by a glorious November victory in which Trump will once again get millions fewer votes than his opponent and then govern as if his approval rating is 80 percent.
Speaking of which, he explained earlier today why it’s so important for him to have a ninth justice on the Court before November. Interestingly, this wasn’t a concern for the GOP in 2016, when they preferred an eight-person Court to one with Merrick Garland in Scalia’s seat. Trump wants a full house this time, though, for a specific reason:
.@POTUS: "I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. & I think it's very important that we have 9 Justices. & I think the system is going to go very quickly. I'll be submitting at 5 o'clock on Saturday, the name of the person I chose for this most important of positions." pic.twitter.com/v1veiqU2Mm — CSPAN (@cspan) September 23, 2020
He wants his nominee to be the fifth vote for him in invalidating contested ballots that might give Biden the presidency. He made the same point yesterday in another gaggle with reporters. Why any fan of Amy Coney Barrett would want her placed in that horrendous situation, knowing what it would do to public perceptions of her and of the Supreme Court if she cast that vote — or if she refused to cast it — I can’t imagine.
If it does happen, with Trump’s eleventh-hour bizarro-Garland appointee becoming the deciding vote that assures him a second term, we’ll be in a new era in American history. I’m not trying to be dramatic in saying that. It just is what it is. The country will be ungovernable.
The Atlantic has a worst-case-scenario piece out today about what Trump might conceivably try to do in the name of clinging to power. Some were scoffing at it this morning on political Twitter as resistance fanfic but I don’t know why. Go watch the clip above again. Why would anyone put anything past him at this point?
According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires… The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended. “The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.
Far-fetched? Maybe. Righties countered by noting a report last month that Democrats had wargamed a scenario in which John Podesta, in the role of Joe Biden, simply refused to concede the election after losing the electoral college narrowly to Trump and convinced the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the electoral college. (The scenario ended with talk of secession.) That’s a hair-raising reminder that, for all of their talk of norms, Trump’s enemies are often too eager to abandon norms themselves in the name of dealing him a blow. But I don’t recall high-level GOPers wargaming secession scenarios in case Obama refused to hand over power, nor do I remember high-level Democrats wargaming secession outcomes in case Dubya refused to go. There was no question with either that they’d follow tradition and hand over power to the other party. It’s the fact that the current guy cares nothing about traditions, and palpably cannot psychologically tolerate losing a national popularity contest, that stuff like this is now being gamed out. He’s capable of anything, so his adversaries feel pressure to be capable of anything too. He’s been a chaos agent from the start. We elected him anyway, and now we get our reward.
Here’s your exit quotation from a Times article last month after the convention, when people like me were complaining about him trashing another norm, using the physical symbol of his office as a campaign prop. This is who he is, and this is why we’re now facing a national emergency.


hotair--2020-09-23--Unlawful assembly has already been declared in Louisville

The announcement that no charges were brought against officers for the death of Breonna Taylor has led to a BLM protest march through the city .
There have been some scuffles with police and about an hour ago ( as I write this ) police declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to clear the area .
There are several reporters on the ground .
Let ’ s start with Townhall ’ s Julio Rosas : Lots of shields in that truck : The Krassenstein brothers are already labeling this a false flag : Of course there ’ s video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but those idiots don ’ t care : Rosas caught this death threat followed by scuffles with police and arrests : Another view of the standoff with police : There ’ s also a caravan of BLM supporters in cars : Some people shouting at police trying to provoke a reaction from them or the crowd : Some people are already turning on local businesses : It ’ s not even dark yet .
Things always get worse once it ’ s dark .
I ’ ll update this post as the night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeful this is going to remain peaceful or even “ mostly peaceful .
”

The announcement that no charges were brought against officers for the death of Breonna Taylor has led to a BLM protest march through the city. There have been some scuffles with police and about an hour ago (as I write this) police declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to clear the area. There are several reporters on the ground. Let’s start with Townhall’s Julio Rosas:
On the ground in Louisville, Ky. for @townhallcom and the protesting crowd just heard the charges the grand jury announced for the Breonna Taylor case. They are not happy at all, some people are crying. pic.twitter.com/DwGcYKyha4 — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
As the BLM crowd chanted, “If we didn’t get it, burn it down!” they have marched outside the barricaded zone in Louisville and have shut down traffic in an intersection. pic.twitter.com/cIUtveA7xV — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Fairly quickly the police arrived:
The protesters had a supply truck:
Tense scene as the BLM crowd marched though the streets while passing by Louisville police cars and officers. pic.twitter.com/tPyvxsJsKt — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Lots of shields in that truck:
The Krassenstein brothers are already labeling this a false flag:
Does anyone else think that the Trump campaign or Republicans could be behind this Uhaul van handing out shields and "abolish the police" signs in Louisville? It would just be so easy for Trump and the GOP to sell their stupid narrative, wouldn't it? pic.twitter.com/vn8Aj8lCpF — Mrs. Krassenstein (@HKrassenstein) September 23, 2020
Of course there’s video of the marchers with these same signs but those idiots don’t care:
Protesters have organized a full front line now as they move through the streets #Louisville #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/WHmiwVM2DU — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
Rosas caught this death threat followed by scuffles with police and arrests:
The BLM crowd was marching in the street until they were stopped by Louisville police in riot gear. The police moved in and rioters started to fight with the police and arrests have been made. pic.twitter.com/Y9lAV76SJP — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Another view of the standoff with police:
First standoff between police and protesters. pic.twitter.com/zkz6Xydg8Q — John Eligon (@jeligon) September 23, 2020
Some initial vandalism:
Protesters storm a restaurant and begin throwing tables and chairs on the outdoor patio #Louisville #LouisvilleProtest #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/yYukW8b3FG — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
An unlawful assembly was declared:
Cops declare an unlawful assembly downtown and telling protesters to leave. Protesters fairly thin in numbers but lots of police. Two armored vehicles and lots of batons. pic.twitter.com/jICtZwIhO0 — John Eligon (@jeligon) September 23, 2020
Another speaker announcement from the LMPD declaring the demonstration an unlawful assembly #Louisville #LouisvilleProtest #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/ev19d2i2EJ — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
There’s also a caravan of BLM supporters in cars:
Some people shouting at police trying to provoke a reaction from them or the crowd:
Arrests are being made:
Arrests being made after the unlawful assembly declaration, as police try to clear the crowd of protesters #Louisville #LouisvilleProtest #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/XNIxLKCO74 — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
Some people are already turning on local businesses:
Hearing reports the windows survived despite protesters banging on them with their bats and wooden beams. The scene got too chaotic there along Bardstown to fully assess, will find out more if I can. — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
Bottles are being thrown:
Someone threw a glass bottle towards the police, hit one of the protesters instead #Louisville #LouisvilleProtests #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/uH0GhCXXRI — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
It’s not even dark yet. Things always get worse once it’s dark.
I’ll update this post as the night goes on. I’m not hopeful this is going to remain peaceful or even “mostly peaceful.”
Update: Two police officers were shot in downtown Louisville:
At least two Louisville Metro Police officers were shot in downtown Louisville Wednesday night, just eight hours after an indictment was returned in the Breonna Taylor case. A source with knowledge of the situation confirmed the number of officers to The Courier Journal.
I can’t verify this yet this is a clip that I see circulating that may depict the moment the shooting took place.
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1308928098709262339
In addition to the shooting there is the usual assortment of fires and broken windows:
Police came out of the Hall of Justice in Louisville to put out the fires that had been started and were attacked with projectiles by rioters. The police fell back inside the building. An unlawful assembly has been declared. pic.twitter.com/EVEbqje7gr — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Some people in the crowd are breaking uncovered windows as they walk down the street in Louisville. pic.twitter.com/hJfwqBwB7t — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 24, 2020
Louisville: A group of rioters attempted to hide from police in the grass near a highway underpass They were quickly found out pic.twitter.com/BxcOBMy8BQ — Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) September 24, 2020
There is supposed to be a briefing on the shooting coming up. I’ll update this once it’s available.
Here’s how this is getting covered. Infuriating:
If “gunshots rang out,” it wasn’t peaceful. https://t.co/3XrA4bXAaY — Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) September 24, 2020
Update: The police statement was very brief. Two officers were shot and both are in stable condition with non-life threatening injures. One is in surgery. A suspect has been arrested:


hotair--2020-09-23--WaPo: Conservatives gearing up to pounce over anti-Catholic rhetoric in SCOTUS fight

Normally , we ’ d scoff at a “ pounce ” narrative , but in this case it ’ s justified — across the aisle and the political/media spectrum , too .
Thanks to Senate Democrats ’ attacks on Amy Coney Barrett in her 2017 appellate confirmation hearing , their hostility to practicing Catholics on the bench practically invites another fight over faith in the upcoming hearings .
Dave Weigel reports that both sides have to strategize over Catholicism , and that battle has a long , long history : By Saturday , the president will announce a female , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The favorite is Amy Coney Barrett , who became a conservative star because Democrats set out to criticize the role of her faith in her decisions , and they botched it .
Soon , as conservatives see it , Americans will meet the Indiana judge , view her warmly and then recoil as Democrats unleash the most anti-Catholic campaign since the 1920s .
“ Oh Lordy !
The anti-Catholic bigots are coming out of the woodwork and crawling out from under the rocks now !
” wrote Robert P. George , the conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Project , on Monday .
“ And Amy Coney Barrett hasn ’ t even been nominated ( yet ) .
” Just in case anyone has forgotten how Democrats “ botched it , ” here ’ s a report from EWTN at the time of Barrett ’ s confirmation vote .
“ The dogma lives loudly within you , ” Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-CA ) intoned , “ and that ’ s a concern.
” Feinstein wasn ’ t alone in questioning Barrett over faith either , with Dick Durbin forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigotry : Three years later , Weigel writes , Catholics and conservatives still remember those attacks well .
Liberals have tried to forget it : While Democrats have suggested they want a court fight to focus on the Affordable Care Act and the future of abortion rights , many conservatives are girding for a fight over religious faith and see opportunities if Joe Biden ’ s party can be portrayed as bashing Catholics .
Democrats want the court fight to center on health care , voting rights and abortion rights ; Republicans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s religion to overwhelm it all .
Liberals , having lost the fight against Barrett ’ s 2017 confirmation to a lower court , barely remember how Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) said that “ the dogma lives loudly within ” the Notre Dame professor .
Conservatives have never forgotten it and believe that Democrats and ( far more likely ) liberal pundits will become so unglued by the prospect of a Catholic woman undoing Roe v. Wade that it will backfire and lose voters .
Don ’ t write off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just yet .
They just had to glue themselves back together after shrieking for several days about the “ constitutional damage ” of the prospect of having a sitting president nominate an appointee for an open Supreme Court seat .
Don ’ t think for a second that they won ’ t start freaking out over any hint of heterodoxy from the progressive paradigm , especially adherence to — or even sympathy for — Catholic teaching on family issues .
Professor C.C .
Pecknold wrote about this true disconnect at that time in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a religious fight , Pecknold argued , one between the religion of progressivism and all other comers .
Progressivism tolerates no other gods , it seems : Sens .
Feinstein and Durbin were troubled not by Ms. Barrett ’ s Catholicism , but by her failure to prove her religion could conform to a more dogmatic progressivism .
The “ religious test ” Democrats want to impose isn ’ t about religion per se ; it ’ s about ensuring that every religious claim can be bent to more comprehensive political aims .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissents from the mores of the sexual revolution as disqualified from public office .
That ’ s what makes Ms. Feinstein ’ s questioning so chilling .
Few liberals have spoken out against these religious tests , providing tacit consent for the Democratic Party to continue the practice .
One of America ’ s major political parties appears prepared to consent to a very different kind of creed from the one the American founders envisioned .
Our forefathers understood religious freedom in positive terms , as freedom for the highest good , God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held as the basis of all the political freedoms , including the freedom to dissent and to disagree on matters of law and politics .
Ms. Barrett has spent her career honoring the older creed—not only with her Scalia-like deference to the law , but through respect for freedom of religion and conscience .
Ms. Feinstein honored the new creed , the one dividing an already polarized nation .
A dogmatism now threatens countless Americans ’ freedom , and it isn ’ t Catholicism .
This is why that dogmatic conflict will arise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing , as well as the pundit class outside of it .
Feinstein and her minority on the Senate Judiciary Committee can brook no contradiction from their own dogma .
Add to that the desperate need to paint the nominee as illegitimate by any means necessary , and we have all the elements in place for another meltdown .
If Feinstein et al doesn ’ t deliver on it in the hearing , progressives will erupt in fury and frustration over that , too — and that will do its own damage to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s a fight that Donald Trump will relish , of course .
It ’ s why Barrett is favored by many to be his choice to replace Ginsburg , but is that the only choice that might deliver on this potential for Trump ?
Weigel mentions parenthetically that fellow shortlister Barbara Lagoa is also Catholic as well as being a Hispanic from Florida .
Lagoa is slightly older than Barrett but is still in her early fifties , leaving the potential for decades of service on the court .
Lagoa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more experience on the bench , for one thing .
One rational knock on Barrett for the appellate appointment was that she hadn ’ t any judicial experience .
Lagoa has been a judge since 2006 in Florida ’ s system , and served for a year as the first Hispanic woman the Florida Supreme Court before being appointed last year to the federal bench .
Lagoa is well-liked among Florida ’ s conservatives , and she would give Trump an opportunity to appoint both a female and a Hispanic to the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hispanic vote could be critical in states like Florida and Arizona .
That ’ s especially true if Senate Democrats try to go the full Kavanaugh against Lagoa , and risk a backlash from both women and Hispanic voters over it .
Reportedly , Trump has wanted Barrett for a long time and had her in mind for Ginsburg ’ s replacement all along , if that came up .
Maybe his mind has already been set on Barrett .
But given how his political instincts usually override his other considerations , don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to be Lagoa .

Normally, we’d scoff at a “pounce” narrative, but in this case it’s justified — across the aisle and the political/media spectrum, too. Thanks to Senate Democrats’ attacks on Amy Coney Barrett in her 2017 appellate confirmation hearing, their hostility to practicing Catholics on the bench practically invites another fight over faith in the upcoming hearings. Dave Weigel reports that both sides have to strategize over Catholicism, and that battle has a long, long history:
By Saturday, the president will announce a female, Catholic nominee for the Supreme Court. The favorite is Amy Coney Barrett, who became a conservative star because Democrats set out to criticize the role of her faith in her decisions, and they botched it. Soon, as conservatives see it, Americans will meet the Indiana judge, view her warmly and then recoil as Democrats unleash the most anti-Catholic campaign since the 1920s. “Oh Lordy! The anti-Catholic bigots are coming out of the woodwork and crawling out from under the rocks now!” wrote Robert P. George, the conservative Catholic academic who founded the American Principles Project, on Monday. “And Amy Coney Barrett hasn’t even been nominated (yet).”
Just in case anyone has forgotten how Democrats “botched it,” here’s a report from EWTN at the time of Barrett’s confirmation vote. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) intoned, “and that’s a concern.” Feinstein wasn’t alone in questioning Barrett over faith either, with Dick Durbin forced to defend himself later against charges of anti-Catholic bigotry:
Three years later, Weigel writes, Catholics and conservatives still remember those attacks well. Liberals have tried to forget it:
While Democrats have suggested they want a court fight to focus on the Affordable Care Act and the future of abortion rights, many conservatives are girding for a fight over religious faith and see opportunities if Joe Biden’s party can be portrayed as bashing Catholics. Democrats want the court fight to center on health care, voting rights and abortion rights; Republicans are hoping for liberal paranoia about a nominee’s religion to overwhelm it all. Liberals, having lost the fight against Barrett’s 2017 confirmation to a lower court, barely remember how Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that “the dogma lives loudly within” the Notre Dame professor. Conservatives have never forgotten it and believe that Democrats and (far more likely) liberal pundits will become so unglued by the prospect of a Catholic woman undoing Roe v. Wade that it will backfire and lose voters.
Don’t write off the Senate Democrats from the Unglued Caucus just yet. They just had to glue themselves back together after shrieking for several days about the “constitutional damage” of the prospect of having a sitting president nominate an appointee for an open Supreme Court seat. Don’t think for a second that they won’t start freaking out over any hint of heterodoxy from the progressive paradigm, especially adherence to — or even sympathy for — Catholic teaching on family issues.
Professor C.C. Pecknold wrote about this true disconnect at that time in the Wall Street Journal. This is a religious fight, Pecknold argued, one between the religion of progressivism and all other comers. Progressivism tolerates no other gods, it seems:
Sens. Feinstein and Durbin were troubled not by Ms. Barrett’s Catholicism, but by her failure to prove her religion could conform to a more dogmatic progressivism. The “religious test” Democrats want to impose isn’t about religion per se; it’s about ensuring that every religious claim can be bent to more comprehensive political aims. It’s about defining anyone who dissents from the mores of the sexual revolution as disqualified from public office. That’s what makes Ms. Feinstein’s questioning so chilling. Few liberals have spoken out against these religious tests, providing tacit consent for the Democratic Party to continue the practice. One of America’s major political parties appears prepared to consent to a very different kind of creed from the one the American founders envisioned. Our forefathers understood religious freedom in positive terms, as freedom for the highest good, God. This “first freedom” was held as the basis of all the political freedoms, including the freedom to dissent and to disagree on matters of law and politics. Ms. Barrett has spent her career honoring the older creed—not only with her Scalia-like deference to the law, but through respect for freedom of religion and conscience. Ms. Feinstein honored the new creed, the one dividing an already polarized nation. A dogmatism now threatens countless Americans’ freedom, and it isn’t Catholicism.
This is why that dogmatic conflict will arise and contort the Senate Democrats in the hearing, as well as the pundit class outside of it. Feinstein and her minority on the Senate Judiciary Committee can brook no contradiction from their own dogma. Add to that the desperate need to paint the nominee as illegitimate by any means necessary, and we have all the elements in place for another meltdown. If Feinstein et al doesn’t deliver on it in the hearing, progressives will erupt in fury and frustration over that, too — and that will do its own damage to Democrats on the eve of the election.
That’s a fight that Donald Trump will relish, of course. It’s why Barrett is favored by many to be his choice to replace Ginsburg, but is that the only choice that might deliver on this potential for Trump? Weigel mentions parenthetically that fellow shortlister Barbara Lagoa is also Catholic as well as being a Hispanic from Florida. Lagoa is slightly older than Barrett but is still in her early fifties, leaving the potential for decades of service on the court.
Lagoa has other selling points as well — more experience on the bench, for one thing. One rational knock on Barrett for the appellate appointment was that she hadn’t any judicial experience. Lagoa has been a judge since 2006 in Florida’s system, and served for a year as the first Hispanic woman the Florida Supreme Court before being appointed last year to the federal bench. Lagoa is well-liked among Florida’s conservatives, and she would give Trump an opportunity to appoint both a female and a Hispanic to the court — right before an election where the Hispanic vote could be critical in states like Florida and Arizona. That’s especially true if Senate Democrats try to go the full Kavanaugh against Lagoa, and risk a backlash from both women and Hispanic voters over it.
Reportedly, Trump has wanted Barrett for a long time and had her in mind for Ginsburg’s replacement all along, if that came up. Maybe his mind has already been set on Barrett. But given how his political instincts usually override his other considerations, don’t be surprised if it turns out to be Lagoa.


hotair--2020-09-23--CNN: Birx "distressed," thinking of quitting over Scott Atlas's influence over White House COVID tas

CNN: Birx "distressed," thinking of quitting over Scott Atlas's influence over White House COVID task force

You can dismiss this if you like on grounds that it has a Jim Acosta byline .
Or because it might be a byproduct of bureaucratic infighting , with sources making up nonsense and feeding it to Acosta to make Birx — and/or Atlas — look bad .
But bear this in mind : Given the reporting over the last few weeks , right now it seems like there ’ s not a single person in the federal government ’ s medical bureaucracy who ’ s happy in their job .
If they ’ re not coping with Trump pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timeline , they ’ re being browbeaten by Trump or cronies like Michael Caputo to adopt scientific guidance that better suits his political agenda .
Or they ’ re being exasperated by the spectacle of watching people boo the idea that masks are good practice in a pandemic .
Or they ’ re being embarrassed by messes of their own making , from the CDC testing catastrophe in February to the CDC ’ s about-face this week on whether coronavirus is found in aerosols .
On top of all that , the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. continues to suffer is unrelenting .
It ’ s better than it was two months ago but no one in the government wanted to be headed into fall with 30,000 cases and 800 fatalities per day .
It ’ s not just a national tragedy , it ’ s a national humiliation .
HHS , the CDC , the FDA , and the task force have presided over it .
The Hill reported this morning that morale within the CDC specifically has collapsed : “ I have never seen morale this low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are beaten down .
People are beaten down partially by a public who not only distrusts us but who actually think we want to infringe on their civil liberties , ” said one current CDC employee .
“ The other factor is the active undermining by senior members of our own administration.
” “ As I talk to former colleagues at CDC , the feeling I get is just an overwhelming sense of despair .
People are working incredibly hard to reduce the impact of the pandemic and the sense that they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political level , and that the work that they ’ re doing is not being appreciated by the American public , ” said Rich Besser , a former CDC director who now runs the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation… “ It ’ s horrifying .
I don ’ t know of any other situation like this , when things have been dictated to be put on the CDC website that aren ’ t defensible science .
The idea that you shouldn ’ t test contacts is just indefensible , ” said Tom Frieden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration .
With all of that being so , and with Trump bringing in people like Atlas to tell him what he wants to hear about reopening businesses , etc , why wouldn ’ t Birx be “ distressed ” ?
What is there to be enthusiastic about right now apart from the vaccine , which really isn ’ t within her purview ?
Once a fixture at the administration ’ s coronavirus briefings , Dr. Deborah Birx has confided to aides and friends that she has become so unhappy with what she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the White House coronavirus task force that she is not certain how much longer she can serve in her position , sources familiar with her thinking tell CNN .
Birx has told people around her that she is “ distressed ” with the direction of the task force , describing the situation inside the nation ’ s response to the coronavirus as nightmarish… “ The President has found somebody who matches what he wants to believe , ” a source close to Birx said of her view of Atlas ’ s relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt that she feels that her role has been diminished.
” … Trump has invited Atlas to appear at recent White House news conferences to field questions from reporters .
Noticeably absent in the briefing room are Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci , the government ’ s leading authority on infectious diseases .
Makes perfect sense to have a doctor like Atlas with no background in infectious diseases as the most influential expert in the White House on managing a once-in-a-century infectious disease .
Why would Birx be “ distressed ” about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value in visiting hot-spot states to serve as the feds ’ spokesman on wearing masks and so forth , although that sounds like a glorified PR job .
She ’ s probably sticking around for the same reason that the rest of Trump ’ s army of disgruntled aides sticks around , because they think the managerial chaos will only get worse if they quit and end up being replaced by someone unqualified .
Are Americans better off with a task force led by Atlas that includes Deborah Birx or are they better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlas that includes Dan Bongino ?
But really , that logic may be past its expiration date .
We ’ re six weeks away from an opportunity to replace Trump .
Birx is a figure with an unusually high profile by dint of her task force work this past spring and she wouldn ’ t be easy to demonize because of her credentials and soft-spoken demeanor .
If the task force is as much of a sh*tshow as she allegedly thinks , she ’ s better off quitting and letting the electorate know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one alumna of the group bail out , alleging that Trump doesn ’ t care and therefore the work the task force is doing is largely meaningless .
That person , Olivia Troye , is keeping an eye on the Birx news today : What happens if Birx resigns and says , “ Everything Troye said in her interviews last week is true ” ?
Unpredictable .
But then , Birx also has to reckon with what that sort of criticism might do to further shake public confidence in the forthcoming vaccine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t up to the job and Trump gets reelected anyway , suddenly she ’ s on record as saying not to trust a guy who ’ s going to have to sell the entire country on getting vaccinated next year .
Not optimal .
Although maybe she would reason that she herself is sufficiently trusted by the public that she could vouch for the vaccine personally once the data on the phase three trials is available and thereby offset any damage she ’ s done to Trump ’ s credibility .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she might say .
She ’ ll probably stay put and keep her mouth shut .
There are very few people like Troye willing to risk their careers to sound the alarm .
Plus , Birx might reason that once the vaccine rolls out , there ’ ll be a bigger role for her again on the task force .
Trump will want to leverage the public ’ s faith in her by having her serve as a vaccine ambassador .
She ’ ll have to swallow her “ distress ” @ @ @

You can dismiss this if you like on grounds that it has a Jim Acosta byline. Or because it might be a byproduct of bureaucratic infighting, with sources making up nonsense and feeding it to Acosta to make Birx — and/or Atlas — look bad.
But bear this in mind: Given the reporting over the last few weeks, right now it seems like there’s not a single person in the federal government’s medical bureaucracy who’s happy in their job. If they’re not coping with Trump pushing misinformation to the public about a vaccine timeline, they’re being browbeaten by Trump or cronies like Michael Caputo to adopt scientific guidance that better suits his political agenda. Or they’re being exasperated by the spectacle of watching people boo the idea that masks are good practice in a pandemic. Or they’re being embarrassed by messes of their own making, from the CDC testing catastrophe in February to the CDC’s about-face this week on whether coronavirus is found in aerosols.
On top of all that, the number of deaths and daily infections that the U.S. continues to suffer is unrelenting. It’s better than it was two months ago but no one in the government wanted to be headed into fall with 30,000 cases and 800 fatalities per day. It’s not just a national tragedy, it’s a national humiliation. HHS, the CDC, the FDA, and the task force have presided over it.
The Hill reported this morning that morale within the CDC specifically has collapsed:
“I have never seen morale this low. It’s just, people are beaten down. People are beaten down partially by a public who not only distrusts us but who actually think we want to infringe on their civil liberties,” said one current CDC employee. “The other factor is the active undermining by senior members of our own administration.” “As I talk to former colleagues at CDC, the feeling I get is just an overwhelming sense of despair. People are working incredibly hard to reduce the impact of the pandemic and the sense that they’re being blocked by people at the political level, and that the work that they’re doing is not being appreciated by the American public,” said Rich Besser, a former CDC director who now runs the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation… “It’s horrifying. I don’t know of any other situation like this, when things have been dictated to be put on the CDC website that aren’t defensible science. The idea that you shouldn’t test contacts is just indefensible,” said Tom Frieden, who led the CDC during the Obama administration.
With all of that being so, and with Trump bringing in people like Atlas to tell him what he wants to hear about reopening businesses, etc, why wouldn’t Birx be “distressed”? What is there to be enthusiastic about right now apart from the vaccine, which really isn’t within her purview?
Once a fixture at the administration’s coronavirus briefings, Dr. Deborah Birx has confided to aides and friends that she has become so unhappy with what she sees as her diminished role as coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force that she is not certain how much longer she can serve in her position, sources familiar with her thinking tell CNN. Birx has told people around her that she is “distressed” with the direction of the task force, describing the situation inside the nation’s response to the coronavirus as nightmarish… “The President has found somebody who matches what he wants to believe,” a source close to Birx said of her view of Atlas’s relationship with Trump. “There is no doubt that she feels that her role has been diminished.”… Trump has invited Atlas to appear at recent White House news conferences to field questions from reporters. Noticeably absent in the briefing room are Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s leading authority on infectious diseases.
Makes perfect sense to have a doctor like Atlas with no background in infectious diseases as the most influential expert in the White House on managing a once-in-a-century infectious disease. Why would Birx be “distressed” about that?
CNN claims that she sees some value in visiting hot-spot states to serve as the feds’ spokesman on wearing masks and so forth, although that sounds like a glorified PR job. She’s probably sticking around for the same reason that the rest of Trump’s army of disgruntled aides sticks around, because they think the managerial chaos will only get worse if they quit and end up being replaced by someone unqualified. Are Americans better off with a task force led by Atlas that includes Deborah Birx or are they better off with a task force led by Atlas that includes Dan Bongino?
But really, that logic may be past its expiration date. We’re six weeks away from an opportunity to replace Trump. Birx is a figure with an unusually high profile by dint of her task force work this past spring and she wouldn’t be easy to demonize because of her credentials and soft-spoken demeanor. If the task force is as much of a sh*tshow as she allegedly thinks, she’s better off quitting and letting the electorate know that. We’ve already had one alumna of the group bail out, alleging that Trump doesn’t care and therefore the work the task force is doing is largely meaningless. That person, Olivia Troye, is keeping an eye on the Birx news today:
People can’t imagine the pressure she’s under from the political people in the White House. She’s working tirelessly under nightmarish conditions where there is no consideration for public health from the top. I saw this first hand. https://t.co/96qBF3gsba — Olivia of Troye (@OliviaTroye) September 23, 2020
What happens if Birx resigns and says, “Everything Troye said in her interviews last week is true”? Unpredictable.
But then, Birx also has to reckon with what that sort of criticism might do to further shake public confidence in the forthcoming vaccine. If she says Trump and Atlas aren’t up to the job and Trump gets reelected anyway, suddenly she’s on record as saying not to trust a guy who’s going to have to sell the entire country on getting vaccinated next year. Not optimal. Although maybe she would reason that she herself is sufficiently trusted by the public that she could vouch for the vaccine personally once the data on the phase three trials is available and thereby offset any damage she’s done to Trump’s credibility. “You can trust him in this case,” she might say.
She’ll probably stay put and keep her mouth shut. There are very few people like Troye willing to risk their careers to sound the alarm. Plus, Birx might reason that once the vaccine rolls out, there’ll be a bigger role for her again on the task force. Trump will want to leverage the public’s faith in her by having her serve as a vaccine ambassador. She’ll have to swallow her “distress” for now.


hotair--2020-09-23--Democratic Senator: 87-year-old Sen. Feinstein 'not sure what she’s doing' and shouldn't lead confir

Democratic Senator: 87-year-old Sen. Feinstein 'not sure what she’s doing' and shouldn't lead confirmation battle

With the replacement for Justice Ginsburg on the line , Democrats are suddenly worried that Sen. Dianne Feinstein isn ’ t up to the task of managing a Supreme Court confirmation battle .
In fact the concern isn ’ t just that Dems will lose the confirmation battle but that the effort will become such a fiasco under Feinstein ’ s guidance that they ’ ll lose any chance to retake the Senate .
Feinstein , the oldest member of the Senate , is widely respected by senators in both parties , but she has noticeably slowed in recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic senators and aides show widespread concern over whether the California Democrat is capable of leading the aggressive effort Democrats need against whoever President Donald Trump picks to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
The Judiciary Committee is the critical battleground in the Supreme Court confirmation process .
At stake , her own Democratic colleagues worry , is more than just whether the party can thwart Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) in his rush to fill the seat .
Some Democrats privately fear that Feinstein could mishandle the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back the majority .
Feinstein sometimes gets confused by reporters ’ questions , or will offer different answers to the same question depending on where or when she ’ s asked .
Her appearance is frail .
And Feinstein ’ s genteel demeanor , which seems like it belongs to a bygone Senate era , can lead to trouble with an increasingly hard-line Democratic base uninterested in collegiality or bipartisan platitudes .
While no one making this criticism is named in the story , one person quoted is identified as a Democratic Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of Senate Democrats want Feinstein to step aside in favor of a male Senator .
A Democratic senator , speaking on the condition of anonymity , said a group of Feinstein ’ s colleagues want Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-Ill. ) or Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-R.I. ) to serve as the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel for the upcoming nomination hearings , which are expected to be extraordinarily contentious .
This senator is worried that potential missteps by Feinstein could cost Democrats seats .
“ She ’ s not sure what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic senator said of Feinstein .
“ If you take a look at Kavanaugh , we may be short two senators because of that .
And if this gets [ messed ] up , it may be the same result.
” “ I think it could impact a number of seats we can win , ” the senator added… A third Democratic senator put it this way : “ She can ’ t pull this off.
” Feinstein responded to all of this saying she was “ really surprised and taken aback ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Kavanugh confirmation battle should have demonstrated to her as it did to the rest of the country that Democrats will say and do anything to win .
But forget Feinstein for a moment , what about Joe Biden ?
Reading this story has got to be making the Biden camp deeply uncomfortable .
Democratic Senators are doing to Feinstein exactly what Republicans have been doing to Biden .
And yes , maybe Feinstein has lost a step at 87-years-old but couldn ’ t an honest observer say the same about Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also sometimes seems confused by questions .
He also is prone to mistakes when speaking .
He also seems less energetic than he once was .
The response to accusations that Joe isn ’ t what he once was has been to accuse Republicans of playing dirty , but by pushing this whisper campaign against Feinstein Democrats are legitimizing the same sort of attack against Biden .
At least that ’ s how it looks to me but I ’ m sure the media will come up with some excuse why there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to judge these nearly identical allegations .
Biden will still be off limits even as Democrats move to oust one of their own Senators on the same grounds .
This clip from the Post was published a year ago .

With the replacement for Justice Ginsburg on the line, Democrats are suddenly worried that Sen. Dianne Feinstein isn’t up to the task of managing a Supreme Court confirmation battle. In fact the concern isn’t just that Dems will lose the confirmation battle but that the effort will become such a fiasco under Feinstein’s guidance that they’ll lose any chance to retake the Senate.
Feinstein, the oldest member of the Senate, is widely respected by senators in both parties, but she has noticeably slowed in recent years. Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides show widespread concern over whether the California Democrat is capable of leading the aggressive effort Democrats need against whoever President Donald Trump picks to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Judiciary Committee is the critical battleground in the Supreme Court confirmation process. At stake, her own Democratic colleagues worry, is more than just whether the party can thwart Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in his rush to fill the seat. Some Democrats privately fear that Feinstein could mishandle the situation and hurt their chances of winning back the majority. Feinstein sometimes gets confused by reporters’ questions, or will offer different answers to the same question depending on where or when she’s asked. Her appearance is frail. And Feinstein’s genteel demeanor, which seems like it belongs to a bygone Senate era, can lead to trouble with an increasingly hard-line Democratic base uninterested in collegiality or bipartisan platitudes.
While no one making this criticism is named in the story, one person quoted is identified as a Democratic Senator. This Senator says a “group” of Senate Democrats want Feinstein to step aside in favor of a male Senator.
A Democratic senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a group of Feinstein’s colleagues want Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) or Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to serve as the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel for the upcoming nomination hearings, which are expected to be extraordinarily contentious. This senator is worried that potential missteps by Feinstein could cost Democrats seats. “She’s not sure what she’s doing,” the Democratic senator said of Feinstein. “If you take a look at Kavanaugh, we may be short two senators because of that. And if this gets [messed] up, it may be the same result.” “I think it could impact a number of seats we can win,” the senator added… A third Democratic senator put it this way: “She can’t pull this off.”
Feinstein responded to all of this saying she was “really surprised and taken aback” but she shouldn’t be. The Kavanugh confirmation battle should have demonstrated to her as it did to the rest of the country that Democrats will say and do anything to win.
But forget Feinstein for a moment, what about Joe Biden? Reading this story has got to be making the Biden camp deeply uncomfortable. Democratic Senators are doing to Feinstein exactly what Republicans have been doing to Biden. And yes, maybe Feinstein has lost a step at 87-years-old but couldn’t an honest observer say the same about Biden, who is about to turn 78. He also sometimes seems confused by questions. He also is prone to mistakes when speaking. He also seems less energetic than he once was.
The response to accusations that Joe isn’t what he once was has been to accuse Republicans of playing dirty, but by pushing this whisper campaign against Feinstein Democrats are legitimizing the same sort of attack against Biden. At least that’s how it looks to me but I’m sure the media will come up with some excuse why there should be two different sets of standards to judge these nearly identical allegations. Biden will still be off limits even as Democrats move to oust one of their own Senators on the same grounds.
This clip from the Post was published a year ago.


hotair--2020-09-23--You'll be waiting a while for a carry permit in Philadelphia

As riots in cities around the country have made residents and business owners increasingly uneasy , many of them have noticed how the police aren ’ t responding quite so quickly to 911 calls these days .
This has led to a huge surge in new , frequently first-time gun purchases in our larger metropolitan areas .
We ’ ve already seen the hilarious results when people who previously supported all manner of gun control laws go shopping for a firearm and are shocked and dismayed at how long it takes to purchase one legally under these laws .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maze and eventually been able to purchase their first firearm .
Now , however , many of these same people are learning that the purchase was only the first step in a long process imposed by liberal governments in their home cities .
Once you have your first firearm at home , particularly if it ’ s a handgun , what do you do with it next ?
The streets are less safe both for pedestrian and vehicular traffic , so you ’ ll probably want to bring your new firearm along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a separate permit , particularly if you want to carry it concealed .
After all , when the rioters are trying to pull you , your spouse or your children out of your car , a gun isn ’ t of much use if it ’ s locked in a gun safe in the trunk or , worse , back at your house .
That process of obtaining a permit can take an excruciatingly long time .
This is particularly true in Philadelphia , where the office that handles permit requests is currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by appointment .
And those appointments are only being offered as much as a year or more in advance .
( Free Beacon ) Philadelphia residents say the city is forcing them to wait months to apply for gun-carry permits—far beyond the 45-day window required by law—at a time when gun sales are surging in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic and widespread rioting .
The delays have left some Philadelphians fearing for their safety .
James Tordella , a medical supply salesman , is caught in the permit backlog .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city faltered during the pandemic , but did not think dysfunction would apply to his attempt to exercise his Second Amendment rights .
“ S— ’ s not easy in Philadelphia , ” Tordella said .
“ I ’ m not sure the city is actually trying to stomp on my rights—they may just be grossly incompetent.
” What ’ s happening in Philadelphia right now appears to be patently illegal , but the government is getting away with it .
As noted in the excerpt above , current laws require the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within 45 days .
But they ’ ve found a devious way around that .
You aren ’ t allowed to even submit the application for the permit until you are granted an appointment to do so .
One Temple University law school alum reports that he tried to apply for a permit for a new new handgun and it took him weeks to get through to the Philadelphia Police office where such requests are handled .
When he finally did , he was told that the first available appointment was in January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarly seeking to obtain a permit and her appointment is scheduled for February .
But those aren ’ t even the worst horror stories .
An insurance salesman from South Philly was told that the first available appointment to apply for a permit would be in August of 2021 .
Others reported similarly long waits .
The waiting period for a permit application submission is substantially lower in some of the suburban counties outside the city .
This has led to at least some new gun owners considering moving out to those counties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefully getting further away from the unrest in the streets .
While I don ’ t want to take any joy in anyone else ’ s misfortune , this looks like a serious case of karma coming around to bite people where the sun doesn ’ t shine .
They helped create this system where you have to jump through an untold number of hoops in order to legally purchase a firearm and obtain a permit to carry it .
Now those hoops are totally gummed up by a combination of the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to process the requests , and the rioting in the streets .
Sad to say it to our urban-dwelling friends , but most of you brought this on yourselves .
But stay safe our there , at least as best you can .

As riots in cities around the country have made residents and business owners increasingly uneasy, many of them have noticed how the police aren’t responding quite so quickly to 911 calls these days. This has led to a huge surge in new, frequently first-time gun purchases in our larger metropolitan areas. We’ve already seen the hilarious results when people who previously supported all manner of gun control laws go shopping for a firearm and are shocked and dismayed at how long it takes to purchase one legally under these laws. Still, many of them have navigated the maze and eventually been able to purchase their first firearm.
Now, however, many of these same people are learning that the purchase was only the first step in a long process imposed by liberal governments in their home cities. Once you have your first firearm at home, particularly if it’s a handgun, what do you do with it next? The streets are less safe both for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, so you’ll probably want to bring your new firearm along with you, right? But that requires a separate permit, particularly if you want to carry it concealed. After all, when the rioters are trying to pull you, your spouse or your children out of your car, a gun isn’t of much use if it’s locked in a gun safe in the trunk or, worse, back at your house.
That process of obtaining a permit can take an excruciatingly long time. This is particularly true in Philadelphia, where the office that handles permit requests is currently only allowing applicants to submit an application by appointment. And those appointments are only being offered as much as a year or more in advance. (Free Beacon)
Philadelphia residents say the city is forcing them to wait months to apply for gun-carry permits—far beyond the 45-day window required by law—at a time when gun sales are surging in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic and widespread rioting. The delays have left some Philadelphians fearing for their safety. James Tordella, a medical supply salesman, is caught in the permit backlog. He was not surprised when basic services in the city faltered during the pandemic, but did not think dysfunction would apply to his attempt to exercise his Second Amendment rights. “S—’s not easy in Philadelphia,” Tordella said. “I’m not sure the city is actually trying to stomp on my rights—they may just be grossly incompetent.”
What’s happening in Philadelphia right now appears to be patently illegal, but the government is getting away with it. As noted in the excerpt above, current laws require the city to respond to a carry permit request within 45 days. But they’ve found a devious way around that. You aren’t allowed to even submit the application for the permit until you are granted an appointment to do so.
One Temple University law school alum reports that he tried to apply for a permit for a new new handgun and it took him weeks to get through to the Philadelphia Police office where such requests are handled. When he finally did, he was told that the first available appointment was in January of next year. His daughter was similarly seeking to obtain a permit and her appointment is scheduled for February.
But those aren’t even the worst horror stories. An insurance salesman from South Philly was told that the first available appointment to apply for a permit would be in August of 2021. Others reported similarly long waits. The waiting period for a permit application submission is substantially lower in some of the suburban counties outside the city. This has led to at least some new gun owners considering moving out to those counties just to get their permits processed while hopefully getting further away from the unrest in the streets.
While I don’t want to take any joy in anyone else’s misfortune, this looks like a serious case of karma coming around to bite people where the sun doesn’t shine. They helped create this system where you have to jump through an untold number of hoops in order to legally purchase a firearm and obtain a permit to carry it. Now those hoops are totally gummed up by a combination of the pandemic, cuts to the police departments that have to process the requests, and the rioting in the streets. Sad to say it to our urban-dwelling friends, but most of you brought this on yourselves. But stay safe our there, at least as best you can.


hotair--2020-09-23--WaPo/ABC polls: Trump edging Biden in Florida and Arizona now

No need to break these polls down , at least not much , just given their sourcing .
Normally , Donald Trump does worse in both the Washington Post/ABC and Fox polling series than in others , although not necessarily by wide margins .
Given that , the latest results from the WaPo/ABC battleground-state polling should have the White House smiling — and Democrats worried : President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden are locked in close races in Florida and Arizona , according to a pair of Washington Post-ABC News polls in two Sun Belt battlegrounds the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his hopes for reelection in November .
In Florida , likely voters split 51 percent for Trump to 47 percent for Biden , while registered voters split 47 percent for Trump to 48 percent for Biden .
In Arizona , Trump ’ s margin is even smaller at 49 percent to Biden ’ s 48 percent among likely voters .
Among Arizona ’ s registered voters , Trump is at 47 percent and Biden at 49 percent .
All these differences are within the polls ’ margins of sampling error .
The findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president than other polls conducted in the two states recently by other organizations .
The Post ’ s average of polls this month shows Biden with a two-point advantage in Florida and a six-point margin in Arizona .
The Post ’ s averaging is a skosh off from RCP ’ s , although the latter also shows Biden leading in every state .
Biden has a 1.5-point edge in Florida and a 4.1-point edge in Arizona in RCP ’ s aggregation , but Trump has been narrowing things up since mid-summer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only the second poll from Florida this month to show Trump with any kind of lead ( Trafalgar did at the beginning of the month ) .
Arizona has looked even slightly more pessimistic among pollsters .
The one-point edge from WaPo/ABC today is the first media poll to show Trump ahead since May , shortly after Biden wrapped up the nomination .
However , an even bigger bellwether there might be the Senate race .
The WaPo/ABC poll puts Martha McSally within a point of Democratic challenger Mark Kelly , 48/49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support the idea of a Trump rebound in the state .
At least in this survey , anyway .
What ’ s the reason for the sudden sunny optimism in this poll series ?
The Washington Post says it ’ s the economy , stupid : Well maybe , but the demos released by the Post also indicate some other issues might be in play .
For instance , Trump now gets into double digits among black voters in Florida — 11 % , which if that turned out to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden .
Trump is also leading among voters under 50 and above 64 , and only trails Biden among Hispanics by 13 points , 39/52 .
The Arizona demos are a bit less clear .
The gap among Hispanics is wider at 34/61 , just slightly better than Trump ’ s performance against Hillary Clinton four years ago ( 31/61 ) .
Biden wins big among voters under 50 , but Trump carries the other age demos by double-digit margins .
The gender gap in both states is large , but Trump does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday when he announces his Supreme Court appointment , too .
Finally , though , there ’ s another factor in play in these and other battleground states : As in many polls , more Trump supporters than Biden supporters express enthusiasm for their vote .
About 2 in 3 Trump supporters in both states say they are “ very enthusiastic ” about their backing of the president .
That compares with 59 percent of Biden supporters in Florida and 45 percent of his supporters in Arizona who express that same kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That has the potential to be a huge problem when it comes to actually turning out the vote .
That kind of enthusiasm gap could get mitigated with a superior ground game , but in this case the only side with a ground game is Team Trump .
That may even be helping to create this enthusiasm gap , but it ’ s certainly going to help exploit it .
That ’ s one big reason to take these polling numbers with a grain of salt without discarding them altogether .

No need to break these polls down, at least not much, just given their sourcing. Normally, Donald Trump does worse in both the Washington Post/ABC and Fox polling series than in others, although not necessarily by wide margins. Given that, the latest results from the WaPo/ABC battleground-state polling should have the White House smiling — and Democrats worried:
President Trump and former vice president Joe Biden are locked in close races in Florida and Arizona, according to a pair of Washington Post-ABC News polls in two Sun Belt battlegrounds the president won in 2016 that are crucial to his hopes for reelection in November. In Florida, likely voters split 51 percent for Trump to 47 percent for Biden, while registered voters split 47 percent for Trump to 48 percent for Biden. In Arizona, Trump’s margin is even smaller at 49 percent to Biden’s 48 percent among likely voters. Among Arizona’s registered voters, Trump is at 47 percent and Biden at 49 percent. All these differences are within the polls’ margins of sampling error. The findings in the two surveys are better for the president than other polls conducted in the two states recently by other organizations. The Post’s average of polls this month shows Biden with a two-point advantage in Florida and a six-point margin in Arizona.
The Post’s averaging is a skosh off from RCP’s, although the latter also shows Biden leading in every state. Biden has a 1.5-point edge in Florida and a 4.1-point edge in Arizona in RCP’s aggregation, but Trump has been narrowing things up since mid-summer, too. The new result from WaPo/ABC is only the second poll from Florida this month to show Trump with any kind of lead (Trafalgar did at the beginning of the month).
Arizona has looked even slightly more pessimistic among pollsters. The one-point edge from WaPo/ABC today is the first media poll to show Trump ahead since May, shortly after Biden wrapped up the nomination. However, an even bigger bellwether there might be the Senate race. The WaPo/ABC poll puts Martha McSally within a point of Democratic challenger Mark Kelly, 48/49, among likely voters, which tends to support the idea of a Trump rebound in the state. At least in this survey, anyway.
What’s the reason for the sudden sunny optimism in this poll series? The Washington Post says it’s the economy, stupid:
Overall, the surveys illustrate that the national economy, despite its weakened state, remains Trump’s strongest issue, and it is helping him overcome voters’ disapproval of his handling of the coronavirus outbreak.
Well maybe, but the demos released by the Post also indicate some other issues might be in play. For instance, Trump now gets into double digits among black voters in Florida — 11%, which if that turned out to be a national score would prove disastrous for Joe Biden. Trump is also leading among voters under 50 and above 64, and only trails Biden among Hispanics by 13 points, 39/52.
The Arizona demos are a bit less clear. The gap among Hispanics is wider at 34/61, just slightly better than Trump’s performance against Hillary Clinton four years ago (31/61). Biden wins big among voters under 50, but Trump carries the other age demos by double-digit margins. The gender gap in both states is large, but Trump does have an opportunity to address that on Saturday when he announces his Supreme Court appointment, too.
Finally, though, there’s another factor in play in these and other battleground states:
As in many polls, more Trump supporters than Biden supporters express enthusiasm for their vote. About 2 in 3 Trump supporters in both states say they are “very enthusiastic” about their backing of the president. That compares with 59 percent of Biden supporters in Florida and 45 percent of his supporters in Arizona who express that same kind of enthusiasm in their vote for Biden.
That has the potential to be a huge problem when it comes to actually turning out the vote. That kind of enthusiasm gap could get mitigated with a superior ground game, but in this case the only side with a ground game is Team Trump. That may even be helping to create this enthusiasm gap, but it’s certainly going to help exploit it. That’s one big reason to take these polling numbers with a grain of salt without discarding them altogether.


hotair--2020-09-23--Fauci clashes with Rand Paul: If you think NYC has herd immunity, you're the only one who does

Not the first time they ’ ve locked horns during Senate testimony , although this is the first time I ’ ve gotten a sense of just how radical Paul ( a COVID survivor ) is in his opposition to lockdowns .
The way the clip starts off , it sounds like he ’ s just rehashing his skepticism of “ nanny state ” experts .
But given his interest in Sweden ’ s outcome and some of the dubious assumptions he makes about ours , I ended up getting the vibe that he thinks our approach to the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rip .
Forget all the containment measures .
New York got slaughtered despite its lockdown early on , right ?
And isn ’ t it true that , even if we flatten the curve successfully , we ’ re destined to have the same number of deaths from the virus as we ’ d have even if we did nothing to retard its transmission ?
Flattening the curve is about protecting hospitals by *slowing down* the spread of the disease , Paul notes .
But over a long enough time horizon , COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people it would have reached within a few months if it were allowed to spread unchecked .
So maybe all these social-distancing rules and mask mandates are pointless .
Which is … idiotic .
In a world where vaccines didn ’ t exist , you might make the case that it ’ s academic whether the virus spreads quickly or slowly .
Herd immunity will eventually arrive either way .
In a world where vaccines do exist — in particular , a world where a vaccine is mere months away — slowing down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless lives .
Imagine that COVID is destined to kill 700,000 people out of a population of 330 million .
We can either kill them off quickly in three months by letting it rip Rand-style or we can kill them off slowly over three years by flattening the curve Fauci-style .
But if a vaccine arrives at the start of year two , the entire population that ’ s vulnerable to COVID is already dead in Rand ’ s approach .
Whereas under Fauci ’ s approach , maybe 300-400,000 are spared .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would still pay to flatten the curve and slow the virus down to give pharmaceutical companies time to develop effective treatments .
Deaths from COVID as a percentage of infections have already declined significantly in the U.S. and Europe since March .
Once antibody drugs hit the market , they should decline even more .
Slowing the spread buys time .
And extra time helps doctors save lives .
Trump ’ s getting hammered this week , including by me , for claiming that the virus affects “ virtually nobody ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a model of compassion compared to Paul .
Leave it to the Senate GOP to provide daily reminders that Trump ’ s actually not the worst the country can do by way of Republican leadership .
As for what he says about New York , since when do Republicans regard the Cuomo apocalypse of March and April as some sort of fait accompli that simply couldn ’ t have been avoided no matter what restrictions were put in place ?
We ’ ve spent the past four months arguing the opposite , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York City to catastrophe by moving too slowly to shut things down in March despite evidence that the virus was spreading .
Every Republican in America is by now familiar with Cuomo ’ s policy to send infected nursing-home residents back into their nursing homes , seeding fatal outbreaks .
New York was destined to have a bad outbreak no matter what , I think , because it ’ s a major destination for foreign travelers and its large , dense population gave the virus a path to spread quickly .
But there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was much worse than it needed to be thanks to Cuomo ’ s and de Blasio ’ s incompetence .
But I guess Paul disagrees , or else he wouldn ’ t be straining here to treat the outcome in NYC as a matter of basic epidemiological fate that no lockdown could mitigate instead of a case of terrible management .
Cuomo should call him up and thank him for letting him off the hook for the City ’ s outcome .
Finally , his point about NYC possibly having acquired herd immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve raised myself .
But Fauci ’ s right that there ’ s no hard evidence of it : New York has moved *very* cautiously on reopening since May , with most schools still closed as I write this and restaurants still a week away from reopening for indoor dining at limited capacity .
Is New York ’ s positivity rate below one percent because everyone ’ s immune or is it below one percent because everything ’ s been closed for four months ?
( Some things will remain closed for many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer , note these numbers .
The overall positivity rate statewide remains slightly below one percent .
But the virus is spreading in some neighborhoods .
All Paul and Fauci are ultimately arguing about is risk-tolerance .
Fauci ’ s position is “ better safe than sorry.
” We don ’ t know exactly how many people the virus would kill if it were allowed to spread unchecked , but given that it ’ s already killed 200,000 despite all sorts of precautions , clearly it would kill a lot .
Whereas Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s find out.
” How lucky do you feel ?
Oh , one last thing .
It ’ s true , as Paul says , that America ’ s number of deaths per capita now exceeds Sweden ’ s , although the two numbers aren ’ t far apart .
But Fauci ’ s rejoinder to that is also true , starkly : Sweden ’ s coronavirus deaths per capita are way , way , way higher than deaths per capita are in Norway and Finland , the two Scandinavian neighbors that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetics and lifestyle .
Sweden currently stands at 581 COVID deaths per million people , 13th-highest in the world ; Finland stands at 62 and Norway at 49 , good for 82nd and 93rd in the world , respectively .
If Paul wants to wonder why our pro-lockdown regime ended up worse than Sweden ’ s anti-lockdown approach , he should also ask why Sweden ’ s anti-lockdown approach performed horrendously worse than Norway ’ s and Finland ’ s more lockdown-friendly strategy .

Not the first time they’ve locked horns during Senate testimony, although this is the first time I’ve gotten a sense of just how radical Paul (a COVID survivor) is in his opposition to lockdowns.
The way the clip starts off, it sounds like he’s just rehashing his skepticism of “nanny state” experts. But given his interest in Sweden’s outcome and some of the dubious assumptions he makes about ours, I ended up getting the vibe that he thinks our approach to the virus should be … to just let it rip. Forget all the containment measures. New York got slaughtered despite its lockdown early on, right? And isn’t it true that, even if we flatten the curve successfully, we’re destined to have the same number of deaths from the virus as we’d have even if we did nothing to retard its transmission? Flattening the curve is about protecting hospitals by *slowing down* the spread of the disease, Paul notes. But over a long enough time horizon, COVID will eventually reach the same number of people it would have reached within a few months if it were allowed to spread unchecked. So maybe all these social-distancing rules and mask mandates are pointless.
Which is … idiotic. In a world where vaccines didn’t exist, you might make the case that it’s academic whether the virus spreads quickly or slowly. Herd immunity will eventually arrive either way. In a world where vaccines do exist — in particular, a world where a vaccine is mere months away — slowing down the spread of the virus will save countless lives. Imagine that COVID is destined to kill 700,000 people out of a population of 330 million. We can either kill them off quickly in three months by letting it rip Rand-style or we can kill them off slowly over three years by flattening the curve Fauci-style. But if a vaccine arrives at the start of year two, the entire population that’s vulnerable to COVID is already dead in Rand’s approach. Whereas under Fauci’s approach, maybe 300-400,000 are spared.
Even if a vaccine were impossible, it would still pay to flatten the curve and slow the virus down to give pharmaceutical companies time to develop effective treatments. Deaths from COVID as a percentage of infections have already declined significantly in the U.S. and Europe since March. Once antibody drugs hit the market, they should decline even more. Slowing the spread buys time. And extra time helps doctors save lives.
Trump’s getting hammered this week, including by me, for claiming that the virus affects “virtually nobody” but the elderly, but he’s a model of compassion compared to Paul. Leave it to the Senate GOP to provide daily reminders that Trump’s actually not the worst the country can do by way of Republican leadership.
As for what he says about New York, since when do Republicans regard the Cuomo apocalypse of March and April as some sort of fait accompli that simply couldn’t have been avoided no matter what restrictions were put in place? We’ve spent the past four months arguing the opposite, that Cuomo and Bill de Blasio doomed New York City to catastrophe by moving too slowly to shut things down in March despite evidence that the virus was spreading. Every Republican in America is by now familiar with Cuomo’s policy to send infected nursing-home residents back into their nursing homes, seeding fatal outbreaks. New York was destined to have a bad outbreak no matter what, I think, because it’s a major destination for foreign travelers and its large, dense population gave the virus a path to spread quickly. But there’s every reason to think it was much worse than it needed to be thanks to Cuomo’s and de Blasio’s incompetence.
But I guess Paul disagrees, or else he wouldn’t be straining here to treat the outcome in NYC as a matter of basic epidemiological fate that no lockdown could mitigate instead of a case of terrible management. Cuomo should call him up and thank him for letting him off the hook for the City’s outcome.
Finally, his point about NYC possibly having acquired herd immunity is interesting, and one I’ve raised myself. But Fauci’s right that there’s no hard evidence of it: New York has moved *very* cautiously on reopening since May, with most schools still closed as I write this and restaurants still a week away from reopening for indoor dining at limited capacity. Is New York’s positivity rate below one percent because everyone’s immune or is it below one percent because everything’s been closed for four months? (Some things will remain closed for many months to come.)
Before you answer, note these numbers. The overall positivity rate statewide remains slightly below one percent. But the virus is spreading in some neighborhoods.
NEW: NYC Dept of Health has sent out an alert about rising covid cases in growing # of neighb's in BK & QNS, w/ rates doubling or tripling in recent weeks. * Midwood, Boro Park, Bensonhurst: 4.7% positivity
* Edgemere-Far Rockaway: 3.7%
* Kew Gardens: 2.2%
* W'burg: 2.0%
(cont) — Mark D. Levine (@MarkLevineNYC) September 23, 2020
Week-by-week case counts in these neighborhoods in Brooklyn & Queens show rapid growth and represent real peril. It is critical that we double down on preventative measures before this gets out of hand. pic.twitter.com/dMC55i1RpB — Mark D. Levine (@MarkLevineNYC) September 23, 2020
All Paul and Fauci are ultimately arguing about is risk-tolerance. Fauci’s position is “better safe than sorry.” We don’t know exactly how many people the virus would kill if it were allowed to spread unchecked, but given that it’s already killed 200,000 despite all sorts of precautions, clearly it would kill a lot. Whereas Paul’s attitude is “let’s find out.” How lucky do you feel?
Oh, one last thing. It’s true, as Paul says, that America’s number of deaths per capita now exceeds Sweden’s, although the two numbers aren’t far apart. But Fauci’s rejoinder to that is also true, starkly: Sweden’s coronavirus deaths per capita are way, way, way higher than deaths per capita are in Norway and Finland, the two Scandinavian neighbors that are most comparable to Sweden in terms of genetics and lifestyle. Sweden currently stands at 581 COVID deaths per million people, 13th-highest in the world; Finland stands at 62 and Norway at 49, good for 82nd and 93rd in the world, respectively. If Paul wants to wonder why our pro-lockdown regime ended up worse than Sweden’s anti-lockdown approach, he should also ask why Sweden’s anti-lockdown approach performed horrendously worse than Norway’s and Finland’s more lockdown-friendly strategy.


hotair--2020-09-23--One officer indicted in Breonna Taylor case, but use of force by two other officers was 'justified'

One officer indicted in Breonna Taylor case, but use of force by two other officers was 'justified' (Update)

Today a grand jury indicted one of three police officers involved in the Breonna Taylor case but as you ’ ll see in a moment these charges apparently have nothing to do with the shots that killed Taylor .
Former officer Brett Hankison , who was fired in June , is being charged with three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment : Judge Annie O ’ Connell announced the charges against former Louisville police Sgt .
Brett Hankison , who was fired in June , during a grand jury proceeding .
A warrant will be issued for his arrest , O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved in the March 13 incident , Myles Cosgrove and Jonathan Mattingly , were not charged .
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is expected to hold a news conference Wednesday to address the charges against Hankison .
The wanton endangerment charge is a class D felony and carries a possible sentence of 1 to 5 years .
Taylor ’ s boyfriend Kenneth Walker fired one shot as police broke down her front door that night .
Walker claims he didn ’ t know it was police at the door because they failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did announce themselves and the AG says there is a witness to back that up .
The AG also says Walker ’ s shot hit Officer Mattingly in the leg , seriously injuring him .
Kenneth Walker ’ s attorney has claimed in a civil suit that the shot that hit Mattingly may have been friendly fire from one of the other officers at the scene .
However , today the AG revealed that the bullet that struck Mattingly was a 9mm round while the officers weapons all used .40 caliber rounds .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hit a police officer .
That prompted Mattingly and Cosgrove to return fire and Taylor was ultimately hit by six bullets and killed .
The fatal shot was allegedly fired by Cosgrove .
All of that leads me to this passage from the Courier Journal about what exactly Hankison was charged with : The charges read by Judge Annie O ’ Connell on Wednesday said that Hankison “ wantonly shot a gun ” into three apartments .
The occupants of those apartments were identified by initials .
None of them were BT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears the grand jury did not find that Hankison wantonly fired into Taylor ’ s apartment the night she died .
The video of the judge ’ s announcement is below and sure enough it appears Hankison is not being charged with wanton endangerment for shots he may have fired into Breonna Taylor ’ s apartment only for those he apparently fired into three other apartments .
As you ’ ll see a bit later in this clip , Walker ’ s attorney concludes there were essentially no charges brought for the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family has been pressing for , at a minimum , manslaughter charges against the officers involved .
After the announcement from the judge , Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron made a statement about the charges .
He said he had met with Taylor ’ s family to share with them the results and called it a “ tragedy ” and a “ gut-wrenching ” case .
In a news conference following the announcement of the grand jury ’ s decision , Kentucky ’ s attorney general , Daniel Cameron , said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decide if the loss of Breonna Taylor ’ s life was a tragedy — the answer to that question is unequivocally yes , ” he said .
He later added , “ I know that not everyone will be satisfied .
Our job is to present the facts to the grand jury , and the grand jury then applies the facts , ” he said , adding : “ If we simply act on outrage , there is no justice — mob justice is not justice .
Justice sought by violence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” AG Cameron also said , “ I think it is worth repeated again that our investigation found that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in their use of force after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker.
” We ’ ll have to wait and see what the response to this announcement is .
Federal buildings have already been boarded up and shut down for the week and police declared an emergency Monday to allow them to prepare for possible riots .
Tuesday the city was placed under a state of emergency and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Mayor has also announced a curfew : Update : The protests have already started and as you can see in this clip the view of what happened on the street is pretty different from what the AG described .
In this case , she leaves out the part where Kenneth Walker shot a police officer .
It ’ s not even dark yet and things are heating up .

Today a grand jury indicted one of three police officers involved in the Breonna Taylor case but as you’ll see in a moment these charges apparently have nothing to do with the shots that killed Taylor. Former officer Brett Hankison, who was fired in June, is being charged with three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment:
Judge Annie O’Connell announced the charges against former Louisville police Sgt. Brett Hankison, who was fired in June, during a grand jury proceeding. A warrant will be issued for his arrest, O’Connell said. Two other officers involved in the March 13 incident, Myles Cosgrove and Jonathan Mattingly, were not charged. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is expected to hold a news conference Wednesday to address the charges against Hankison.
The wanton endangerment charge is a class D felony and carries a possible sentence of 1 to 5 years.
Taylor’s boyfriend Kenneth Walker fired one shot as police broke down her front door that night. Walker claims he didn’t know it was police at the door because they failed to identify themselves. The police say they did announce themselves and the AG says there is a witness to back that up. The AG also says Walker’s shot hit Officer Mattingly in the leg, seriously injuring him. Kenneth Walker’s attorney has claimed in a civil suit that the shot that hit Mattingly may have been friendly fire from one of the other officers at the scene. However, today the AG revealed that the bullet that struck Mattingly was a 9mm round while the officers weapons all used .40 caliber rounds.
In other words, Walker shot first and hit a police officer. That prompted Mattingly and Cosgrove to return fire and Taylor was ultimately hit by six bullets and killed. The fatal shot was allegedly fired by Cosgrove.
All of that leads me to this passage from the Courier Journal about what exactly Hankison was charged with:
The charges read by Judge Annie O’Connell on Wednesday said that Hankison “wantonly shot a gun” into three apartments. The occupants of those apartments were identified by initials. None of them were BT — Breonna Taylor. That means it appears the grand jury did not find that Hankison wantonly fired into Taylor’s apartment the night she died.
The video of the judge’s announcement is below and sure enough it appears Hankison is not being charged with wanton endangerment for shots he may have fired into Breonna Taylor’s apartment only for those he apparently fired into three other apartments. As you’ll see a bit later in this clip, Walker’s attorney concludes there were essentially no charges brought for the death of Breonna Taylor. Taylor’s family has been pressing for, at a minimum, manslaughter charges against the officers involved.
To hear @kyoag discuss the indictment of Brett Hankison on charges of wanton endangerment the night #BreonnaTaylor died, watch here:https://t.co/YcprPK3k6q — Mark Vanderhoff (@WLKYMark) September 23, 2020
After the announcement from the judge, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron made a statement about the charges. He said he had met with Taylor’s family to share with them the results and called it a “tragedy” and a “gut-wrenching” case.
In a news conference following the announcement of the grand jury’s decision, Kentucky’s attorney general, Daniel Cameron, said, “The decision before my office is not to decide if the loss of Breonna Taylor’s life was a tragedy — the answer to that question is unequivocally yes,” he said. He later added, “I know that not everyone will be satisfied. Our job is to present the facts to the grand jury, and the grand jury then applies the facts,” he said, adding: “If we simply act on outrage, there is no justice — mob justice is not justice. Justice sought by violence is not justice. It just becomes revenge.”
AG Cameron also said, “I think it is worth repeated again that our investigation found that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in their use of force after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker.”
We’ll have to wait and see what the response to this announcement is. Federal buildings have already been boarded up and shut down for the week and police declared an emergency Monday to allow them to prepare for possible riots. Tuesday the city was placed under a state of emergency and a 25-block area was closed to traffic. The Mayor has also announced a curfew:
Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer has put a 72-hour curfew in place in Louisville, effective Wednesday night, from 9 p.m. to 6:30 a.m., and LMPD interim Chief Robert Schroeder confirmed that Kentucky National Guard members would be in the city following Cameron’s announcement.
Here’s the Kentucky AG’s full statement:
Update: The protests have already started and as you can see in this clip the view of what happened on the street is pretty different from what the AG described. In this case, she leaves out the part where Kenneth Walker shot a police officer.
reaction from #BreonnaTaylor decision from Jefferson Square in Louisville. pic.twitter.com/nCxYL2pKSw — Matt Stone (@mattstonephotog) September 23, 2020
It’s not even dark yet and things are heating up.
Bardstown Road in Louisville closed down as Police, protesters clash after #BreonnaTaylor decision. pic.twitter.com/TfkDRqrDK1 — Matt Stone (@mattstonephotog) September 23, 2020