hotair--2020-09-03--Is New York City close to finally dumping the Democrats?

I know , I know… it sounds like a crazy idea .
New York City is one of the bluest and wokest places in the country , at least in the really “ cool ” parts of town .
After all , they give us AOC , right ?
And they nearly placed that woman from Sex and the City in the Governor ’ s mansion at one point .
But is that still a given after months of unrest and skyrocketing crime rates ?
Perhaps that reliably bright blue streak is starting to show a few traces of purple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling from the Manhattan Institute .
This is one of those “ right track – wrong track ” surveys , asking Gotham ’ s residents to list their top concerns .
And for the first time in quite a while , a significant number of them are selecting the “ wrong track ” choice .
The reasons given are probably exactly what you would expect if you ’ ve been keeping up with the news .
( NY Post ) After six of the most trying months in modern city history , nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Apple is heading in the wrong direction — with worries about the economy and crime listed as top concerns .
The new survey from the Manhattan Institute found that residents of the five boroughs are evenly split on the city ’ s trajectory — with 46 percent saying it ’ s heading the right way , while 42 percent say it ’ s off on the wrong track .
Twenty-two percent of Gothamites surveyed by the conservative-leaning think tank ’ s pollsters named the city ’ s economy as their biggest worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they were worried most about public safety .
No , we still don ’ t have a majority saying that Gotham is going in the wrong direction , and a small percentage more feel the city is still on the correct course .
But 42 % is the highest “ wrong track ” number we ’ ve seen in decades .
Further , the issues of public safety and the economy now dwarf “ race relations ” and health care , which topped the list until this spring .
As you might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happiest , with nearly 50 % saying they are content to stay where they are and continue living in the city .
Of course , it ’ s a lot easier to feel satisfied when you ’ re in the income class required to maintain a home in Manhattan .
That immediately puts you well up on the ladder of success .
By contrast , only 23 % of the residents of the Bronx were happy with their neighborhood and just 17 % said they would rather live in a different part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is it any wonder ?
The shutdowns mandated by the government combined with the destruction of the riots have left many businesses closed , with a significant number of employers deciding to leave permanently and take their jobs with them .
The number of shootings is off the charts compared to recent years and there are parts of the city that were previously fairly secure but where it ’ s now simply insane to go out and walk around by yourself at night .
So does that mean that New Yorkers are getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course and stop electing the same liberal Democrats who have driven the place into a ditch for years on end ?
Sorry , sports fans , but I ’ ll believe that when I see it .
Things have been going to hell in a handbasket in Baltimore for decades now , with corruption and gang violence driving Charm City ’ s population away in droves .
But they still keep electing the same crop of Democrats from the same farm team and then they have the nerve to act surprised when nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be shocked if New Yorkers begin falling into the same pattern .
In order for New York City to truly turn around , it ’ s going to have to hit rock bottom , and it ’ s not at that point yet .
But you can see rock bottom in the distance if you squint your eyes a bit .

I know, I know… it sounds like a crazy idea. New York City is one of the bluest and wokest places in the country, at least in the really “cool” parts of town. After all, they give us AOC, right? And they nearly placed that woman from Sex and the City in the Governor’s mansion at one point. But is that still a given after months of unrest and skyrocketing crime rates? Perhaps that reliably bright blue streak is starting to show a few traces of purple, at least according to some recent polling from the Manhattan Institute. This is one of those “right track – wrong track” surveys, asking Gotham’s residents to list their top concerns. And for the first time in quite a while, a significant number of them are selecting the “wrong track” choice. The reasons given are probably exactly what you would expect if you’ve been keeping up with the news. (NY Post)
After six of the most trying months in modern city history, nearly half of New Yorkers say that the Big Apple is heading in the wrong direction — with worries about the economy and crime listed as top concerns. The new survey from the Manhattan Institute found that residents of the five boroughs are evenly split on the city’s trajectory — with 46 percent saying it’s heading the right way, while 42 percent say it’s off on the wrong track. Twenty-two percent of Gothamites surveyed by the conservative-leaning think tank’s pollsters named the city’s economy as their biggest worry, closely followed by 21 percent who said they were worried most about public safety.
No, we still don’t have a majority saying that Gotham is going in the wrong direction, and a small percentage more feel the city is still on the correct course. But 42% is the highest “wrong track” number we’ve seen in decades. Further, the issues of public safety and the economy now dwarf “race relations” and health care, which topped the list until this spring.
As you might expect, residents of Manhattan are the happiest, with nearly 50% saying they are content to stay where they are and continue living in the city. Of course, it’s a lot easier to feel satisfied when you’re in the income class required to maintain a home in Manhattan. That immediately puts you well up on the ladder of success. By contrast, only 23% of the residents of the Bronx were happy with their neighborhood and just 17% said they would rather live in a different part of the city than move away entirely.
Is it any wonder? The shutdowns mandated by the government combined with the destruction of the riots have left many businesses closed, with a significant number of employers deciding to leave permanently and take their jobs with them. The number of shootings is off the charts compared to recent years and there are parts of the city that were previously fairly secure but where it’s now simply insane to go out and walk around by yourself at night.
So does that mean that New Yorkers are getting ready to really consider a change of course and stop electing the same liberal Democrats who have driven the place into a ditch for years on end? Sorry, sports fans, but I’ll believe that when I see it. Things have been going to hell in a handbasket in Baltimore for decades now, with corruption and gang violence driving Charm City’s population away in droves. But they still keep electing the same crop of Democrats from the same farm team and then they have the nerve to act surprised when nothing gets any better. I won’t be shocked if New Yorkers begin falling into the same pattern.
In order for New York City to truly turn around, it’s going to have to hit rock bottom, and it’s not at that point yet. But you can see rock bottom in the distance if you squint your eyes a bit.


hotair--2020-09-03--Bill Clinton to April Ryan: Trump will be "stacking sandbags" after the election

Bill and Hillary Clinton sat down for an Instagram Live interview with American Urban Radio ’ s April Ryan this week .
The first 4 minutes and 25 seconds of the 44 minute and 21 seconds interview was spent trying to get a connection with the Clintons .
Ryan was particularly excited to speak with Hillary .
She even had her uncle , former congressman Ed Towns , sitting with her so he could say hello to Hillary .
Bill Clinton was asked by Ryan ( also a CNN political analyst ) to envision January 2021 .
Ryan egged on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump “ will be ‘ stacking sandbags ’ after November ’ s election to fight off attempts to make him concede defeat ” , which April found hilarious .
She said , “ Trump ’ s ‘ orange knuckles ’ won ’ t let go of his Oval Office desk.
” He also predicts that if Trump loses the election , he won ’ t attend Biden ’ s inauguration .
While the Democrats and Never Trumpers criticize President Trump for his way of speaking and less-than-traditional way of conducting himself as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Clinton is a former president .
Up until Trump became president , it was unheard of that a former president dissed a successor during an interview .
If you remember , for example , George W. Bush didn ’ t say a peep against Obama ’ s time in office .
Yet , now both Obama and Clinton feel free to trash the bad Orange Man .
It is especially notable for Clinton , though , because until he ran against ( and won ) Hillary Clinton , the Trumps and Clintons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while Bill and April are having a good laugh at Trump ’ s expense , saying he ’ ll barricade himself in the Oval Office rather than accept defeat if he loses , Hillary repeated a rather shocking piece of advice she offered to Joe Biden recently – Biden should not concede the election to Trump if he ( Biden ) loses .
That ’ s right , it was bat poop crazy enough when Hillary first told Jen Palmieri , a longtime insider in Democrat politics and former White House Communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden must not concede the election , but now she is repeating that advice as though it is a normal thing to say .
A little background for those who don ’ t watch Showtime ’ s The Circus : Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth ( and why would you ? )
.
Palmieri was added to the show last season and she was interviewing Hillary via Skype for the show .
They were talking about the upcoming election and that is when Hillary dropped that nugget of advice to Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palmieri raise her arms and clench her fists in agreement with Hillary .
Sadly , this kind of thing is what makes The Circus unwatchable for Republican voters .
I say it ’ s sad because I love behind-the-scenes kinds of shows , especially about politics .
The show was created by Mark McKinnon , a Republican strategist , and Bushie .
The others on the show are John Heilemann ( a Bernie bro ) and Alex Wagner , a CBS correspondent .
It ’ s been on for several seasons and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism for conservatives .
During Tuesday ’ s Instagram Live chat with April Ryan , Hillary repeated her advice .
Trump is going to “ sneak and cheat ” , you know .
She also repeated the Democrats ’ favorite conspiracy theory as we head into the November election – Trump is sabotaging the election with the help of the USPS .
‘ Do not concede under any circumstance because I believe the other side is going to cheat and sneak and try everything they possibly can , ’ she said .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to register to vote , and to mail in their votes with plenty of time .
She said the Trump administration was intentionally sabotaging the postal service to limit mail-in voting , as they believe that a large turnout does not help their cause .
The former Secretary of State told viewers that the November 3 vote was of vital importance to the nation .
‘ He is a clear and present danger to our freedoms , our liberties , our unity , and we ’ ve got to defeat him , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – a former Secretary of State is calling the sitting president a “ clear and present danger to our freedoms ” .
This kind of discussion during an interview is why Democrats and Never Trumpers criticisms of Trump ’ s deportment in office fall on deaf ears .
They are no better in their behavior .
Democrats always criticize Republicans for behavior they are guilty of doing .
They project their bad behavior onto others .
Not to be outdone , Bill Clinton chimed in with his own thoughts of the bad Orange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ manipulating the psyche of people.
” Clinton was a master manipulator back in his days in the White House .
We remember .
‘ It ’ s very important to keep in mind that beneath all these big questions you are asking are just Donald Trump ’ s proven ability to manipulate the psyche of the people that he is trying to scare the hell out of , ’ said Clinton .
‘ Now , this is a person who says , ‘ OK , I can ’ t win on my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I tell them as long as it ’ s bad.
’ He added : ‘ He can not help who he is .
He is who he is .
He believes we ’ re suckers .
He believes he can say anything and make it work .
He believes he can do anything and no one will stop [ him ] .
’ Why are prominent Democrats sounding the alarm now ?
It ’ s because Trump is narrowing the gap in recent polls and they are becoming worried .
Throughout the summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sleepy Joe can just stay in his basement studio and do interviews with random podcasts and local media in swing states and he ’ ll cruise to victory in November .
That isn ’ t so likely now , especially since Trump ’ s law and order theme is resonating with Independents concerned about the civil unrest in cities across the country .
Trump received a bounce from the GOP convention while Joe Biden didn ’ t after the Democrat convention .
Americans are looking for hope and a positive message , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden campaign .
Biden has an enthusiasm problem with voters .
Bringing in Hillary , a truly unlikeable person isn ’ t the smartest thing for Team Biden to do with the help of their comrades in the media .

Bill and Hillary Clinton sat down for an Instagram Live interview with American Urban Radio’s April Ryan this week. The first 4 minutes and 25 seconds of the 44 minute and 21 seconds interview was spent trying to get a connection with the Clintons. Ryan was particularly excited to speak with Hillary. She even had her uncle, former congressman Ed Towns, sitting with her so he could say hello to Hillary.
Bill Clinton was asked by Ryan (also a CNN political analyst) to envision January 2021. Ryan egged on the former president who was lamely joking that Trump “will be ‘stacking sandbags’ after November’s election to fight off attempts to make him concede defeat”, which April found hilarious. She said, “Trump’s ‘orange knuckles’ won’t let go of his Oval Office desk.” He also predicts that if Trump loses the election, he won’t attend Biden’s inauguration.
While the Democrats and Never Trumpers criticize President Trump for his way of speaking and less-than-traditional way of conducting himself as president, it should be noted that Bill Clinton is a former president. Up until Trump became president, it was unheard of that a former president dissed a successor during an interview. If you remember, for example, George W. Bush didn’t say a peep against Obama’s time in office. Yet, now both Obama and Clinton feel free to trash the bad Orange Man. It is especially notable for Clinton, though, because until he ran against (and won) Hillary Clinton, the Trumps and Clintons were friends and socialized together.
So, while Bill and April are having a good laugh at Trump’s expense, saying he’ll barricade himself in the Oval Office rather than accept defeat if he loses, Hillary repeated a rather shocking piece of advice she offered to Joe Biden recently – Biden should not concede the election to Trump if he (Biden) loses. That’s right, it was bat poop crazy enough when Hillary first told Jen Palmieri, a longtime insider in Democrat politics and former White House Communications Director during the Obama administration, that Biden must not concede the election, but now she is repeating that advice as though it is a normal thing to say.
A little background for those who don’t watch Showtime’s The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth (and why would you?). Palmieri was added to the show last season and she was interviewing Hillary via Skype for the show. They were talking about the upcoming election and that is when Hillary dropped that nugget of advice to Biden. It was also disgusting to see Palmieri raise her arms and clench her fists in agreement with Hillary. Sadly, this kind of thing is what makes The Circus unwatchable for Republican voters. I say it’s sad because I love behind-the-scenes kinds of shows, especially about politics. The show was created by Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist, and Bushie. The others on the show are John Heilemann (a Bernie bro) and Alex Wagner, a CBS correspondent. It’s been on for several seasons and now it offers nothing but hostility and snarky criticism for conservatives.
During Tuesday’s Instagram Live chat with April Ryan, Hillary repeated her advice. Trump is going to “sneak and cheat”, you know. She also repeated the Democrats’ favorite conspiracy theory as we head into the November election – Trump is sabotaging the election with the help of the USPS.
‘Do not concede under any circumstance because I believe the other side is going to cheat and sneak and try everything they possibly can,’ she said. She urged people once again to be sure to register to vote, and to mail in their votes with plenty of time. She said the Trump administration was intentionally sabotaging the postal service to limit mail-in voting, as they believe that a large turnout does not help their cause. The former Secretary of State told viewers that the November 3 vote was of vital importance to the nation. ‘He is a clear and present danger to our freedoms, our liberties, our unity, and we’ve got to defeat him,’ she said. ‘There is no alternative.’
That’s right – a former Secretary of State is calling the sitting president a “clear and present danger to our freedoms”. This kind of discussion during an interview is why Democrats and Never Trumpers criticisms of Trump’s deportment in office fall on deaf ears. They are no better in their behavior. Democrats always criticize Republicans for behavior they are guilty of doing. They project their bad behavior onto others.
Not to be outdone, Bill Clinton chimed in with his own thoughts of the bad Orange Man. Ironically he accuses Trump of “manipulating the psyche of people.” Clinton was a master manipulator back in his days in the White House. We remember.
‘It’s very important to keep in mind that beneath all these big questions you are asking are just Donald Trump’s proven ability to manipulate the psyche of the people that he is trying to scare the hell out of,’ said Clinton. ‘Now, this is a person who says, ‘OK, I can’t win on my own, but people will believe whatever I tell them as long as it’s bad.’ He added: ‘He cannot help who he is. He is who he is. He believes we’re suckers. He believes he can say anything and make it work. He believes he can do anything and no one will stop [him].’
Why are prominent Democrats sounding the alarm now? It’s because Trump is narrowing the gap in recent polls and they are becoming worried. Throughout the summer, Democrats have been quite confident that Sleepy Joe can just stay in his basement studio and do interviews with random podcasts and local media in swing states and he’ll cruise to victory in November. That isn’t so likely now, especially since Trump’s law and order theme is resonating with Independents concerned about the civil unrest in cities across the country. Trump received a bounce from the GOP convention while Joe Biden didn’t after the Democrat convention.
Americans are looking for hope and a positive message, not the malarkey of doom and gloom from the Biden campaign. Biden has an enthusiasm problem with voters. Bringing in Hillary, a truly unlikeable person isn’t the smartest thing for Team Biden to do with the help of their comrades in the media.


hotair--2020-09-03--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Christian persecution, policing issues, church reopening, med

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Christian persecution, policing issues, church reopening, media bias, Hollywood's sexualization, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® @ @ @ @ @ The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online @ @ @ @ @ app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Eric Patterson on religious persecution hotspots @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Donnell , former NYPD detective and ED of Brothers Before Others , on @ @ @ @ @ learned about policing • Christian Toto on the lessons from Netflix ’ s Cuties and @ @ @ @ @ is sexualization of children becoming not just the norm but the agenda ?
• And @ @ @ @ @ tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will @ @ @ @ @ Mercy in the second hour .
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
@ @ @ @ @ the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download @ @ @ @ @ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
Eric Patterson on religious persecution hotspots around the world
Rob O’Donnell, former NYPD detective and ED of Brothers Before Others, on Operation Legend and the lessons learned about policing
Maggie Gallagher on San Francisco’s overbearing COVID regs
Andrew Malcolm on media and politics
Christian Toto on the lessons from Netflix’s Cuties and HBO’s Unpregnant — is sexualization of children becoming not just the norm but the agenda?
And more to come … stay tuned!
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-09-03--Washington Post: A law professor war gamed the election and concluded street violence is likely

Today the Washington Post published a piece headlined , “ What ’ s the worst that could happen ?
” A law professor at Georgetown University named Rosa Brooks decided to game out what the worst possible outcomes for the 2020 election might be and her conclusion is that we should probably expect street violence and a constitutional crisis .
But as you ’ ll see in a moment , the methodology behind this determination is a bit suspect .
We explored the four scenarios experts consider most likely : a narrow Biden win ; a big Biden win , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electoral college and the popular vote ; a Trump win with an electoral college lead but a large popular-vote loss , as in 2016 ; and finally , a period of extended uncertainty as we saw in the 2000 election .
With the exception of the “ big Biden win ” scenario , each of our exercises reached the brink of catastrophe , with massive disinformation campaigns , violence in the streets and a constitutional impasse .
In two scenarios ( “ Trump win ” and “ extended uncertainty ” ) there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Inauguration Day , and no consensus on which candidate should be assumed to have the ability to issue binding commands to the military or receive the nuclear codes .
In the “ narrow Biden win ” scenario , Trump refused to leave office and was ultimately escorted out by the Secret Service — but only after pardoning himself and his family and burning incriminating documents .
By this point you ’ re probably wondering how they came up with the specifics of these various scenarios .
Is this a computer simulation ?
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of a role-playing game with people chosen to represent the choices made by the two campaigns .
Obviously then , the validity of this game is going to come down to how accurately those individuals act out what their real-world counterparts might actually do .
But fear not , this war game scenario reached out to real experts : For obvious reasons , we couldn ’ t ask Trump or Biden — or their campaign aides — to play themselves in these exercises , so we did the next best thing : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the GOP side , our “ players ” included former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele , conservative commentator Bill Kristol and former Kentucky secretary of state Trey Grayson .
On the Democratic side , participants included John Podesta , chair of Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign and a top White House adviser to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ; Donna Brazile , the campaign chair for Al Gore ’ s 2000 presidential run ; and Jennifer Granholm , former governor of Michigan .
Other participants included political strategists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media experts , and former career officials from the intelligence community , the Justice Department , the military and the Department of Homeland Security .
I wasn ’ t familiar with Trey Greyson ( you can check out his bio here ) but I ’ m obviously familiar with Michael Steele and Bill Kristol .
These were the people picked to represent the Trump administration .
Steele recently wrote , “ Instead of fighting for that future , Republicans gave credence to a man who traffics in conspiracies , fear , racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he can rewrite the Constitution in his own image.
” Not a fan I think it ’ s fair to say .
Perhaps you ’ ve heard the phrase garbage in , garbage out ?
Having the “ all Republicans must go ” guy play the role of team Trump is like asking AOC to represent Joe Biden in a simulation of the Democratic primary .
The outcome is surely going to be heavily biased by the contempt the players hold for their team .
And so , sure enough , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I ’ m genuinely surprised they didn ’ t claim Trump tried to launch a nuke at Biden ’ s house .
Maybe they did and someone pulled them back .
In any case , this next bit is especially galling since it relies totally on an inversion of present reality : The far left has been holding “ mostly peaceful protests ” for three months .
Democrats are clearly worried about that and so have been blaming Trump for inciting that violence even though all of the people actually engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Kristol does .
The bit about sending in the Guard to “ restore order ” is a leftover from the progressive/media consensus about Trump sending federal police into Portland .
These folks might want to update their talking points because the feds agreed to leave Portland more than a month ago .
And contrary to predictions in the media , having them leave did not improve the situation .
Since then the number of riots in Portland has more than doubled .
The mayor just announced he was moving for the safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire on the ground floor of his high-rise .
Eventually the article does point out that in the one scenario where Trump wins , Democrats don ’ t behave any better : Look , people are free to hold whatever views they want of President Trump .
I ’ m not begrudging people their partisan biases because we all have those .
But asking people who openly despise Trump to predict his future behavior is obviously asking for that bias to taint the results in a way that renders the entire game pointless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some kind of game like this with people who actually represent the two sides as they exist and not the two sides as they exist on MSNBC but this clearly isn ’ t that scenario .

Today the Washington Post published a piece headlined, “What’s the worst that could happen?” A law professor at Georgetown University named Rosa Brooks decided to game out what the worst possible outcomes for the 2020 election might be and her conclusion is that we should probably expect street violence and a constitutional crisis. But as you’ll see in a moment, the methodology behind this determination is a bit suspect.
We explored the four scenarios experts consider most likely: a narrow Biden win; a big Biden win, with a decisive lead in both the electoral college and the popular vote; a Trump win with an electoral college lead but a large popular-vote loss, as in 2016; and finally, a period of extended uncertainty as we saw in the 2000 election. With the exception of the “big Biden win” scenario, each of our exercises reached the brink of catastrophe, with massive disinformation campaigns, violence in the streets and a constitutional impasse. In two scenarios (“Trump win” and “extended uncertainty”) there was still no agreement on the winner by Inauguration Day, and no consensus on which candidate should be assumed to have the ability to issue binding commands to the military or receive the nuclear codes. In the “narrow Biden win” scenario, Trump refused to leave office and was ultimately escorted out by the Secret Service — but only after pardoning himself and his family and burning incriminating documents.
By this point you’re probably wondering how they came up with the specifics of these various scenarios. Is this a computer simulation? No, in fact, it’s more of a role-playing game with people chosen to represent the choices made by the two campaigns. Obviously then, the validity of this game is going to come down to how accurately those individuals act out what their real-world counterparts might actually do. But fear not, this war game scenario reached out to real experts:
For obvious reasons, we couldn’t ask Trump or Biden — or their campaign aides — to play themselves in these exercises, so we did the next best thing: We recruited participants with similar backgrounds. On the GOP side, our “players” included former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, conservative commentator Bill Kristol and former Kentucky secretary of state Trey Grayson. On the Democratic side, participants included John Podesta, chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and a top White House adviser to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama; Donna Brazile, the campaign chair for Al Gore’s 2000 presidential run; and Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan. Other participants included political strategists, journalists, polling experts, tech and social media experts, and former career officials from the intelligence community, the Justice Department, the military and the Department of Homeland Security.
I wasn’t familiar with Trey Greyson (you can check out his bio here) but I’m obviously familiar with Michael Steele and Bill Kristol. These were the people picked to represent the Trump administration. Steele recently wrote, “Instead of fighting for that future, Republicans gave credence to a man who traffics in conspiracies, fear, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and believes that he can rewrite the Constitution in his own image.” Not a fan I think it’s fair to say.
As for Bill Kristol…
“House and Senate Republicans are not helpless bystanders in the Trump travesty. They protected him from criticism, enabled his antics and amplified his most egregious lies…It really is not possible to give the rest of the party a clean bill of health.” https://t.co/UfvJKrkATI — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) September 3, 2020
Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase garbage in, garbage out? Having the “all Republicans must go” guy play the role of team Trump is like asking AOC to represent Joe Biden in a simulation of the Democratic primary. The outcome is surely going to be heavily biased by the contempt the players hold for their team. And so, sure enough, the outcome of the game was a disaster:
In each scenario, Team Trump — the players assigned to simulate the Trump campaign and its elected and appointed allies — was ruthless and unconstrained right out of the gate, and Team Biden struggled to get out of reaction mode. In one exercise, for instance, Team Trump’s repeated allegations of fraudulent mail-in ballots led National Guard troop to destroy thousands of ballots in Democratic-leaning ZIP codes, to applause on social media from Trump supporters. Over and over, Team Biden urged calm, national unity and a fair vote count, while Team Trump issued barely disguised calls for violence and intimidation against ballot-counting officials and Biden electors.
I’m genuinely surprised they didn’t claim Trump tried to launch a nuke at Biden’s house. Maybe they did and someone pulled them back. In any case, this next bit is especially galling since it relies totally on an inversion of present reality:
In every exercise, both teams sought to mobilize their supporters to take to the streets. Team Biden repeatedly called for peaceful protests, while Team Trump encouraged provocateurs to incite violence, then used the resulting chaos to justify sending federalized Guard units or active-duty military personnel into American cities to “restore order,” leading to still more violence.
The far left has been holding “mostly peaceful protests” for three months. Democrats are clearly worried about that and so have been blaming Trump for inciting that violence even though all of the people actually engaged in the chaos despise Trump as much as Bill Kristol does. The bit about sending in the Guard to “restore order” is a leftover from the progressive/media consensus about Trump sending federal police into Portland. These folks might want to update their talking points because the feds agreed to leave Portland more than a month ago. And contrary to predictions in the media, having them leave did not improve the situation. Since then the number of riots in Portland has more than doubled. The mayor just announced he was moving for the safety of his neighbors after rioters set a fire on the ground floor of his high-rise.
Eventually the article does point out that in the one scenario where Trump wins, Democrats don’t behave any better:
In the “Trump win” scenario, desperate Democrats — stunned by yet another election won by the candidate with fewer votes after credible claims of foreign interference and voter suppression — also sought to send rival slates of electors to Congress. They even floated the idea of encouraging secessionist movements in California and the Pacific Northwest unless GOP congressional leaders agreed to a series of reforms, including the division of California into five smaller states to ensure better Senate representation of its vast population, and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.
Look, people are free to hold whatever views they want of President Trump. I’m not begrudging people their partisan biases because we all have those. But asking people who openly despise Trump to predict his future behavior is obviously asking for that bias to taint the results in a way that renders the entire game pointless.
It might be interesting to run some kind of game like this with people who actually represent the two sides as they exist and not the two sides as they exist on MSNBC but this clearly isn’t that scenario.


hotair--2020-09-03--More Barr: Mass mail-in voting is "playing with fire"

Unlike the weird Q & A highlighted earlier , it ’ s pretty clear what Wolf Blitzer wanted to accomplish in this exchange with Attorney General William Barr .
To be “ fair and balanced , ” Donald Trump prompted this discussion with a rather dumb suggestion to commit voter fraud by voting twice where mass mail-in voting will take place .
This CBS News report picks up part of the Blitzer-Barr conversation as well , but notes — accurately — that anyone following the president ’ s advice could well end up committing a felony : Blitzer starts off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and gets the best of that exchange by forcing Barr to defend the idea that voting twice might be legal in some states .
( Not without invalidating the mail-in ballot first , and not all states allow for that either . )
It ’ s a dumb hill on which to die ; Barr would have been better advised to try the “ take him seriously , not literally ” defense that usually gets trotted out in these situations .
When it comes to the issue of mass mail-in voting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Barr .
Blitzer wants Barr to state that fraud isn ’ t a problem in mass mail-in voting , but Barr offers a very substantive rebuttal — including the results of a study co-authored by Jimmy Carter in 2009 warning of the potential for fraud with such systems .
Barr gets heated when Blitzer keeps insisting that there ’ s no evidence of fraud even while Barr points out that they ’ ve prosecuted people over fraud in such systems , which also tends to cut against the later “ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That claim gets thinner the more that Blitzer keeps repeating his “ no evidence ” mantra while Barr keeps providing it : BLITZER : You know , he said , if you expand mail-in voting , this is the President — BARR : This is , you know — BARR : Well , this is a , you know , sort of cheap talk to get around the fundamental problem , which is a bipartisan commission chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker said back in 2009 that a mail-in voting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud and coercion .
BLITZER : But since then — BARR : And since this — since that time , there been in the newspapers , in networks , academic studies saying it is open to fraud and coercion .
The only time the narrative changed is after this administration came in , but elections that have been held with mail have found substantial fraud and coercion .
For example , we indicted someone in Texas , 1,700 ballots collected from people who could vote he made them out and voted for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BARR : That kind of thing happens with mail-in ballot .
And everyone knows that .
BLITZER : But there were individual cases , but as far as widespread fraud , we haven ’ t seen that since — BARR : Well , we haven ’ t had the kind of widespread use of mail-in ballots as being proposed .
We ’ ve had absentee ballots from people who request them from a specific address .
Now , what we ’ re talking about is mailing them to everyone on the voter list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inaccurate .
People who should get them don ’ t get them , which is what has been one of the major complaints in states that have tried this in municipal elections .
And people who get them are not the right people .
They ’ re people who have replaced the previous occupant , and they can make them out and sometimes multiple ballots come to the same address , with a whole generate — several generations of occupants .
You think that ’ s a way to run a vote ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m saying is that so far , we haven ’ t seen widespread fraud .
BARR : So far we haven ’ t tried it .
BLITZER : There ’ s been a lot of us — there are several states that only have mail-in voting including a Republican — BARR ; Wolf , this is dealing with fire .
This is playing with fire .
We ’ re very closely divided country here .
And if people have to have confidence in the results of the election and the legitimacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change the rules to this methodology , which as a matter of logic is very open to fraud and coercion is reckless and dangerous , and the people are playing with fire .
BLITZER : I will point out there are five states that only have mail-in voting including Utah and Colorado and Washington State , Oregon , Hawaii , and they ’ ve reported over the years they ’ ve had virtually no problems .
But who ’ s trying to change the rules right now ?
BARR : I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass mailing ballots .
The main difference between those five states and the other 45 is that those five states have already put those systems in place years ago .
The same vulnerabilities to fraud and coercion exist , but at least those states have the infrastructure already in place to handle the process .
What happens when states adopt them ad hoc just before an election ?
New York tried that with its primary ( as did California ) , and the failure rates on ballots skyrocketed , disenfranchising tens of thousands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the primaries .
Later on the same topic , Barr points out that such systems would be much more vulnerable to foreign interference and sabotage , which used to be a big issue for the same people pushing for mass mailing ballots : BLITZER : All right , let ’ s move on and talk a little bit about another suggestion .
You ’ ve said you were worried that a foreign country could send thousands of fake ballots , thousands of fake ballots to people that it might be impossible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on ?
BARR : I ’ m basing — as I ’ ve said repeatedly , I ’ m basing that on logic .
BLITZER : But have you seen any evidence that a foreign country is trying to interfere in that way ?
BARR : No , I ’ m saying people are concern about foreign influence .
And if we use a ballot system with the system that some , you know , that states are just now and trying to adopt , it does leave open the possibility of counterfeiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or someone overseas .
BLITZER : So you think a foreign country could do that ?
BARR : I think anyone could do it .
BLITZER : Have you seen any evidence that they ’ re trying to do that ?
BARR : No .
But most things can be counterfeited .
That ’ s why we go to the trouble of , you know , counter — of making our money the way we make it .
Now , you know , should we have Minnesota print up our money on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked the question because U.S. intelligence officials have said they ’ ve seen no information or intelligence that foreign countries whether Russia , or China — BARR : Yes , but you ask the question , but I ’ ve answered that question several times .
I said no , I don ’ t have any information because this is the first time we ’ ve tried such a thing .
It ’ s not as if the issue of foreign interference has been forgotten , either .
Democrats in Congress have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks again and are accusing the Trump administration of hiding intelligence on it .
At the same time , they ’ re pushing to use an unsecured mass-mail voting system while a few are still claiming that Russia might have tampered with ballot-counting processes in 2016 .
It ’ s insane , and yet Blitzer seems determined to push that insanity rather than listen to what Barr says in response to it .
Small wonder Barr laughed out loud when Blitzer claimed to be “ fair and balanced.
” No one else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Unlike the weird Q&A highlighted earlier, it’s pretty clear what Wolf Blitzer wanted to accomplish in this exchange with Attorney General William Barr.
To be “fair and balanced,” Donald Trump prompted this discussion with a rather dumb suggestion to commit voter fraud by voting twice where mass mail-in voting will take place. This CBS News report picks up part of the Blitzer-Barr conversation as well, but notes — accurately — that anyone following the president’s advice could well end up committing a felony:
Blitzer starts off pressing Barr on Trump’s advice, and gets the best of that exchange by forcing Barr to defend the idea that voting twice might be legal in some states. (Not without invalidating the mail-in ballot first, and not all states allow for that either.) It’s a dumb hill on which to die; Barr would have been better advised to try the “take him seriously, not literally” defense that usually gets trotted out in these situations.
When it comes to the issue of mass mail-in voting in general, however, Blitzer seems unprepared for Barr. Blitzer wants Barr to state that fraud isn’t a problem in mass mail-in voting, but Barr offers a very substantive rebuttal — including the results of a study co-authored by Jimmy Carter in 2009 warning of the potential for fraud with such systems. Barr gets heated when Blitzer keeps insisting that there’s no evidence of fraud even while Barr points out that they’ve prosecuted people over fraud in such systems, which also tends to cut against the later “We’re fair and balanced!” claim. That claim gets thinner the more that Blitzer keeps repeating his “no evidence” mantra while Barr keeps providing it:
BLITZER: You know, he said, if you expand mail-in voting, this is the President — BARR: This is, you know — BLITZER: This is reckless. BARR: Well, this is a, you know, sort of cheap talk to get around the fundamental problem, which is a bipartisan commission chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker said back in 2009 that a mail-in voting is [fraught] with the risk of fraud and coercion. BLITZER: But since then — (Crosstalk) BARR: Let me talk. BLITZER: Yes, please. BARR: And since this — since that time, there been in the newspapers, in networks, academic studies saying it is open to fraud and coercion. The only time the narrative changed is after this administration came in, but elections that have been held with mail have found substantial fraud and coercion. For example, we indicted someone in Texas, 1,700 ballots collected from people who could vote he made them out and voted for the person he wanted to. OK? BLITZER: Because — BARR: That kind of thing happens with mail-in ballot. And everyone knows that. [17:20:00] BLITZER: But there were individual cases, but as far as widespread fraud, we haven’t seen that since — BARR: Well, we haven’t had the kind of widespread use of mail-in ballots as being proposed. We’ve had absentee ballots from people who request them from a specific address. Now, what we’re talking about is mailing them to everyone on the voter list when everyone knows those voter lists are inaccurate. People who should get them don’t get them, which is what has been one of the major complaints in states that have tried this in municipal elections. And people who get them are not the right people. They’re people who have replaced the previous occupant, and they can make them out and sometimes multiple ballots come to the same address, with a whole generate — several generations of occupants. You think that’s a way to run a vote? BLITZER: Well, the only thing I’m saying is that so far, we haven’t seen widespread fraud. BARR: So far we haven’t tried it. BLITZER: Well — BARR: The point is — BLITZER: There’s been a lot of us — there are several states that only have mail-in voting including a Republican — BARR; Wolf, this is dealing with fire. This is playing with fire. We’re very closely divided country here. And if people have to have confidence in the results of the election and the legitimacy of the government. And people trying to change the rules to this methodology, which as a matter of logic is very open to fraud and coercion is reckless and dangerous, and the people are playing with fire. BLITZER: I will point out there are five states that only have mail-in voting including Utah and Colorado and Washington State, Oregon, Hawaii, and they’ve reported over the years they’ve had virtually no problems. But who’s trying to change the rules right now? BARR: I would say people who want to go to mass mailing ballots.
The main difference between those five states and the other 45 is that those five states have already put those systems in place years ago. The same vulnerabilities to fraud and coercion exist, but at least those states have the infrastructure already in place to handle the process. What happens when states adopt them ad hoc just before an election? New York tried that with its primary (as did California), and the failure rates on ballots skyrocketed, disenfranchising tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of voters — in the primaries.
Later on the same topic, Barr points out that such systems would be much more vulnerable to foreign interference and sabotage, which used to be a big issue for the same people pushing for mass mailing ballots:
BLITZER: All right, let’s move on and talk a little bit about another suggestion. You’ve said you were worried that a foreign country could send thousands of fake ballots, thousands of fake ballots to people that it might be impossible to detect. What are you basing that on? BARR: I’m basing — as I’ve said repeatedly, I’m basing that on logic. BLITZER: Pardon? BARR: Logic. BLITZER: But have you seen any evidence that a foreign country is trying to interfere in that way? BARR: No, I’m saying people are concern about foreign influence. And if we use a ballot system with the system that some, you know, that states are just now and trying to adopt, it does leave open the possibility of counterfeiting. Counterfeiting ballots either by someone here or someone overseas. BLITZER: So you think a foreign country could do that? BARR: I think anyone could do it. BLITZER: Have you seen any evidence that they’re trying to do that? BARR: No. But most things can be counterfeited. That’s why we go to the trouble of, you know, counter — of making our money the way we make it. Now, you know, should we have Minnesota print up our money on a regular parchment paper? BLITZER: I asked the question because U.S. intelligence officials have said they’ve seen no information or intelligence that foreign countries whether Russia, or China — BARR: Yes, but you ask the question, but I’ve answered that question several times. I said no, I don’t have any information because this is the first time we’ve tried such a thing.
It’s not as if the issue of foreign interference has been forgotten, either. Democrats in Congress have been fulminating over the threat for the past few weeks again and are accusing the Trump administration of hiding intelligence on it. At the same time, they’re pushing to use an unsecured mass-mail voting system while a few are still claiming that Russia might have tampered with ballot-counting processes in 2016. It’s insane, and yet Blitzer seems determined to push that insanity rather than listen to what Barr says in response to it.
Small wonder Barr laughed out loud when Blitzer claimed to be “fair and balanced.” No one else is fooled by that claim, either.


hotair--2020-09-03--Temporary victory: Texas Supreme Court stops Harris County plan for mail-in voting

Wednesday I wrote about the Attorney General of Texas , Ken Paxton , filing a lawsuit against Harris County Clerk Christopher Hollins .
His intention is to halt the county clerk ’ s plan to send a mail-in ballot application to every registered voter in Harris County .
Harris County has 2.4 million registered voters , so we ’ re not talking about a small operation here .
At the end of the post I noted that with early voting beginning in just six weeks in Texas , the Texas Supreme Court would likely rule quickly .
They did .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ A.G. Paxton came down .
The Texas Supreme Court issued a temporary halt to Hollins ’ plan .
Paxton ’ s reasoning is that mass mailing would be a blatant violation of Texas election law .
Texas has specific requirements that must be met to qualify for a mail-in ballot .
Though Democrats tried to use the excuse of fear of contracting the coronavirus for acquiring a mail-in ballot , the Texas Supreme Court has already ruled that fear of the coronavirus is not a disability .
Nonetheless , in recent days , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and announced his intention to mail applications for mail-in ballots to all registered voters in Harris County .
Hollins responded to the Texas Supreme Court ’ s temporary halt .
The plan to send out applications is still in the works .
“ What the Supreme Court did here was to simply put a stamp on something Harris County has already agreed to do , ” Hollins told ABC-13 .
“ We made it clear that we are happy to have our day in court , and that we would be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schedule while having our day in court — either this week or early next week .
The Supreme Court ’ s stay merely rubberstamps what we already agreed to do.
” In response to Paxton ’ s lawsuit , Hollins stated Monday that he was prepared to meet with the Secretary of State about Harris County ’ s plan .
“ If the Secretary of State would take the time to meet with us instead of jumping into court , they would see that the information we plan to share with voters provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote by mail , ” Hollins said in the statement .
Governor Abbott , who is not in favor of universal mail-in voting due to the likelihood of fraud and ballot harvesting , posted a tweet with his reaction to the court ’ s action .
Hollins went on to say it ’ s just all about convenience , you see , but he usually says it is because people are afraid of the coronavirus .
“ The Secretary of State and Attorney General have made it clear that they don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to voters — they think making it convenient to apply is a bad thing , ” Hollins said in a statement .
“ We disagree , and fortunately , the law is on our side.
” “ Our office ’ s top priority is to protect the right to vote and , during the time of COVID-19 , to ensure that Harris County voters can cast their ballots safely , ” Hollins said .
“ Since voting by mail is the safest way to vote , it is my duty to educate voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make it convenient for qualified voters to apply.
” Malarkey .
Why does Hollins think voting by mail is the safest way to vote ?
Actually going to the polls and electronically placing a vote , after checking in with election officials to verify your identification , is the safest way to vote .
All polling places will have precautions in place , following the state ’ s coronavirus guidelines , and voters will social distance .
Additional polling places are being opened and the early voting period has been extended so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not all at once on election day , thus eliminating some of the crowds and long wait times .
If people can go to the grocery store or Walmart , they can go and vote in person .
Democrats have been trying to convince voters that the USPS is working in cahoots with President Trump to interfere with mail-in voting .
Why would Democrats like Hollins be so determined to make mail-in voting a universal practice ?
It ’ s a scheme meant to disrupt the election process and makes the process ripe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big increase of mail-in ballots if that happens , but local election officials are not equipped to efficiently handle it in a timely manner .
Harris County has never had to handle a large percentage of ballots coming by mail .
Some well-known Democrat names are weighing in with their support of Hollins and his plans to fundamentally change voting in America ’ s third-largest county .
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo , a far-left Democrat who is the county ’ s top executive , is pushing for Hollins ’ plan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not providing an opportunity for the vulnerable to vote .
C ’ mon man .
The requirements for a mail-in ballot specifically address the elderly , the disabled , those who are ill , and even those voters who are in jail but eligible to vote .
She knows that and yet she builds an army of strawmen to try and make her argument .
Also jumping into the discussion is Charles Butt , Chairman of H.E.B .
who wrote a letter to the Texas Supreme Court to make his support known .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributes to progressive causes .
One concession Hollins has made , after Paxton ’ s lawsuit was filed , was to say he ’ ll just send mail-in applications to eligible voters over the age of 65 , pending litigation .
Apparently that part of his plan is what he is referring to when he says his plan is still in the works .
Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins announced last month that the county would send applications to its more than 2.4 million registered voters , an effort to make it easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic .
After being sued by Paxton , Hollins said he would only send applications to voters 65 and older , who are eligible to vote by mail under state law , pending the litigation .
A spokesperson said Wednesday that those plans haven ’ t changed .
In June , ahead of the July primary runoff , Hollins ’ office sent out roughly 380,000 mail-in ballot applications to voters over 65 , a spokesperson said .
This time , it will send around 295,000 .
And on the battle goes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation brings and how many ballot applications Mr. Hollins gets to mail out to registered voters .

Wednesday I wrote about the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, filing a lawsuit against Harris County Clerk Christopher Hollins. His intention is to halt the county clerk’s plan to send a mail-in ballot application to every registered voter in Harris County. Harris County has 2.4 million registered voters, so we’re not talking about a small operation here. At the end of the post I noted that with early voting beginning in just six weeks in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court would likely rule quickly. They did. Later Wednesday the ruling in favor of A.G. Paxton came down.
The Texas Supreme Court issued a temporary halt to Hollins’ plan. Paxton’s reasoning is that mass mailing would be a blatant violation of Texas election law. Texas has specific requirements that must be met to qualify for a mail-in ballot. Though Democrats tried to use the excuse of fear of contracting the coronavirus for acquiring a mail-in ballot, the Texas Supreme Court has already ruled that fear of the coronavirus is not a disability. Nonetheless, in recent days, Harris County Clerk Hollins has doubled down and announced his intention to mail applications for mail-in ballots to all registered voters in Harris County.
Hollins responded to the Texas Supreme Court’s temporary halt. The plan to send out applications is still in the works.
“What the Supreme Court did here was to simply put a stamp on something Harris County has already agreed to do,” Hollins told ABC-13. “We made it clear that we are happy to have our day in court, and that we would be able to send out these applications on our chosen schedule while having our day in court — either this week or early next week. The Supreme Court’s stay merely rubberstamps what we already agreed to do.” In response to Paxton’s lawsuit, Hollins stated Monday that he was prepared to meet with the Secretary of State about Harris County’s plan. “If the Secretary of State would take the time to meet with us instead of jumping into court, they would see that the information we plan to share with voters provides clarity about voters’ rights and eligibility to vote by mail,” Hollins said in the statement.
Governor Abbott, who is not in favor of universal mail-in voting due to the likelihood of fraud and ballot harvesting, posted a tweet with his reaction to the court’s action.
Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocks Harris County from sending mail-in ballot applications to all its voters. What the Democrats are trying is simply against the law. It could lead to election fraud and must be stopped. https://t.co/ETkOuvVIW3 via @TexasTribune — Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) September 2, 2020
Hollins went on to say it’s just all about convenience, you see, but he usually says it is because people are afraid of the coronavirus.
“The Secretary of State and Attorney General have made it clear that they don’t want us to proactively send applications to voters — they think making it convenient to apply is a bad thing,” Hollins said in a statement. “We disagree, and fortunately, the law is on our side.” “Our office’s top priority is to protect the right to vote and, during the time of COVID-19, to ensure that Harris County voters can cast their ballots safely,” Hollins said. “Since voting by mail is the safest way to vote, it is my duty to educate voters on who qualifies to vote by mail and make it convenient for qualified voters to apply.”
Malarkey. Why does Hollins think voting by mail is the safest way to vote? Actually going to the polls and electronically placing a vote, after checking in with election officials to verify your identification, is the safest way to vote. All polling places will have precautions in place, following the state’s coronavirus guidelines, and voters will social distance. Additional polling places are being opened and the early voting period has been extended so people can vote at their convenience and not all at once on election day, thus eliminating some of the crowds and long wait times. If people can go to the grocery store or Walmart, they can go and vote in person.
Democrats have been trying to convince voters that the USPS is working in cahoots with President Trump to interfere with mail-in voting. Why would Democrats like Hollins be so determined to make mail-in voting a universal practice? It’s a scheme meant to disrupt the election process and makes the process ripe for fraud. The USPS can handle a big increase of mail-in ballots if that happens, but local election officials are not equipped to efficiently handle it in a timely manner. Harris County has never had to handle a large percentage of ballots coming by mail.
Some well-known Democrat names are weighing in with their support of Hollins and his plans to fundamentally change voting in America’s third-largest county. Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, a far-left Democrat who is the county’s top executive, is pushing for Hollins’ plan. She accuses opponents of voter suppression and not providing an opportunity for the vulnerable to vote. C’mon man. The requirements for a mail-in ballot specifically address the elderly, the disabled, those who are ill, and even those voters who are in jail but eligible to vote. She knows that and yet she builds an army of strawmen to try and make her argument.
Ensuring vulnerable populations can vote by mail during a pandemic is designed to protect human life & access to the vote. Those who stand in the way—using voter suppression as an electoral strategy—are throwing a wrench in democracy. We’ll keep fighting.https://t.co/fZRoTWv0SB — Lina Hidalgo (@LinaHidalgoTX) September 2, 2020
Also jumping into the discussion is Charles Butt, Chairman of H.E.B. who wrote a letter to the Texas Supreme Court to make his support known. He’s a Democrat and often contributes to progressive causes.
One concession Hollins has made, after Paxton’s lawsuit was filed, was to say he’ll just send mail-in applications to eligible voters over the age of 65, pending litigation. Apparently that part of his plan is what he is referring to when he says his plan is still in the works.
Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins announced last month that the county would send applications to its more than 2.4 million registered voters, an effort to make it easier to participate in the election during the coronavirus pandemic. After being sued by Paxton, Hollins said he would only send applications to voters 65 and older, who are eligible to vote by mail under state law, pending the litigation. A spokesperson said Wednesday that those plans haven’t changed. In June, ahead of the July primary runoff, Hollins’ office sent out roughly 380,000 mail-in ballot applications to voters over 65, a spokesperson said. This time, it will send around 295,000.
And on the battle goes. Now we wait and see what the litigation brings and how many ballot applications Mr. Hollins gets to mail out to registered voters.


hotair--2020-09-03--St. Louis Mayor is the next to bug out after protesters strike

Brave Sir Robin ran away .
Bravely ran away away .
When danger reared it ’ s ugly head , He bravely turned his tail and fled .
Yes , brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out .
We ’ re starting to see something of a pattern developing among the Democratic mayors in large American cities where protests and riots have gripped the streets .
It generally plays out the same way .
The mayors are very supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement and say or do whatever they can to appease them .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before you know it , the protesters wind up camping out on the mayor ’ s doorstep , not at City Hall , but at their personal home .
So what do they do then ?
They either call in the goon squads to keep the riff-raff away ( as was done by the Mayor of Chicago ) or they pack up and move ( as happened most recently in Portland ) .
The next to undertake the latter maneuver is the Mayor of St. Louis .
Lyda Krewson found out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no interest in making friends .
They have a list of demands to be met and if they don ’ t get everything they want at once , they ’ ll be coming along to remind you of your privilege and make sure if there is no justice ( defined as giving them everything they want immediately without negotiations ) there will be no peace ( defined as you and your family being able to sleep at night and safely enter or exit your home ) .
So for the past couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have quietly been holed up in a temporary residence elsewhere .
( St. Louis Today ) Mayor Lyda Krewson has temporarily relocated after a string of protests at her Central West End home .
The mayor on Wednesday confirmed that she and her husband , former television reporter Mike Owens , have been living at an apartment , also in the Central West End .
“ We have not lived at home for 2 months , ” Krewson said in a text message to a reporter .
“ We did it to deescalate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and importantly because our neighbors were being disturbed and threatened.
” The mayor said “ for me it comes with the territory.
” “ I ran for this job — my neighbors did not , ” Krewson said .
Apparently the Mayor neglected to tell the protesters about her change of address plans , as they continued to show up and disrupt her neighbors even after she had fled the scene .
This apparently happened as recently as a few weeks ago .
It ’ s worth noting that the home abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gated community where Mark and Patricia McCloskey live .
( That ’ s the couple filmed pointing guns at the mob who later went on to speak at the RNC . )
Mayor Krewson is assuring everyone that their second apartment is being paid for out of their own pockets , without any city money or campaign funds being used .
That ’ s a relief I suppose , but shouldn ’ t that go without saying ?
Do the taxpayers pay for your primary home ?
I would certainly hope not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighbors from being harassed by the mob is an interesting one .
It implies , much the same as we saw in Chicago , that the mayor and her family are somehow exempt from the effects of the riots and it ’ s unreasonable to expect them to be personally accosted .
The same seems to apply to anyone lucky enough to live on the same block as the mayor .
But what about everyone else in the city ?
What about the business owners and the apartment dwellers who live downtown ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exemptions or extra police protection .
They ’ re left to bar their doors and pray that the building isn ’ t set ablaze .
Bravely running away may be good for these elected officials in terms of their personal security , but it ’ s hardly leadership by example .
If the actions of the mob are unacceptable in front of your home , they should be unacceptable throughout the entire city you were elected to keep safe and secure .
But that ’ s not happening , is it ?
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the media mavens covering these events may be in order .

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
We’re starting to see something of a pattern developing among the Democratic mayors in large American cities where protests and riots have gripped the streets. It generally plays out the same way. The mayors are very supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement and say or do whatever they can to appease them. But it never seems to be enough and, before you know it, the protesters wind up camping out on the mayor’s doorstep, not at City Hall, but at their personal home. So what do they do then? They either call in the goon squads to keep the riff-raff away (as was done by the Mayor of Chicago) or they pack up and move (as happened most recently in Portland).
The next to undertake the latter maneuver is the Mayor of St. Louis. Lyda Krewson found out the hard way that the BLM activists have no interest in making friends. They have a list of demands to be met and if they don’t get everything they want at once, they’ll be coming along to remind you of your privilege and make sure if there is no justice (defined as giving them everything they want immediately without negotiations) there will be no peace (defined as you and your family being able to sleep at night and safely enter or exit your home). So for the past couple of months, Her Honor and her husband have quietly been holed up in a temporary residence elsewhere. (St. Louis Today)
Mayor Lyda Krewson has temporarily relocated after a string of protests at her Central West End home. The mayor on Wednesday confirmed that she and her husband, former television reporter Mike Owens, have been living at an apartment, also in the Central West End. “We have not lived at home for 2 months,” Krewson said in a text message to a reporter. “We did it to deescalate the situation, to save police resources, and importantly because our neighbors were being disturbed and threatened.” The mayor said “for me it comes with the territory.” “I ran for this job — my neighbors did not,” Krewson said.
Apparently the Mayor neglected to tell the protesters about her change of address plans, as they continued to show up and disrupt her neighbors even after she had fled the scene. This apparently happened as recently as a few weeks ago.
It’s worth noting that the home abandoned by the Krewsons is in the same gated community where Mark and Patricia McCloskey live. (That’s the couple filmed pointing guns at the mob who later went on to speak at the RNC.) Mayor Krewson is assuring everyone that their second apartment is being paid for out of their own pockets, without any city money or campaign funds being used. That’s a relief I suppose, but shouldn’t that go without saying? Do the taxpayers pay for your primary home? I would certainly hope not.
This idea of leaving to prevent your neighbors from being harassed by the mob is an interesting one. It implies, much the same as we saw in Chicago, that the mayor and her family are somehow exempt from the effects of the riots and it’s unreasonable to expect them to be personally accosted. The same seems to apply to anyone lucky enough to live on the same block as the mayor. But what about everyone else in the city? What about the business owners and the apartment dwellers who live downtown? They aren’t granted any special exemptions or extra police protection. They’re left to bar their doors and pray that the building isn’t set ablaze.
Bravely running away may be good for these elected officials in terms of their personal security, but it’s hardly leadership by example. If the actions of the mob are unacceptable in front of your home, they should be unacceptable throughout the entire city you were elected to keep safe and secure. But that’s not happening, is it? Perhaps a bit more introspection on the part of the media mavens covering these events may be in order.


hotair--2020-09-03--Pelosi salon owner now receiving death threats

It was tempting to begin this article by asking if we may have possibly entered the dumbest news cycle of 2020 , but that ship probably sailed months ago .
Still , this inane story doesn ’ t show any signs of going away , so let ’ s just solider on as best we can .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is , at this point , in violation of the First Rule of Holes .
When you find yourself in one… stop digging .
But San Fran Nan apparently can ’ t help herself .
I am of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beauty salon to get her hair done sans mask where she was captured on security camera footage .
Since this was a violation of the rules under California ’ s COVID-19 restrictions , this created a bit of an image problem , leading to Marie Antoinette references .
Pelosi struck back , insisting that the entire thing had been some sort of Machiavellian set up , designed to hurt her politically .
She further demanded an apology from the Salon owner .
Well , the salon owner isn ’ t budging .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she and her family are receiving death threats for making waves in Pelosi ’ s pool by allowing her to violate the rules .
( Fox News ) The owner of a San Francisco hair salon visited by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier this week denied what she called the Democrat ’ s “ absolutely false ” accusation that she had been the victim of a “ set up ” .
ESalonSF owner Erica Kious told “ Tucker Carlson Tonight ” Wednesday that Pelosi was serviced by an independent stylist who rents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she decided to share the now-viral security camera footage when she found the Speaker indoors without a mask in what she called a “ hurtful ” display of hypocrisy… “ Since this has happened , I have received nothing but hate text messages , death threats , [ saying that ] they ’ re going to burn my hair salon down , ” she said .
” My Yelp page is just unbelievable with bad reviews .
So who would be sending death threats to Ms. Kious and threatening to burn down her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that somebody at the Washington Post is already working on a way to blame this on Trump Supporters , Patriots Prayer or someone similar , but I ’ m honestly at a loss as to how they ’ re going to pull that off .
Far worse is the reaction in the community , particularly among business owners and their employees .
With so many people either facing reduced hours or still out of work entirely , seeing Pelosi playing the victim in this fashion was bad enough .
But hearing that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Salon owner just so Nancy Pelosi can enjoy privileges not afforded to the commoners is hardly a good look , particularly during an election season .
Of course , Pelosi has nothing to fear on that score .
Her district is so blue that I ’ m fairly sure registered Republicans are listed as an endangered species .
But that doesn ’ t deflect from the fact that all she ’ s doing is feeding into an endless series of memes that will chase her around until she finally realizes she needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one that popped up in my feed this morning .
What ’ s that song from Frozen called again ?
Oh , yes .
Let It Go .
You ’ re shoveling excrament against the tide , Madam Speaker .

It was tempting to begin this article by asking if we may have possibly entered the dumbest news cycle of 2020, but that ship probably sailed months ago. Still, this inane story doesn’t show any signs of going away, so let’s just solider on as best we can.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is, at this point, in violation of the First Rule of Holes. When you find yourself in one… stop digging. But San Fran Nan apparently can’t help herself. I am of course referring to her ill-fated trip to a beauty salon to get her hair done sans mask where she was captured on security camera footage. Since this was a violation of the rules under California’s COVID-19 restrictions, this created a bit of an image problem, leading to Marie Antoinette references. Pelosi struck back, insisting that the entire thing had been some sort of Machiavellian set up, designed to hurt her politically. She further demanded an apology from the Salon owner.
Well, the salon owner isn’t budging. On top of that, she now reports that she and her family are receiving death threats for making waves in Pelosi’s pool by allowing her to violate the rules. (Fox News)
The owner of a San Francisco hair salon visited by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier this week denied what she called the Democrat’s “absolutely false” accusation that she had been the victim of a “set up”. ESalonSF owner Erica Kious told “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Wednesday that Pelosi was serviced by an independent stylist who rents chairs in her salon. Kious said she decided to share the now-viral security camera footage when she found the Speaker indoors without a mask in what she called a “hurtful” display of hypocrisy… “Since this has happened, I have received nothing but hate text messages, death threats, [saying that] they’re going to burn my hair salon down,” she said. ” My Yelp page is just unbelievable with bad reviews.
So who would be sending death threats to Ms. Kious and threatening to burn down her business? I mean, I know that somebody at the Washington Post is already working on a way to blame this on Trump Supporters, Patriots Prayer or someone similar, but I’m honestly at a loss as to how they’re going to pull that off.
Far worse is the reaction in the community, particularly among business owners and their employees. With so many people either facing reduced hours or still out of work entirely, seeing Pelosi playing the victim in this fashion was bad enough. But hearing that some deranged liberals are threatening the life of the Salon owner just so Nancy Pelosi can enjoy privileges not afforded to the commoners is hardly a good look, particularly during an election season.
Of course, Pelosi has nothing to fear on that score. Her district is so blue that I’m fairly sure registered Republicans are listed as an endangered species. But that doesn’t deflect from the fact that all she’s doing is feeding into an endless series of memes that will chase her around until she finally realizes she needs to get off this ride. Here’s one that popped up in my feed this morning.
What’s that song from Frozen called again? Oh, yes. Let It Go. You’re shoveling excrament against the tide, Madam Speaker.


hotair--2020-09-03--CNN's Blitzer: We're fair and balanced! Barr: Sure, Jan

For the life of me , I can ’ t understand what Wolf Blitzer thought he was doing at the end of his interview with William Barr .
Blitzer and Barr had just ended a contentious debate over mass mail-in voting ( more on that in a later post ) and Blitzer needed to wrap up the segment .
He asked Barr if he ’ d stick around in a second Donald Trump term as Attorney General , a question which Barr shrugged off as “ presumptuous , ” as Trump hadn ’ t asked him to stay , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Blitzer then asked the same question over again , which amused Barr but didn ’ t change his answer .
Barr then got even more amused when Blitzer seemed intent on getting Barr to call his boss a jerk and admitting the job was more “ fun ” when Barr worked for George H. W. Bush .
Barr responded by noting that the media acted a lot differently during that time , and … well … BLITZER : I know we ’ re almost out of time .
You got a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m grateful to you for joining us .
This is an important interview .
If the President is reelected , will — do you want to stay on as the attorney general ?
BARR : That ’ d be presumptuous for me to say anything on that I ’ m not going to .
BLITZER : But what do you think ?
BARR : I ’ m not going to discuss that .
BLITZER : Are you enjoying what you ’ re doing ?
BARR : I wouldn ’ t use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satisfying .
BLITZER : It ’ s not what you anticipated .
You enjoyed it more the first time around when you were attorney general ?
BARR : Well , political climate , and the media was a lot different .
And so — BLITZER : And you got a different president , George H.W .
Bush , you were the attorney general .
BARR : Yes .
But the media should be fair and balanced no matter who the president is doesn ’ t give the media license to lie the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BLITZER : I can speak for us , we are fair and balance .
BLITZER : I ’ m sure you would appreciate that .
BLITZER : And I ’ m sure you appreciate that presidents are different .
And President George H.W .
Bush was a very different president than President Trump .
BARR : Yes .
And faced a different set of problems .
BLITZER : Very different sets of problems .
What exactly did Blitzer think Barr would say ?
“ Yeah , Trump ’ s a jerk ” ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a tabloidy , gossipy sense , exactly how is this news ?
Blitzer spent a full minute essentially proving Barr ’ s point about the media , and didn ’ t appear to realize it — which is one reason Barr laughed during this insubstantial questioning .
Couldn ’ t Blitzer have found something more worthy to discuss in the segment ’ s final minute-plus than this ?
Perhaps Blitzer wanted to distract from having his rear end handed to him by Barr on the mail-in voting question .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post , but suffice it to say that the earlier debate didn ’ t do much for Blitzer ’ s claim of fairness , either .

For the life of me, I can’t understand what Wolf Blitzer thought he was doing at the end of his interview with William Barr. Blitzer and Barr had just ended a contentious debate over mass mail-in voting (more on that in a later post) and Blitzer needed to wrap up the segment. He asked Barr if he’d stick around in a second Donald Trump term as Attorney General, a question which Barr shrugged off as “presumptuous,” as Trump hadn’t asked him to stay, and said he wouldn’t answer that. Blitzer then asked the same question over again, which amused Barr but didn’t change his answer.
Barr then got even more amused when Blitzer seemed intent on getting Barr to call his boss a jerk and admitting the job was more “fun” when Barr worked for George H. W. Bush. Barr responded by noting that the media acted a lot differently during that time, and … well …
AG Bill Barr to CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "The media should be fair and balanced no matter who the president is. Doesn't give the media a license to lie the way a lot of the media is." Blitzer: "I can speak for us, we are fair and balanced." Barr, laughing: "Ok…" 🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/HZrmKAaFZ0 — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) September 2, 2020
BLITZER: I know we’re almost out of time. You got a lot of stuff going on. And I’m grateful to you for joining us. This is an important interview. If the President is reelected, will — do you want to stay on as the attorney general? BARR: That’d be presumptuous for me to say anything on that I’m not going to. BLITZER: But what do you think? BARR: I’m not going to discuss that. BLITZER: Are you enjoying what you’re doing? BARR: I wouldn’t use the word enjoy. But it’s satisfying. BLITZER: It’s not what you anticipated. You enjoyed it more the first time around when you were attorney general? BARR: Well, political climate, and the media was a lot different. And so — BLITZER: And you got a different president, George H.W. Bush, you were the attorney general. BARR: Yes. But the media should be fair and balanced no matter who the president is doesn’t give the media license to lie the way a lot of the media is. BLITZER: I can speak for us, we are fair and balance. BARR: OK. BLITZER: I’m sure you would appreciate that. BARR: Yes. BLITZER: And I’m sure you appreciate that presidents are different. And President George H.W. Bush was a very different president than President Trump. BARR: Yes. And faced a different set of problems. BLITZER: Very different sets of problems. BARR: Yes. BLITZER: Including the first Gulf War. BARR: Correct. BLITZER: Yes. BARR: Yes.
What exactly did Blitzer think Barr would say? “Yeah, Trump’s a jerk”? And while that might have been interesting in a tabloidy, gossipy sense, exactly how is this news? Blitzer spent a full minute essentially proving Barr’s point about the media, and didn’t appear to realize it — which is one reason Barr laughed during this insubstantial questioning. Couldn’t Blitzer have found something more worthy to discuss in the segment’s final minute-plus than this?
Perhaps Blitzer wanted to distract from having his rear end handed to him by Barr on the mail-in voting question. That’s a meaty enough topic for a separate post, but suffice it to say that the earlier debate didn’t do much for Blitzer’s claim of fairness, either.


hotair--2020-09-04--Mr. "100% Antifa" receives same treatment from feds he gave to Trump supporter

It ’ s still been less than a week since Patriot Prayer supporter Aaron “ Jay ” Danielson was shot and killed in Portland by Michael Forest Reinoehl , better known as Mr. 100 % Antifa .
I ’ m no longer using the word “ allegedly ” when describing the killing since Reinoehl , perhaps unwisely , gave an interview to Vice yesterday admitting he killed Danielson while maintaining it was a case of self-defense .
I ’ m sure a jury would have had their work cut out for them in sorting out the details .
But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an issue since a confrontation with federal agents overnight left the Antifa antagonist in the same condition as his own victim from last Saturday .
He ’ s currently at room temperature in a horizontal position after pulling a gun on the agents who had come to place him under arrest .
( NY Post ) The suspected gunman who fatally shot a right-wing protester in Portland last weekend was reportedly shot and killed by law enforcement authorities Thursday night as they attempted to arrest him .
Michael Forest Reinoehl , 48 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal agents were attempting to take him into custody for the shooting — the same night his interview on the shooting aired on Vice News , The New York Times reported .
Reinoehl in the interview insisted he acted in self-defense and “ had no choice ” when he shot Aaron “ Jay ” Danielson , 39 , after an evening of clashing protests in Portland on Aug. 29 .
Coming in from Twitter , there is a video of the officers attempting to revive Reinoehl after he was shot .
( Warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arrest turned into gunplay are still sketchy , but early reports indicate that Reinoehl pulled a handgun when the agents confronted him , leading to the predictable result when you do something like that .
Other claims coming from social media say that he had a semiautomatic rifle .
I don ’ t see any sign of the killer ’ s weapon in the video above , so it ’ s tough to say .
One report indicates that the suspect “ produced a firearm , threatening the lives of law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was only drawing or manipulating his weapon to surrender it ?
I suppose we would have to say… maybe ?
But if the threats in question were verbal or if he was pointing the barrel in the general direction of the officers , that seems unlikely .
Besides , in a tense situation like that , the arresting officers will generally offer the opportunity for the suspect to get into a manageable position and disarm him themselves .
If you just reach for your holster and pull or level a rifle at them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go badly for you .
Far more likely is the idea that Reinoehl was engaging in “ suicide by cop ” if he was pretty sure he was going to go down for a murder rap .
While some may be tempted to describe this as a case of just desserts and a killer getting what he had coming to him , this is really a disappointing result for a couple of different reasons .
First and foremost , we won ’ t get the opportunity for Reinoehl to go before a jury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penalty most likely wouldn ’ t have been on the table , particularly if his attorney could have made an even slightly plausible argument that there was an element of self-defense involved .
Another concern is the fact that without a definitive decision by a jury finding him guilty of the murder , his death at the hands of law enforcement risks having all of the Antifa maniacs out on the streets turning him into some sort of martyr for their cause .
Some coverage on CNN this morning suggested that there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media describing Reinoehl ’ s death as an “ execution by the police.
” Rather than sending a warning to the violent mobs , this may simply give them a “ hero ” to invoke as they promote further violence .
Sadly , that ’ s all water under the bridge at this point .
Everyone will go with their own preferred interpretation of this event and another violent lunatic will step up to fill Reinoehl ’ s shoes .

It’s still been less than a week since Patriot Prayer supporter Aaron “Jay” Danielson was shot and killed in Portland by Michael Forest Reinoehl, better known as Mr. 100% Antifa. I’m no longer using the word “allegedly” when describing the killing since Reinoehl, perhaps unwisely, gave an interview to Vice yesterday admitting he killed Danielson while maintaining it was a case of self-defense. I’m sure a jury would have had their work cut out for them in sorting out the details. But that’s no longer going to be an issue since a confrontation with federal agents overnight left the Antifa antagonist in the same condition as his own victim from last Saturday. He’s currently at room temperature in a horizontal position after pulling a gun on the agents who had come to place him under arrest. (NY Post)
The suspected gunman who fatally shot a right-wing protester in Portland last weekend was reportedly shot and killed by law enforcement authorities Thursday night as they attempted to arrest him. Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, died in Lacey, Washington, where federal agents were attempting to take him into custody for the shooting — the same night his interview on the shooting aired on Vice News, The New York Times reported. Reinoehl in the interview insisted he acted in self-defense and “had no choice” when he shot Aaron “Jay” Danielson, 39, after an evening of clashing protests in Portland on Aug. 29.
Coming in from Twitter, there is a video of the officers attempting to revive Reinoehl after he was shot. (Warning: Graphic images)
GRAPHIC: Lacey, Wash. resident records the immediate aftermath of the shooting of Portland antifa militant Michael Reinoehl. Video: Jashon Spencer pic.twitter.com/ZwEvERzEHa — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) September 4, 2020
Details of how the arrest turned into gunplay are still sketchy, but early reports indicate that Reinoehl pulled a handgun when the agents confronted him, leading to the predictable result when you do something like that. Other claims coming from social media say that he had a semiautomatic rifle. I don’t see any sign of the killer’s weapon in the video above, so it’s tough to say. One report indicates that the suspect “produced a firearm, threatening the lives of law enforcement officers.” Is it possible that he was only drawing or manipulating his weapon to surrender it? I suppose we would have to say… maybe? But if the threats in question were verbal or if he was pointing the barrel in the general direction of the officers, that seems unlikely.
Besides, in a tense situation like that, the arresting officers will generally offer the opportunity for the suspect to get into a manageable position and disarm him themselves. If you just reach for your holster and pull or level a rifle at them, it’s probably going to go badly for you. Far more likely is the idea that Reinoehl was engaging in “suicide by cop” if he was pretty sure he was going to go down for a murder rap.
While some may be tempted to describe this as a case of just desserts and a killer getting what he had coming to him, this is really a disappointing result for a couple of different reasons. First and foremost, we won’t get the opportunity for Reinoehl to go before a jury and await his fate. The death penalty most likely wouldn’t have been on the table, particularly if his attorney could have made an even slightly plausible argument that there was an element of self-defense involved.
Another concern is the fact that without a definitive decision by a jury finding him guilty of the murder, his death at the hands of law enforcement risks having all of the Antifa maniacs out on the streets turning him into some sort of martyr for their cause. Some coverage on CNN this morning suggested that there were already threads showing up on Antifa social media describing Reinoehl’s death as an “execution by the police.” Rather than sending a warning to the violent mobs, this may simply give them a “hero” to invoke as they promote further violence.
Sadly, that’s all water under the bridge at this point. Everyone will go with their own preferred interpretation of this event and another violent lunatic will step up to fill Reinoehl’s shoes.


hotair--2020-09-03--DoJ: Operation Legend arrests 147 murder suspects -- and 2,000 overall -- in six weeks

How did the Department of Justice make over 2,000 arrests in less than two months of Operation Legend ?
In part by returning to the kind of effective law enforcement that cities have abandoned in 2020 .
US Attorney Justin Herdman told Fox & Friends that the efforts in nine cities have found almost 150 murder suspects since the late-July effort began , which is one reason why local police departments have welcomed federal help , Herdman claimed .
The boost in resources at all levels allows officers to use broken-windows policing to find criminals who have been hiding in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Operation Legend is “ fully underway across the country ” and has led to more than 2,000 arrests since its launch in early July , said U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio Justin Herdman .
As of the end of August , he told “ Fox & Friends ” on Thursday , more than 470 people have been charged with federal crimes in major metropolitan cities , including nearly 150 people wanted for murder .
“ We are not just arresting people for low-level warrants here , ” Herdman said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent fugitives , very violent criminals and we ’ re getting them off the streets of these nine cities across the country.
” Chicago ’ s ABC affiliate noted yesterday that the feds are taking advantage of every opening to make arrests .
That includes parking violations , in which a violent criminal with a 40-year track record now faces federal prosecutors , where much steeper sentencing applies .
Nor is that the only felon in possession of firearms that has been swept up in the dragnet by using broken-windows policing : There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for each city , which might have prompted today ’ s DoJ ’ s press release on the progress for Operation Legend .
Rather than break the arrests down by city , the DoJ just notes that the program has made “ more than 2000 arrests , ” and then notes the numbers of people charged in each city with federal crimes thus far .
In Chicago , 72 people have been charged with firearms-related federal offenses in just six weeks , a remarkable effort and by far the highest in any city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the program began after the killing of four-year-old LeGend Taliferro , sixty people have been charged with firearms-related offenses , although the overall number of federal prosecutions is close to that of Chicago ’ s ( 99 and 103 , respectively ) .
While the DoJ should get a large amount of credit for their work in getting violent criminals off the street , this points out the failure of leadership in these cities to support effective policing .
For the past several months , political leadership has either ordered police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it known that they would not support that level of enforcement .
Criminals have seen this — correctly , as it turns out — as a signal of impunity .
As a result , all crime has gotten out of control , including violent crime , and police have been overwhelmed by it , as well as by the riots in some cities .
The lesson here is that appeasement is a losing strategy .
Effective law enforcement means enforcing all the laws with professional and evenhanded techniques , which sends the signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smothered .
The fact that it took the feds to find these criminals shows that the local jurisdictions have failed in their primary responsibility to protect their citizens and sustain public order .
Hopefully , those citizens will take a lesson from that the next time those local offices come up in elections .

How did the Department of Justice make over 2,000 arrests in less than two months of Operation Legend? In part by returning to the kind of effective law enforcement that cities have abandoned in 2020. US Attorney Justin Herdman told Fox & Friends that the efforts in nine cities have found almost 150 murder suspects since the late-July effort began, which is one reason why local police departments have welcomed federal help, Herdman claimed. The boost in resources at all levels allows officers to use broken-windows policing to find criminals who have been hiding in plain sight all along:
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
The anti-crime Operation Legend is “fully underway across the country” and has led to more than 2,000 arrests since its launch in early July, said U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio Justin Herdman. As of the end of August, he told “Fox & Friends” on Thursday, more than 470 people have been charged with federal crimes in major metropolitan cities, including nearly 150 people wanted for murder. “We are not just arresting people for low-level warrants here,” Herdman said. “We’re talking about very violent fugitives, very violent criminals and we’re getting them off the streets of these nine cities across the country.”
Chicago’s ABC affiliate noted yesterday that the feds are taking advantage of every opening to make arrests. That includes parking violations, in which a violent criminal with a 40-year track record now faces federal prosecutors, where much steeper sentencing applies. Nor is that the only felon in possession of firearms that has been swept up in the dragnet by using broken-windows policing:
There was some initial confusion on the numbers for each city, which might have prompted today’s DoJ’s press release on the progress for Operation Legend. Rather than break the arrests down by city, the DoJ just notes that the program has made “more than 2000 arrests,” and then notes the numbers of people charged in each city with federal crimes thus far. In Chicago, 72 people have been charged with firearms-related federal offenses in just six weeks, a remarkable effort and by far the highest in any city in Operation Legend. In Kansas City, where the program began after the killing of four-year-old LeGend Taliferro, sixty people have been charged with firearms-related offenses, although the overall number of federal prosecutions is close to that of Chicago’s (99 and 103, respectively).
While the DoJ should get a large amount of credit for their work in getting violent criminals off the street, this points out the failure of leadership in these cities to support effective policing. For the past several months, political leadership has either ordered police to stop enforcing minor offenses or made it known that they would not support that level of enforcement. Criminals have seen this — correctly, as it turns out — as a signal of impunity. As a result, all crime has gotten out of control, including violent crime, and police have been overwhelmed by it, as well as by the riots in some cities.
The lesson here is that appeasement is a losing strategy. Effective law enforcement means enforcing all the laws with professional and evenhanded techniques, which sends the signal that impunity will be quickly spotted and smothered. The fact that it took the feds to find these criminals shows that the local jurisdictions have failed in their primary responsibility to protect their citizens and sustain public order. Hopefully, those citizens will take a lesson from that the next time those local offices come up in elections.