hotair--2020-08-13--DOJ: Yale guilty of admissions discrimination against Asians and whites

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice notified Yale today that it is violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by discriminating against Asian and white Americans in undergraduate admissions .
The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process , and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year .
For the great majority of applicants , Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials .
Yale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applicants each year based on their race , whom it otherwise would admit .
Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants ’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors , the Department of Justice found Yale ’ s use of race is anything but limited .
Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant ’ s likelihood of admission , and Yale racially balances its classes .
Assistant Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs fosters stereotypes , bitterness , and division .
It is past time for American institutions to recognize that all people should be treated with decency and respect and without unlawful regard to the color of their skin.
” In the notice letter sent to Yale , the DOJ goes into more detail about its objections to the current admissions criteria : Yale uses race at multiple points in its admissions process .
Yale uses race when it initially rates applicants , when it again rates those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it considers applicants at subsequent stages of the admissions process .
Yale discriminates based on race among comparable applicants to whom Yale ’ s own admissions staff gave identical ratings earlier in the admissions process .
Yale ’ s use of race at multiple steps of its admissions process results in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant ’ s likelihood of admission .
Yale ’ s race discrimination contrasts starkly with the program upheld in Fisher II , in which the University of Texas considered race as one “ subfactor ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ [ t ] he admissions officers who ma [ d ] e the final decision as to whether a particular applicant will be admitted ma [ d ] e that decision without knowing the applicant ’ s race.
” Yale ’ s admissions data and other information also show that the University is using race as more than just plus factors but rather as predominant criteria that in practice are determinative in many admissions decisions .
Data also show that this determinative effect of race is multiplied for competitive applicants .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ far cry from the admissions process in Fisher II , where “ race [ was ] but a ‘ factor of a factor of a factor ’ in the holistic-review calculus.
” Yale ’ s oversized use of race favors some applicants because of their race and correspondingly disfavors other applicants because of their race , with most Asian American and White applicants unduly bearing the brunt of the preferences Yale grants to its racially-preferred applicants .
Yale grants racial and national origin preferences in favor of African American , Hispanic , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American and White applicants .
Yale ’ s use of race can not satisfy the narrow tailoring requirement because Yale “ unduly burden [ s ] individuals who are not members of the favored racial and ethnic groups.
” Grutter , 539 U.S. at 341 ( citation omitted ) .
For example , data produced by Yale show that Asian American applicants have a much lower chance of admission than do members of Yale ’ s preferred racial groups , even when those Asian Americans have much higher academic qualifications and comparable ratings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every year from 2000 to 2017 , Yale offered admission to Asian American applicants to Yale College at rates below their proportion of the applicant pool .
During this same 18-year period , Yale offered admission to White applicants at rates below their proportion of the applicant pool in a majority of years .
And , every year during the same 18-year period , Yale admitted applicants to Yale College from Yale ’ s preferred racial groups at rates higher than their representation in the applicant pool .
The upshot of the letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a factor in admissions for the upcoming school year : We would like to secure Yale ’ s compliance with Title VI by voluntary means .
28 C.F.R .
§§ 42.107 & 42.108 ; see also 42 U.S.C .
§ 2000d-1 .
To that end , Yale must agree not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 undergraduate admissions cycle , and , if Yale proposes to consider race or national origin in future admissions cycles , it must first submit to the Department of Justice a plan demonstrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required by law .
Any such proposal should include an end date to Yale ’ s use of race .
The threat becomes explicit in the next paragraph which says the DOJ will sue if Yale doesn ’ t comply on its own .
The DOJ press release says the finding is the result of a 2-year investigation but Yale called the government ’ s action “ hasty.
” In a statement , Yale said it “ categorically denies this allegation , ” has cooperated fully with the investigation and has been continually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information and data.
” “ Given our commitment to complying with federal law , we are dismayed that the DOJ has made its determination before allowing Yale to provide all the information the Department has requested thus far , ” the university said in a statement .
“ Had the Department fully received and fairly weighed this information , it would have concluded that Yale ’ s practices absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent.
” The university said it considers a multitude of factors and looks at “ the whole person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many thousands of highly qualified applicants.
” “ We are proud of Yale ’ s admissions practices , and we will not change them on the basis of such a meritless , hasty accusation , ” the statement said .
We ’ ve been through this once with the lawsuit against Harvard .
A judge eventually ruled in Harvard ’ s favor in that case though her reasonsing struck me as somewhat thin .
Specifically , the judge admits that Harvard made no attempt to deny that Asian students received lower “ personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scores but then concluded Harvard wasn ’ t discriminating because Harvard ’ s witnesses said they weren ’ t : Harvard ’ s witnesses credibly testified that they did not use race in assigning personal ratings ( or any of the profile ratings ) and did not observe any improper discrimination in the admissions process .
The uniformity of these observations is persuasive given the collective manner in which admissions decisions are made , with all members of the Admissions Committee participating in all decisions and having real-time visibility into the process for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asian American identity and the personal rating must , therefore , have been sufficiently subtle to go unnoticed by numerous considerate , diligent , and intelligent admissions officers who were immersed in the admissions process .
In short , we have to take these fine people at their word .
I guess we ’ ll see if Yale fares any better .
Then again , this is all probably dependent on who wins the 2020 election .
I suspect that if Joe Biden is elected priorites in the DOJ ’ s civil rights @ @ @ @ @ @

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice notified Yale today that it is violating Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by discriminating against Asian and white Americans in undergraduate admissions.
The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year. For the great majority of applicants, Asian Americans and whites have only one-tenth to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials. Yale rejects scores of Asian American and white applicants each year based on their race, whom it otherwise would admit. Although the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds may consider applicants’ race in certain limited circumstances as one of a number of factors, the Department of Justice found Yale’s use of race is anything but limited. Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process resulting in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission, and Yale racially balances its classes.
Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband wrote, “Unlawfully dividing Americans into racial and ethnic blocs fosters stereotypes, bitterness, and division. It is past time for American institutions to recognize that all people should be treated with decency and respect and without unlawful regard to the color of their skin.” In the notice letter sent to Yale, the DOJ goes into more detail about its objections to the current admissions criteria:
Yale uses race at multiple points in its admissions process. Yale uses race when it initially rates applicants, when it again rates those previously rated applicants, and again when it considers applicants at subsequent stages of the admissions process. Yale discriminates based on race among comparable applicants to whom Yale’s own admissions staff gave identical ratings earlier in the admissions process. Yale’s use of race at multiple steps of its admissions process results in a multiplied effect of race on an applicant’s likelihood of admission. Yale’s race discrimination contrasts starkly with the program upheld in Fisher II, in which the University of Texas considered race as one “subfactor” of its multi-factor assessment of applicants, and “[t]he admissions officers who ma[d]e the final decision as to whether a particular applicant will be admitted ma[d]e that decision without knowing the applicant’s race.” Yale’s admissions data and other information also show that the University is using race as more than just plus factors but rather as predominant criteria that in practice are determinative in many admissions decisions. Data also show that this determinative effect of race is multiplied for competitive applicants. Yale’s approach is thus a far cry from the admissions process in Fisher II, where “race [was] but a ‘factor of a factor of a factor’ in the holistic-review calculus.” Yale’s oversized use of race favors some applicants because of their race and correspondingly disfavors other applicants because of their race, with most Asian American and White applicants unduly bearing the brunt of the preferences Yale grants to its racially-preferred applicants. Yale grants racial and national origin preferences in favor of African American, Hispanic, and certain other applicants and disfavors most Asian American and White applicants. Yale’s use of race cannot satisfy the narrow tailoring requirement because Yale “unduly burden[s] individuals who are not members of the favored racial and ethnic groups.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 341 (citation omitted). For example, data produced by Yale show that Asian American applicants have a much lower chance of admission than do members of Yale’s preferred racial groups, even when those Asian Americans have much higher academic qualifications and comparable ratings by Yale’s admissions officers. Every year from 2000 to 2017, Yale offered admission to Asian American applicants to Yale College at rates below their proportion of the applicant pool. During this same 18-year period, Yale offered admission to White applicants at rates below their proportion of the applicant pool in a majority of years. And, every year during the same 18-year period, Yale admitted applicants to Yale College from Yale’s preferred racial groups at rates higher than their representation in the applicant pool.
The upshot of the letter is that Yale must stop using race as a factor in admissions for the upcoming school year:
We would like to secure Yale’s compliance with Title VI by voluntary means. 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.107 & 42.108; see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1. To that end, Yale must agree not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 undergraduate admissions cycle, and, if Yale proposes to consider race or national origin in future admissions cycles, it must first submit to the Department of Justice a plan demonstrating that its proposal is narrowly tailored as required by law. Any such proposal should include an end date to Yale’s use of race.
The threat becomes explicit in the next paragraph which says the DOJ will sue if Yale doesn’t comply on its own. The DOJ press release says the finding is the result of a 2-year investigation but Yale called the government’s action “hasty.”
In a statement, Yale said it “categorically denies this allegation,” has cooperated fully with the investigation and has been continually turning over “a substantial amount of information and data.” “Given our commitment to complying with federal law, we are dismayed that the DOJ has made its determination before allowing Yale to provide all the information the Department has requested thus far,” the university said in a statement. “Had the Department fully received and fairly weighed this information, it would have concluded that Yale’s practices absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent.” The university said it considers a multitude of factors and looks at “the whole person when selecting whom to admit among the many thousands of highly qualified applicants.” “We are proud of Yale’s admissions practices, and we will not change them on the basis of such a meritless, hasty accusation,” the statement said.
We’ve been through this once with the lawsuit against Harvard. A judge eventually ruled in Harvard’s favor in that case though her reasonsing struck me as somewhat thin. Specifically, the judge admits that Harvard made no attempt to deny that Asian students received lower “personal” scores that offset their higher academic scores but then concluded Harvard wasn’t discriminating because Harvard’s witnesses said they weren’t:
Harvard’s witnesses credibly testified that they did not use race in assigning personal ratings (or any of the profile ratings) and did not observe any improper discrimination in the admissions process. The uniformity of these observations is persuasive given the collective manner in which admissions decisions are made, with all members of the Admissions Committee participating in all decisions and having real-time visibility into the process for each applicant. Any causal relationship between Asian American identity and the personal rating must, therefore, have been sufficiently subtle to go unnoticed by numerous considerate, diligent, and intelligent admissions officers who were immersed in the admissions process.
In short, we have to take these fine people at their word. I guess we’ll see if Yale fares any better. Then again, this is all probably dependent on who wins the 2020 election. I suspect that if Joe Biden is elected priorites in the DOJ’s civil rights division will change rather quickly.


hotair--2020-08-13--Kushner: There's a good chance another country will make a deal with Israel in the coming days

2020 saved its weirdest twist for August : Jared Kushner ’ s going to win a Nobel prize .
They ’ ll never give it to Trump , not even if he negotiates world peace .
But Jared , the White House ’ s foremost Democrat , might be acceptable to the committee .
His most intriguing comments this morning after normalized relations between Israel and the UAE were announced haven ’ t been noticed much elsewhere , to my surprise : “ There is a good chance that another country could make a deal with Israel in the coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House .
Speaking to reporters after he unveiled the historic agreement , Trump suggested more diplomatic breakthroughs between Israel and its Muslim neighbors in the region were expected .
“ Things are happening that I can ’ t talk talk about , ” he said .
The Israel/UAE deal is the biggest foreign policy achievement of Trump ’ s presidency .
Could there be a bigger one within the week ?
It ’ s well known that Kushner is buddies with Saudi Arabia ’ s murderous “ reformer , ” Mohammed bin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kingdom would be the foreign policy coup of the decade , a tectonic shift in the Middle East — and yet a predictable one in a way , in that both Israel and the KSA long ago concluded that they each have more to fear from Iran than from each other .
I agree with Ed , though , that a deal between them is all but unimaginable .
The Kingdom may be a U.S. client state but it ’ s not a backbencher like the UAE is .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hub of Wahhabism .
Were they to normalize relations with Israel , it would feel as if all of Sunni Islam were doing so , which would set off every jihadist nut on the planet .
If the Saudis ever make nice with Tel Aviv , it ’ ll be because many other dominoes in the region have already fallen and made it safe ( r ) to do so .
The smart money on whom Kushner has in mind is Qatar , where the U.S. has military bases and which has played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as by hosting U.S./Taliban talks .
But an interesting alternative possibility is Bahrain , the headquarters for the U.S. Navy ’ s Fifth Fleet and a country with an unusual sectarian arrangement .
A majority of the population is Shiite but the king is Sunni , and a Sunni king who ’ s worried about Iran stirring unrest among his Shiite natives might have extra incentive to join a U.S-Israel-Sunni anti-Iran coalition .
Either way , I think Trump and Kushner want a second country to follow the UAE in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the belief that the more Sunni nations normalize relations with Israel , the easier it is for holdouts to break their own embargoes and normalize as well .
There ’ s hope for a “ domino effect ” here .
Reaction in ObamaWorld to the news was split .
Ben Rhodes was , well , Ben Rhodes-ish… …but Joe Biden had to be more careful , not wanting to praise Trump for an achievement but also not wanting to scare off pro-Israel voters by criticizing the deal .
In the end he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UAE , not the White House .
He also took some credit for the breakthrough : Obama and Biden do deserve “ credit , ” just not in the way Biden claims .
I think their years-long effort to court Iran spooked the Sunni states so badly that the looming prospect of a Biden presidency has the leaders of those states considering bold gambits right now like the one we saw this morning .
If you ’ re expecting your patrons in Washington to shift from trying to isolate Iran to trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you might want to seize the opportunity immediately to build an anti-Iran alliance with other regional powers .
And of course , by doing this on Trump ’ s watch , you hand him a major diplomatic victory which he can tout to voters , and maybe even parlay into being reelected .
Rhodes is wrong about a lot of stuff he ’ s not wrong about Israel and the UAE favoring Trump over Biden .
In fact , that may be the strongest argument for believing that an Israel/Saudi deal might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely understands that he ’ s better off with Trump than with any Democratic administration .
Not only is a Trump-led U.S. a staunch ally against Iran , Trump won ’ t even complain when the Saudis decide to murder journalists while they ’ re visiting the local consulate .
I think Noam Blum ’ s right too about Israel ’ s extra incentive to do the deal : If annexation of the disputed territories were something Netanyahu were serious about , not just tough talk aimed at charming Israel ’ s hawks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this deal .
To the contrary , the likelihood of Biden winning would have impelled him to begin annexation now , before the new administration is sworn in and puts the brakes on .
Netanyahu was looking for an excuse to “ postpone ” the plan ( which will be dropped entirely if Biden wins , as Sleepy Joe suggests in his statement above ) and the UAE deal was a perfect reason .
I ’ ll leave you with another Kusher comment from today ’ s press briefing , paying lip service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Be careful , Jared : Coordination between campaigns is a type of campaign contribution , and unreported or excessive campaign contributions are illegal .

2020 saved its weirdest twist for August: Jared Kushner’s going to win a Nobel prize.
They’ll never give it to Trump, not even if he negotiates world peace. But Jared, the White House’s foremost Democrat, might be acceptable to the committee.
His most intriguing comments this morning after normalized relations between Israel and the UAE were announced haven’t been noticed much elsewhere, to my surprise:
“There is a good chance that another country could make a deal with Israel in the coming days,” Kushner said at the White House. Speaking to reporters after he unveiled the historic agreement, Trump suggested more diplomatic breakthroughs between Israel and its Muslim neighbors in the region were expected. “Things are happening that I can’t talk talk about,” he said.
The Israel/UAE deal is the biggest foreign policy achievement of Trump’s presidency. Could there be a bigger one within the week?
It’s well known that Kushner is buddies with Saudi Arabia’s murderous “reformer,” Mohammed bin Salman. Normalized relations between Israel and the Kingdom would be the foreign policy coup of the decade, a tectonic shift in the Middle East — and yet a predictable one in a way, in that both Israel and the KSA long ago concluded that they each have more to fear from Iran than from each other.
I agree with Ed, though, that a deal between them is all but unimaginable. The Kingdom may be a U.S. client state but it’s not a backbencher like the UAE is. It’s the seat of Islam and the global hub of Wahhabism. Were they to normalize relations with Israel, it would feel as if all of Sunni Islam were doing so, which would set off every jihadist nut on the planet. If the Saudis ever make nice with Tel Aviv, it’ll be because many other dominoes in the region have already fallen and made it safe(r) to do so.
The smart money on whom Kushner has in mind is Qatar, where the U.S. has military bases and which has played diplomatic roles for the White House before, such as by hosting U.S./Taliban talks. But an interesting alternative possibility is Bahrain, the headquarters for the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet and a country with an unusual sectarian arrangement. A majority of the population is Shiite but the king is Sunni, and a Sunni king who’s worried about Iran stirring unrest among his Shiite natives might have extra incentive to join a U.S-Israel-Sunni anti-Iran coalition. Either way, I think Trump and Kushner want a second country to follow the UAE in order to create some momentum towards peace, in the belief that the more Sunni nations normalize relations with Israel, the easier it is for holdouts to break their own embargoes and normalize as well. There’s hope for a “domino effect” here.
Reaction in ObamaWorld to the news was split. Ben Rhodes was, well, Ben Rhodes-ish…
This agreement enshrines what has been the emerging status quo in the region for a long time (including the total exclusion of Palestinians). Dressed up as an election eve achievement from two leaders who want Trump to win. https://t.co/0VzTDefv1B — Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) August 13, 2020
…but Joe Biden had to be more careful, not wanting to praise Trump for an achievement but also not wanting to scare off pro-Israel voters by criticizing the deal. In the end he settled on applause — for Israel and the UAE, not the White House. He also took some credit for the breakthrough:
Obama and Biden do deserve “credit,” just not in the way Biden claims. I think their years-long effort to court Iran spooked the Sunni states so badly that the looming prospect of a Biden presidency has the leaders of those states considering bold gambits right now like the one we saw this morning. If you’re expecting your patrons in Washington to shift from trying to isolate Iran to trying to build relations with Iran come January, you might want to seize the opportunity immediately to build an anti-Iran alliance with other regional powers. And of course, by doing this on Trump’s watch, you hand him a major diplomatic victory which he can tout to voters, and maybe even parlay into being reelected. Rhodes is wrong about a lot of stuff he’s not wrong about Israel and the UAE favoring Trump over Biden.
In fact, that may be the strongest argument for believing that an Israel/Saudi deal might be in the works. Bin Salman surely understands that he’s better off with Trump than with any Democratic administration. Not only is a Trump-led U.S. a staunch ally against Iran, Trump won’t even complain when the Saudis decide to murder journalists while they’re visiting the local consulate.
I think Noam Blum’s right too about Israel’s extra incentive to do the deal:
Here's my hot UAE/annexation take: Bibi always intended to use annexation solely as either a bluff against Abbas, red meat to the voter base, or both. He didn't expect the Trump admin to ever go along with it, and so he needed a way out. 1/3 — Noam Blum (@neontaster) August 13, 2020
Israel can sell it as being "on hold for now," but especially if Biden gets elected, annexation ain't happening in the foreseeable future. tl;dr the Palestinians didn't get screwed because I think annexation wouldn't have gone down anyway and also now Bibi loses that card. 3/3 — Noam Blum (@neontaster) August 13, 2020
If annexation of the disputed territories were something Netanyahu were serious about, not just tough talk aimed at charming Israel’s hawks, he never would have agreed to this deal. To the contrary, the likelihood of Biden winning would have impelled him to begin annexation now, before the new administration is sworn in and puts the brakes on. Netanyahu was looking for an excuse to “postpone” the plan (which will be dropped entirely if Biden wins, as Sleepy Joe suggests in his statement above) and the UAE deal was a perfect reason.
I’ll leave you with another Kusher comment from today’s press briefing, paying lip service to his recent meeting with Kanye West. Be careful, Jared: Coordination between campaigns is a type of campaign contribution, and unreported or excessive campaign contributions are illegal.


hotair--2020-08-13--Chicago business owners reeling from 2nd round of riots: 'I feel like we are under attack and under

Chicago business owners reeling from 2nd round of riots: 'I feel like we are under attack and under siege.'

The looting in Chicago last weekend was the second time in three months that many stores in the city were hit .
Given that these businesses were already dealing with the shut down and the coronavirus , some are now saying they won ’ t be back and others are saying they feel like they are under siege : Jewelry and gift shop Crosell & Co. had reopened less than a week ago , then looters struck the store two blocks west of Michigan Avenue again Monday morning .
City officials “ have to get ahold of the city again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing in front of her shop ’ s smashed double-paned glass door Monday morning .
“ I feel like we are under attack and under siege.
” … “ If this keeps happening , why is anyone going to stay ?
” she said .
“ They ’ re ruining the city of Chicago.
” Neil Mehra owns a cigar shop off Michigan Avenue .
He was hit for the second time this week .
By the time Mehra rushed to his store Monday , nearly everything of value was gone , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cigars worth up to $ 800 a box .
Stepping through the rubble , he realized the thieves even made off with his safe and the $ 5,000 in it .
He estimated his losses this time at more than $ 75,000 .
“ I almost cried , ” said Mehra , sitting in a chair at his store under a framed photo of Chicago Bulls great Michael Jordan , a cigar aficionado .
“ This is my life .
I really don ’ t know if we ’ re going to survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threw a flower pot through Mehra ’ s $ 10,000-front window , hauling over $ 30,000 in merchandise through the hole .
Looters Monday burst through the door , leaving the window intact… “ It is empty at night , with not enough people with eyes on the street , ” he said .
“ People up to no good feel they have free rein.
” That ’ s pretty close to what Mayor Lightfoot and Police Superintendent Brown said this week , i.e .
people were looting because they believed there wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were arrested .
But State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx denies she ’ s going easy on crime even though the numbers examined by the Chicago Tribune says she drops 30 % of all felony cases brought to her office .
Walid Mouhammad owns a convenience store that was also hit for the second time this week : “ This is the second time , ” Mouhammad said .
“ I ’ ve been open for just 40 days , so who will be responsible for this ?
” After spending over $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s looting spree , Mouhammad says Monday ’ s damage is worse .
Once the door was pried open , security cameras show a flood of looters coming in and ransacking the place… Police were present at the corner of Madison and Keeler Monday , but it ’ s a little too late for Mohammed , who has been on the corner for decades .
Now , he says he can ’ t afford to reopen… Ken Londe owns a fashion boutique in the city that was hit twice .
He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lost merchandise and said the looters took his cash drawer .
“ This is my livelihood , ” Londe said .
“ All this merchandise they took is on credit cards [ that ] still needs to be paid .
And now we ’ re going to have to order more .
And we have limits on our credit cards , so not good.
” … “ These are not protesters , and if they are protesters than they ’ re frauds because these are not peaceful in any way , shape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are more stories like this .
I ’ m really just scratching the surface .
Some of these businesses have insurance that will cover the damage but after you ’ ve been hit twice in three months some of these owners are wondering if it ’ s worth the effort .
The scale of the damage done so far in Chicago is enormous : As Ed noted earlier today , BLM Chicago organizer are now openly saying that looting is reparations .
So what ’ s to stop this from happening again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have decided this is a public good ?
The police can ’ t stop it and they ’ re under attack too .
How much more can business owners take before they give up ?
“ There ’ s a limit to how many times retailers are willing to be kicked .
… It will be difficult after retailers who have invested millions in reopening to have to do it again .
There has to be a lot of confidence that they can be protected and , so far , that confidence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association .
He ’ s right and based on the reports above it sounds like we ’ re already pretty close to that limit .
Update : This 81-year-old business owner ( I linked a story about him above ) came down to his convenience store after learning it had been looted .
He arrived outside and called the police .
While he was standing there , four looters on bikes rode up and tried to go inside .
He told them to stop and they threatened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaks down in tears hearing this story .
Why would anyone want to try to run a business under these conditions ?

The looting in Chicago last weekend was the second time in three months that many stores in the city were hit. Given that these businesses were already dealing with the shut down and the coronavirus, some are now saying they won’t be back and others are saying they feel like they are under siege:
Jewelry and gift shop Crosell & Co. had reopened less than a week ago, then looters struck the store two blocks west of Michigan Avenue again Monday morning. City officials “have to get ahold of the city again,” said owner Dianne Crosell, standing in front of her shop’s smashed double-paned glass door Monday morning. “I feel like we are under attack and under siege.”… “If this keeps happening, why is anyone going to stay?” she said. “They’re ruining the city of Chicago.”
Neil Mehra owns a cigar shop off Michigan Avenue. He was hit for the second time this week.
By the time Mehra rushed to his store Monday, nearly everything of value was gone, with rows of shelves stripped clean of high-end cigars worth up to $800 a box. Stepping through the rubble, he realized the thieves even made off with his safe and the $5,000 in it. He estimated his losses this time at more than $75,000. “I almost cried,” said Mehra, sitting in a chair at his store under a framed photo of Chicago Bulls great Michael Jordan, a cigar aficionado. “This is my life. I really don’t know if we’re going to survive this.”… In May, attackers threw a flower pot through Mehra’s $10,000-front window, hauling over $30,000 in merchandise through the hole. Looters Monday burst through the door, leaving the window intact… “It is empty at night, with not enough people with eyes on the street,” he said. “People up to no good feel they have free rein.”
That’s pretty close to what Mayor Lightfoot and Police Superintendent Brown said this week, i.e. people were looting because they believed there wouldn’t be consequences even if they were arrested. But State’s Attorney Kim Foxx denies she’s going easy on crime even though the numbers examined by the Chicago Tribune says she drops 30% of all felony cases brought to her office.
Walid Mouhammad owns a convenience store that was also hit for the second time this week:
“This is the second time,” Mouhammad said. “I’ve been open for just 40 days, so who will be responsible for this?” After spending over $300,000 to re-open his store following May’s looting spree, Mouhammad says Monday’s damage is worse. Once the door was pried open, security cameras show a flood of looters coming in and ransacking the place… Police were present at the corner of Madison and Keeler Monday, but it’s a little too late for Mohammed, who has been on the corner for decades. Now, he says he can’t afford to reopen…
Ken Londe owns a fashion boutique in the city that was hit twice.
He said there was well over $25,000 worth of lost merchandise and said the looters took his cash drawer. “This is my livelihood,” Londe said. “All this merchandise they took is on credit cards [that] still needs to be paid. And now we’re going to have to order more. And we have limits on our credit cards, so not good.”… “These are not protesters, and if they are protesters than they’re frauds because these are not peaceful in any way, shape or form,” Londe said.
There are more stories like this. I’m really just scratching the surface. Some of these businesses have insurance that will cover the damage but after you’ve been hit twice in three months some of these owners are wondering if it’s worth the effort. The scale of the damage done so far in Chicago is enormous:
The civil unrest that erupted earlier this summer is estimated to have caused $500 million to $900 million in insured losses, according to the association, and is on track to be one of the costliest events of civil disorder in years. By comparison, the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles caused $775 million in insured losses, or $1.4 billion in today’s dollars.
As Ed noted earlier today, BLM Chicago organizer are now openly saying that looting is reparations. So what’s to stop this from happening again next week or next month if people have decided this is a public good? The police can’t stop it and they’re under attack too. How much more can business owners take before they give up?
“There’s a limit to how many times retailers are willing to be kicked. … It will be difficult after retailers who have invested millions in reopening to have to do it again. There has to be a lot of confidence that they can be protected and, so far, that confidence is lacking,” said Rob Karr, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association.
He’s right and based on the reports above it sounds like we’re already pretty close to that limit.
Update: This 81-year-old business owner (I linked a story about him above) came down to his convenience store after learning it had been looted. He arrived outside and called the police. While he was standing there, four looters on bikes rode up and tried to go inside. He told them to stop and they threatened to kill him. The reporter actually breaks down in tears hearing this story. Why would anyone want to try to run a business under these conditions?


hotair--2020-08-13--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: UAE-Israel deal, BLM Chicago reveal, Harris' spiel, Trump's Catholic ap

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: UAE-Israel deal, BLM Chicago reveal, Harris' spiel, Trump's Catholic appeal, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson is out today , so Jeff Dunetz of Lidblog will co-host with me for the review of today ’ s hot topics .
Top of the list will be the huge “ Abraham Agreement ” between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the US .
How does this reset the Middle East , and what does it do for Israeli and American politics ?
• Should Catholics support Donald Trump in 2020 ?
Austin Ruse discusses his new book , The Catholic Case for Trump , out this week from Regnery ( like Hot Air a unit of Salem Media ) .
On life , religious liberty , and the judiciary , Ruse argues that Trump has delivered for Catholics — and they need to return the favor .
The Ed Morrissey Show and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson is out today, so Jeff Dunetz of Lidblog will co-host with me for the review of today’s hot topics. Top of the list will be the huge “Abraham Agreement” between the United Arab Emirates, Israel, and the US. How does this reset the Middle East, and what does it do for Israeli and American politics?
Should Catholics support Donald Trump in 2020? Austin Ruse discusses his new book, The Catholic Case for Trump, out this week from Regnery (like Hot Air a unit of Salem Media). On life, religious liberty, and the judiciary, Ruse argues that Trump has delivered for Catholics — and they need to return the favor.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-08-13--BLM Chicago organizer: You'd better believe we support looting as a form of reparations

Did everyone misinterpret the statement on Monday from Black Lives Matter Chicago ?
In their response to the organized pillaging of the Windy City ’ s Magnificent Mile , BLM Chicago claimed that “ these corporations have “ looted ” more from our communities than a few protesters ever could , ” suggesting that they saw the attack as a form of restorative justice .
That ’ s exactly what it meant , BLM Chicago organizer Ariel Atkins told Chicago radio station WBEZ yesterday .
Looting is “ reparations , ” Atkins declared , and said the organization supports it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : A lot of people are really attacking our pages .
They ’ re like , ‘ Oh , you support the looters.
’ And yeah , we do , 100 % .
That ’ s reparations .
And like however people choose to protest , especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting , which would be powerful to see people reacting … without organizers just being like , ‘ We ’ re angry and this is what we ’ re gon na do .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ I feel like these stores , these Macy ’ s , these Guccis , the PNC Banks , they ’ re not here for us .
The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist .
And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city .
… Unemployment is incredibly high , like we are in an incredible situation , and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are in and the suffering that is taking place , I don ’ t care .
I will support the looters ‘ till the end of the day .
If that ’ s what they need to do in order to eat , then that ’ s what you ’ ve got to do to eat .
When asked whether this violence and massive destruction interferes with the BLM message , Atkins insists it is the message .
BLM wants nothing less than revolution : What do you say to people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s message ?
Atkins : I think that those people are forgetting the way that history has ever worked .
The way that history has worked , the way that we ’ ve ever gotten wins , has never been through peaceful protests alone , and I will say with quotes , “ peaceful protests.
” Winning has come through revolts .
Winning has come through riots .
Winning has come through constant , constant work .
… The only people that can undermine our movement are the police , our oppressors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t believe in the people that we ’ re fighting with .
If we are constantly trying to tell each other exactly the right way to do it , as opposed to finding ways to support each other and get that collective win , that is undermining .
I don ’ t undermine my movement .
In other words , no one misinterpreted the message on Monday .
BLM Chicago , at least , not only condones looting and rioting , they are actively promoting both as strategies for revolution .
The organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic means , at least according to the activists within the group .
That prompts a series of questions .
Does the national BLM organization agree with BLM Chicago ’ s position ?
If so , does that change their legal status ?
It certainly should at least change their media status as nothing more than a civil-rights organization .
And it should cause everyone to rethink exactly how America ’ s cities got so out of hand this summer , and why .

Did everyone misinterpret the statement on Monday from Black Lives Matter Chicago? In their response to the organized pillaging of the Windy City’s Magnificent Mile, BLM Chicago claimed that “these corporations have “looted” more from our communities than a few protesters ever could,” suggesting that they saw the attack as a form of restorative justice.
That’s exactly what it meant, BLM Chicago organizer Ariel Atkins told Chicago radio station WBEZ yesterday. Looting is “reparations,” Atkins declared, and said the organization supports it “100%”:
Ariel Atkins: A lot of people are really attacking our pages. They’re like, ‘Oh, you support the looters.’ And yeah, we do, 100%. That’s reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting … without organizers just being like, ‘We’re angry and this is what we’re gonna do. We’re gonna take the power back.’ I feel like these stores, these Macy’s, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, they’re not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city. … Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I don’t care. I will support the looters ‘till the end of the day. If that’s what they need to do in order to eat, then that’s what you’ve got to do to eat.
When asked whether this violence and massive destruction interferes with the BLM message, Atkins insists it is the message. BLM wants nothing less than revolution:
What do you say to people who argue looting undermines Black Lives Matter’s message? Atkins: I think that those people are forgetting the way that history has ever worked. The way that history has worked, the way that we’ve ever gotten wins, has never been through peaceful protests alone, and I will say with quotes, “peaceful protests.” Winning has come through revolts. Winning has come through riots. Winning has come through constant, constant work. … The only people that can undermine our movement are the police, our oppressors, and then us when we don’t believe in the people that we’re fighting with. If we are constantly trying to tell each other exactly the right way to do it, as opposed to finding ways to support each other and get that collective win, that is undermining. I don’t undermine my movement.
In other words, no one misinterpreted the message on Monday. BLM Chicago, at least, not only condones looting and rioting, they are actively promoting both as strategies for revolution. The organization has little interest in peaceful change through democratic means, at least according to the activists within the group.
That prompts a series of questions. Does the national BLM organization agree with BLM Chicago’s position? If so, does that change their legal status? It certainly should at least change their media status as nothing more than a civil-rights organization. And it should cause everyone to rethink exactly how America’s cities got so out of hand this summer, and why.


hotair--2020-08-13--Seattle BLM protesters to strangers: 'Give up your house. Give black people back their homes.'

Last night a group of anti-gentrification protesters in Seattle marched through a section of town for a couple hours to complain that white people were living on stolen land .
Well , not stolen exactly .
They aren ’ t claiming the black people who used to live in this neighborhood were pushed out at gunpoint .
But they are claiming that an injustice has taken place because white people are now living in new homes in this formerly black neighborhood .
The crowd of maybe 50 people was marching down the street after dark chanting “ Black people used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point the woman holding the bullhorn and leading the chants noticed a group of white residents having a party on the roof of a multi-story apartment building .
“ We ’ re talking to you gentrifiers , ” she said .
The crowd stopped next to the building and continued chanting at the people on the roof .
At this point one of the other organizers called for a pause so he could say something .
“ Hey guys , do you know that you are living in a historically black neighborhood right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ street .
“ Do you know that before your white ass came here this was all black people ?
” he added .
“ Do you know that people like you came in here and basically bought all the land from the black people less than what it was worth , kicked them out so you could live here ?
Do you know that ?
Cause if you don ’ t , now you f**kin do so do something about it.
” “ Open your wallet , ” the woman with the bullhorn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ How do you plan to fix it because you are living on black people ’ s land right now.
” He quickly corrected himself , “ I mean native land but black people lived here too.
” The woman on the bullhorn had a suggestion for how to fix it .
“ Is your name [ inaudible ] or John , whatever it is , give up your house .
Give black people back their homes .
You ’ re sitting their comfortably—comfortable as f**k as if they didn ’ t help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I used to live in this neighborhood and my family was pushed out and you ’ re sitting up there having a good time with your other white friends.
” As the ranting from the street continued someone , maybe the bullhorn woman , said , “ Guy in the window is calling the cops.
” Not long after the crowd moved on .
Here are two clips from a much longer livestream that show part of the interaction .
Hat tip to Benjamin Boyce who highlighted this on Twitter .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the livestream and discovered they had held an impromptu outdoor meeting with King County councilmember Girmay Zahilay just a few minutes before this .
Zahilay who is newly elected , was asked what more protesters could advocate for .
“ I say this land transfer stuff is really important , ” he said .
He continued , “ One of the pieces of the Black Lives Matter demands is economic justice for black people for indigenous people .
That needs to look like land transfer in my opinion because land is wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the buildings that you need to take care of one another.
” He said his generation was tired of “ symbolic gestures.
” “ We don ’ t want that s**t anymore , we want land…give back the land to the people that need it , ” he said .
Zahilay was talking specifically about land owned by King County but maybe that didn ’ t fully penetrate with the protesters .
It appears what they got from it was : Give us your house .
We ’ re not quite to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their homes yet but we seem to be inching closer .
I wonder if this will catch on .
The left is already comfortable going into suburban neighborhoods for protests ( and vandalism ) of elected officials homes .
Singling out strangers seems like the next step .
And it ’ s worth noting that this isn ’ t just harassment it ’ s explicitly racial harassment .
Scroll to 1:11:00 in this clip for councilmember Zahilay ’ s take on land transfer as the next frontier in economic justice .
Bonus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Gentrifiers get the f**k out and give us our s**t back…Give it back !
We ’ re coming for you .
Reparations time .
”

Last night a group of anti-gentrification protesters in Seattle marched through a section of town for a couple hours to complain that white people were living on stolen land. Well, not stolen exactly. They aren’t claiming the black people who used to live in this neighborhood were pushed out at gunpoint. But they are claiming that an injustice has taken place because white people are now living in new homes in this formerly black neighborhood.
The crowd of maybe 50 people was marching down the street after dark chanting “Black people used to live here!” At one point the woman holding the bullhorn and leading the chants noticed a group of white residents having a party on the roof of a multi-story apartment building. “We’re talking to you gentrifiers,” she said. The crowd stopped next to the building and continued chanting at the people on the roof.
At this point one of the other organizers called for a pause so he could say something. “Hey guys, do you know that you are living in a historically black neighborhood right now?” he shouted from the street. “Do you know that before your white ass came here this was all black people?” he added. “Do you know that people like you came in here and basically bought all the land from the black people less than what it was worth, kicked them out so you could live here? Do you know that? Cause if you don’t, now you f**kin do so do something about it.”
“Open your wallet,” the woman with the bullhorn interjected.
The other organizer shouted, “How do you plan to fix it because you are living on black people’s land right now.” He quickly corrected himself, “I mean native land but black people lived here too.”
The woman on the bullhorn had a suggestion for how to fix it. “Is your name [inaudible] or John, whatever it is, give up your house. Give black people back their homes. You’re sitting their comfortably—comfortable as f**k as if they didn’t help gentrify this neighborhood.” She continued, “I used to live in this neighborhood and my family was pushed out and you’re sitting up there having a good time with your other white friends.”
As the ranting from the street continued someone, maybe the bullhorn woman, said, “Guy in the window is calling the cops.” Not long after the crowd moved on.
Here are two clips from a much longer livestream that show part of the interaction. Hat tip to Benjamin Boyce who highlighted this on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1293776641605345280
How fringe is this group? I watched through the livestream and discovered they had held an impromptu outdoor meeting with King County councilmember Girmay Zahilay just a few minutes before this. Zahilay who is newly elected, was asked what more protesters could advocate for.
“I say this land transfer stuff is really important,” he said. He continued, “One of the pieces of the Black Lives Matter demands is economic justice for black people for indigenous people. That needs to look like land transfer in my opinion because land is wealth. Land gets you the facilities and the buildings that you need to take care of one another.”
He said his generation was tired of “symbolic gestures.” “We don’t want that s**t anymore, we want land…give back the land to the people that need it,” he said. Zahilay was talking specifically about land owned by King County but maybe that didn’t fully penetrate with the protesters. It appears what they got from it was: Give us your house.
We’re not quite to the French Revolution stage of dragging people out of their homes yet but we seem to be inching closer. I wonder if this will catch on. The left is already comfortable going into suburban neighborhoods for protests (and vandalism) of elected officials homes. Singling out strangers seems like the next step. And it’s worth noting that this isn’t just harassment it’s explicitly racial harassment.
Scroll to 1:11:00 in this clip for councilmember Zahilay’s take on land transfer as the next frontier in economic justice.
Bonus clip from later in the night: “Gentrifiers get the f**k out and give us our s**t back…Give it back! We’re coming for you. Reparations time.”
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1293783470905253888


hotair--2020-08-13--Will Obama-era consent decree give Trump DoJ the last word on Seattle's police cuts?

There ’ s irony , and then there ’ s the current legal position of Seattle ’ s city council .
They just chased off their first African-American female police chief by instituting deep cuts to the police budget in the name of racial justice .
This all could have been in vain , KOMO noted last night , because Seattle doesn ’ t actually have the final word on its policing .
Thanks to an Obama-era consent decree , the Department of Justice might force Seattle to spend the money anyway : For the past eight years Seattle police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on many major policy moves .
The city is accountable to federal monitors under the consent decree .
This latest round of police budget cuts could meet that same scrutiny .
… The concern is that deep reductions in the police department budget could make it impossible for the city to fulfill its obligations under the agreement is struck with the U.S. Department of Justice .
Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said the council ’ s defunding strategy could compromise the consent decree , especially if it involves cuts to training , data performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overseeing officers .
It ’ s not just the DoJ that Seattle has to consider either .
Once a city enters into a consent decree , it is supervised by federal courts .
And the judge assigned to this consent decree has already started clearing his throat : In other words , Seattle might have chased off Carmen Best for no good reason at all , and for no difference in outcome .
It ’ s very possible that the courts order the city to restore funding and staffing levels , especially since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers to respond to rising levels of crime with greater displays of force as a means of gaining control , which would in turn end up violating the consent decree .
The DoJ might have an unusual ally in consent-decree enforcement , too — the police unions .
The video report from KOMO isn ’ t embeddable , but the reporter points out that the police union is likely to challenge staffing and pay cuts first as a contract violation .
They might also argue that those violate the consent decree as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robart .
This , by the way , is a good example of why consent decrees are a bad idea and abuse the process .
Seattle should be in control of its own police department , and should be accountable for its performance .
The Obama-era push to use consent decrees intended to essentially federalize law enforcement .
There are other ways to enforce civil rights and put pressure on local governments to comply — massive fines , for instance , in systemic cases of abuse — rather than stripping cities of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When consent decrees allowed progressives to exert top-down control , they were popular .
With the Trump administration in control of Seattle ’ s options , perhaps they will become a less popular strategy , and that would be for the best .

There’s irony, and then there’s the current legal position of Seattle’s city council. They just chased off their first African-American female police chief by instituting deep cuts to the police budget in the name of racial justice. This all could have been in vain, KOMO noted last night, because Seattle doesn’t actually have the final word on its policing. Thanks to an Obama-era consent decree, the Department of Justice might force Seattle to spend the money anyway:
For the past eight years Seattle police have had to answer to federal authorities on many major policy moves. The city is accountable to federal monitors under the consent decree. This latest round of police budget cuts could meet that same scrutiny. … The concern is that deep reductions in the police department budget could make it impossible for the city to fulfill its obligations under the agreement is struck with the U.S. Department of Justice. Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said the council’s defunding strategy could compromise the consent decree, especially if it involves cuts to training, data performance, transparency or the number of supervisors overseeing officers.
It’s not just the DoJ that Seattle has to consider either. Once a city enters into a consent decree, it is supervised by federal courts. And the judge assigned to this consent decree has already started clearing his throat:
Initial legislation passed by the city council has already prompted a warning from Judge James Robart who oversees the federal agreement. He wrote “the court encourages the city of Seattle to remain mindful of its consent decree obligation.”
In other words, Seattle might have chased off Carmen Best for no good reason at all, and for no difference in outcome. It’s very possible that the courts order the city to restore funding and staffing levels, especially since staffing reductions will increase the pressure on officers to respond to rising levels of crime with greater displays of force as a means of gaining control, which would in turn end up violating the consent decree.
The DoJ might have an unusual ally in consent-decree enforcement, too — the police unions. The video report from KOMO isn’t embeddable, but the reporter points out that the police union is likely to challenge staffing and pay cuts first as a contract violation. They might also argue that those violate the consent decree as a way of escalating the issue directly to Robart.
This, by the way, is a good example of why consent decrees are a bad idea and abuse the process. Seattle should be in control of its own police department, and should be accountable for its performance. The Obama-era push to use consent decrees intended to essentially federalize law enforcement. There are other ways to enforce civil rights and put pressure on local governments to comply — massive fines, for instance, in systemic cases of abuse — rather than stripping cities of their agency and their responsibility and accountability. When consent decrees allowed progressives to exert top-down control, they were popular. With the Trump administration in control of Seattle’s options, perhaps they will become a less popular strategy, and that would be for the best.


hotair--2020-08-13--Harris: Trump inherited a long economic expansion and drove it into the ground

A leftover from yesterday ’ s official campaign debut .
I realize she and Biden need to make some sort of economic attack on Trump , as that ’ s his strongest credential for reelection , but do they really have nothing better on the shelf than this embarrassing talking point ?
Harris was so proud of it that she repeated it in a tweet , where it was predictably greeted with all manner of “ yasss kweeen ” replies by liberal zombies .
Trump didn ’ t drive the economy into the ground , of course .
COVID did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Obama or President Biden or President Harris .
In fact , the economic downturn might have been worse under their administrations since Democrats this year have typically been more willing than Republicans to endorse long , comprehensive lockdowns .
Meanwhile , Trump has been the country ’ s loudest cheerleader for reopening , precisely because he ’ s worried about the economic consequences of lockdown to American workers ( i.e .
because he ’ s worried about his big reelection credential going bust before November ) .
You could understand Dems coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had obstinately refused to approve any stimulus or financial aid to Americans .
But he ’ s approved trillions , and may yet approve more within the next few weeks .
A more sophisticated argument about Trump driving the economy into the ground would claim that it ’ s *because* he was too eager to reopen that we ’ re in the pickle we ’ re in now .
If he had tolerated a longer lockdown at the start , maybe we would have driven down cases to the point where this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less disruptive .
If he had been more proactive about contact tracing , maybe we could have extinguished those outbreaks before they took off .
Any economic critique has to derive from a critique of his handling of the pandemic .
As it is , Harris sounds here like she just wanted to lay a sick burn on him , emphasizing how much wealth and privilege he inherited from his father .
Mike Pence was asked about Trump ’ s economic record on Fox and , ah , didn ’ t do much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 grand at the casino , winning 10 back before the end of the night , then excitedly telling your spouse , “ Honey , I won more in my last hour of play than I ever have in my life.
” Just emphasize that the recovery is proceeding nicely , Mike .
Reminding people of the abnormally large employment gains lately is destined to also remind them of the apocalyptic employment losses this spring .
Better yet , instead of talking about jobs , why not focus on the favorable polling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Here ’ s what YouGov got when it asked , “ Do you approve or disapprove of the executive order President Trump signed on Saturday which he says will extend unemployment benefits and defer payroll ?
” A lot rests on the phrase “ which he says ” in the question , perhaps , but Americans approve of the orders by a two to one margin , with even a third of Biden voters giving thumbs up .
That was predictable , and why I thought Trump ’ s orders were bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment when voters are left groaning over another partisan stalemate in Congress , he ’ s signaling that he ’ s willing to do whatever he can to try to ease their pain .
The question is whether they ’ ll hold it against him if/when the payroll tax ends up not being deferred and unemployment benefits end up not flowing again .
This result from Morning Consult on which party voters trust more to handle jobs seems ominous : It ’ s basically even between Republicans and Democrats and has been for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 90 days from Election Day isn ’ t ideal .
Why it ’ s trending that way isn ’ t clear , but presumably it has to do with Dems wanting a gaudier round of stimulus relief ( $ 3 trillion ) than Republicans ( $ 1 trillion ) .
Democrats also lead by 14 points on which party would best handle COVID , an advantage the GOP might be able to counter at the polls if it enjoyed the public ’ s faith on the economy — which it may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revert to fiscal conservatism in negotiating the next stimulus package could end up being electorally costly .
Here ’ s Trump being pressed last night on how he plans to pay for Social Security without the payroll tax .
Simple , he says : Growth .
Growth was also how the party expected to avoid running massive deficits after the 2017 tax cuts .
You know how that turned out .

A leftover from yesterday’s official campaign debut. I realize she and Biden need to make some sort of economic attack on Trump, as that’s his strongest credential for reelection, but do they really have nothing better on the shelf than this embarrassing talking point? Harris was so proud of it that she repeated it in a tweet, where it was predictably greeted with all manner of “yasss kweeen” replies by liberal zombies.
Sen. Kamala Harris on Trump and the economy: “Like everything else he inherited, he ran it straight into the ground.” pic.twitter.com/NgED58Zxwh — The Recount (@therecount) August 12, 2020
Trump didn’t drive the economy into the ground, of course. COVID did, just like it would have under President Obama or President Biden or President Harris. In fact, the economic downturn might have been worse under their administrations since Democrats this year have typically been more willing than Republicans to endorse long, comprehensive lockdowns. Meanwhile, Trump has been the country’s loudest cheerleader for reopening, precisely because he’s worried about the economic consequences of lockdown to American workers (i.e. because he’s worried about his big reelection credential going bust before November).
You could understand Dems coming after him over the COVID recovery if he had obstinately refused to approve any stimulus or financial aid to Americans. But he’s approved trillions, and may yet approve more within the next few weeks.
A more sophisticated argument about Trump driving the economy into the ground would claim that it’s *because* he was too eager to reopen that we’re in the pickle we’re in now. If he had tolerated a longer lockdown at the start, maybe we would have driven down cases to the point where this summer’s outbreaks were smaller and less disruptive. If he had been more proactive about contact tracing, maybe we could have extinguished those outbreaks before they took off. Any economic critique has to derive from a critique of his handling of the pandemic. As it is, Harris sounds here like she just wanted to lay a sick burn on him, emphasizing how much wealth and privilege he inherited from his father.
Mike Pence was asked about Trump’s economic record on Fox and, ah, didn’t do much better:
We’ve created more jobs in the last 3 months than Joe Biden and Barack Obama created in their 8 years in office. pic.twitter.com/kwk5YhL3TJ — Mike Pence (@Mike_Pence) August 13, 2020
That’s like losing 100 grand at the casino, winning 10 back before the end of the night, then excitedly telling your spouse, “Honey, I won more in my last hour of play than I ever have in my life.”
Just emphasize that the recovery is proceeding nicely, Mike. Reminding people of the abnormally large employment gains lately is destined to also remind them of the apocalyptic employment losses this spring. Better yet, instead of talking about jobs, why not focus on the favorable polling for Trump’s recent stimulus-driven executive orders? Here’s what YouGov got when it asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the executive order President Trump signed on Saturday which he says will extend unemployment benefits and defer payroll?”
A lot rests on the phrase “which he says” in the question, perhaps, but Americans approve of the orders by a two to one margin, with even a third of Biden voters giving thumbs up. That was predictable, and why I thought Trump’s orders were bad law but good politics. At a moment when voters are left groaning over another partisan stalemate in Congress, he’s signaling that he’s willing to do whatever he can to try to ease their pain.
The question is whether they’ll hold it against him if/when the payroll tax ends up not being deferred and unemployment benefits end up not flowing again. This result from Morning Consult on which party voters trust more to handle jobs seems ominous:
It’s basically even between Republicans and Democrats and has been for months, but a bluish trend less than 90 days from Election Day isn’t ideal. Why it’s trending that way isn’t clear, but presumably it has to do with Dems wanting a gaudier round of stimulus relief ($3 trillion) than Republicans ($1 trillion). Democrats also lead by 14 points on which party would best handle COVID, an advantage the GOP might be able to counter at the polls if it enjoyed the public’s faith on the economy — which it may not at the moment. Having congressional GOPers revert to fiscal conservatism in negotiating the next stimulus package could end up being electorally costly.
Here’s Trump being pressed last night on how he plans to pay for Social Security without the payroll tax. Simple, he says: Growth. Growth was also how the party expected to avoid running massive deficits after the 2017 tax cuts. You know how that turned out.


hotair--2020-08-13--Another riot declared in Portland as focus returns to the courthouse

Yesterday I pointed out that the nightly riots in Portland were starting to earn the mob some bad feelings from neighborhoods and even a bit of bad press .
Last night they decided to return to downtown and the scene of their greatest “ victory , ” the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse .
Returning to their roots meant throwing fireworks and at least one Molotov cocktail at the courthouse and once again a riot was declared : Protesters shifted back downtown Wednesday , joining other demonstrators who never left .
The two groups have been divided over tactics , namely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several activists implored the crowd not to draw out police .
But other people threw things , set off fireworks and gathered outside a parking garage where drivers were waiting to exit near the Justice Center .
Portland police ultimately labeled the gathering a riot , then set off tear gas on the crowd .
Police made multiple advances on the crowd , once pushing the crowd for more than seven blocks .
State troopers joined Portland police during at least one of the pushes .
KOIN News reporters Hannah Ray Lambert and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of the night and captured a lot of video from the scene .
What follows is a rough breakdown of last night in rough chronological order .
You may remember that the courthouse was a mess after weeks of protests and vandalism .
But as of last night a lot of that had been cleaned up .
The night actually started with some BLM protesters telling the “ opportunists ” who just want chaos ( Antifa ) to go home .
But there ’ s a clear division in the crowd between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those who think the peaceful approach won ’ t accomplish anything .
Notice she ’ s comparing these riots to Hong Kong and Belarus .
The difference of course is that those places are dictatorships where people have no rights of free speech or assembly .
In Hong Kong you can be arrested and jailed for life for writing “ Free Hong Kong ” on social media .
By contrast , Portland is one of the most liberal cities on the west coast .
These people are seriously delusional .
Lambert said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of fight broke out .
Reason ?
Who knows : Back at the courthouse it was time to start throwing explosives : The battle of the parking garage will be remembered forever , comrades : Police move in to push the crowd back : At some point around midnight a riot was declared and police ordered people to move north or west : There were several arrests including this one .
Plus police got physical with a few people who wouldn ’ t clear the road : Here ’ s protest leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near the courthouse : This sort of thing is what Hester spends a lot of her time doing .
This next clip is not from last night it ’ s from early Tuesday morning .
Hester is once again hectoring police .
In this case she ’ s telling a line of officers that their wives are busy sleeping with other men while one of her comrades holds up a large dildo .
She ’ s a class act .
Back to last night .
The mob is still fighting the battle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s about it .
Another pointless riot but at least the mob won ’ t get bad press for disturbing suburban neighborhoods this time .

Yesterday I pointed out that the nightly riots in Portland were starting to earn the mob some bad feelings from neighborhoods and even a bit of bad press. Last night they decided to return to downtown and the scene of their greatest “victory,” the Mark O. Hatfield Courthouse. Returning to their roots meant throwing fireworks and at least one Molotov cocktail at the courthouse and once again a riot was declared:
Protesters shifted back downtown Wednesday, joining other demonstrators who never left. The two groups have been divided over tactics, namely whether or not to confront police. Several activists implored the crowd not to draw out police. But other people threw things, set off fireworks and gathered outside a parking garage where drivers were waiting to exit near the Justice Center. Portland police ultimately labeled the gathering a riot, then set off tear gas on the crowd. Police made multiple advances on the crowd, once pushing the crowd for more than seven blocks. State troopers joined Portland police during at least one of the pushes.
KOIN News reporters Hannah Ray Lambert and Jennifer Dowling were following the situation for most of the night and captured a lot of video from the scene. What follows is a rough breakdown of last night in rough chronological order.
You may remember that the courthouse was a mess after weeks of protests and vandalism. But as of last night a lot of that had been cleaned up.
The night actually started with some BLM protesters telling the “opportunists” who just want chaos (Antifa) to go home.
Speeches at the Justice Center. This man has harsh words for "opportunists" who want to burn things or break into the buildings. "Take your motherf***ing punk a** home. … We are tired of our people getting hurt behind your bullsh*t." pic.twitter.com/58BJGDyBhb — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
But there’s a clear division in the crowd between those who want to keep it peaceful and those who think the peaceful approach won’t accomplish anything. Notice she’s comparing these riots to Hong Kong and Belarus.
JC speakers let another demonstrator take the mic. He spoke out against "peace police." "Us peacefully sitting in the park is not gonna bring change." pic.twitter.com/sMJ8ktdzQp — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
The difference of course is that those places are dictatorships where people have no rights of free speech or assembly. In Hong Kong you can be arrested and jailed for life for writing “Free Hong Kong” on social media. By contrast, Portland is one of the most liberal cities on the west coast. These people are seriously delusional.
The crowd continues to fill up the square. There might be as many as 400 folks here now. A decent bit of noise is now going opposite to the bullhorn speeches, which seem to be continuing on into eternity. pic.twitter.com/mDZTE5CGkG — Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans) (@IwriteOK) August 13, 2020
Someone burned a (fake?) pig head and a Trump flag:
Someone has lit a pig head aflame in front of the courthouse. Seconds later, someone else drops a Trump flag on top of it. pic.twitter.com/4wG9ZNgC6A — Robert Evans (The Only Robert Evans) (@IwriteOK) August 13, 2020
Lambert said the pig head was fake:
Another fire, this one in front of fed courthouse. Another mortar just went off too. pic.twitter.com/2sfVcB17VE — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
Some kind of fight broke out. Reason? Who knows:
Back at the courthouse it was time to start throwing explosives:
LRAD warning people to stop participating in criminal activity near the courthouse. pic.twitter.com/MBdipdIOHa — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
The battle of the parking garage will be remembered forever, comrades:
Unlawful assembly declared. pic.twitter.com/6DnPfh1SkZ — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
Warnings were issued:
Police move in to push the crowd back:
Pushing people to the parks. pic.twitter.com/Qy6v984vee — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
At some point around midnight a riot was declared and police ordered people to move north or west:
From several minutes ago. Paint, bottles and fireworks were thrown at police. Riot declared. Police used some sort of gas that knocked me out of commission for a while. Apologies to anyone watching the KOIN livestream. pic.twitter.com/wvG08oIkEv — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
There were several arrests including this one. Plus police got physical with a few people who wouldn’t clear the road:
Police and troopers were getting ready to leave when they got into a shoving match with some people. It looks like one trooper punched someone in the head (they were wearing a helmet). Then they pepper sprayed someone else. pic.twitter.com/mrvaRhcOA0 — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
Here’s protest leader Demetria Hester haranging police with a bullhorn near the courthouse:
Very small group has returned to the police side of the Justice Center. Demetria Hester with the megaphone. Looks like the sheriff's office is here too. pic.twitter.com/cRGrhXXLPG — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
This sort of thing is what Hester spends a lot of her time doing. This next clip is not from last night it’s from early Tuesday morning. Hester is once again hectoring police. In this case she’s telling a line of officers that their wives are busy sleeping with other men while one of her comrades holds up a large dildo. She’s a class act.
I should probably throw a warning up on this, but if you couldn't see what they were holding… here it is. Demetria Hester telling troopers that their wives are cheating on them "with something of that size." Now she's back to telling them that their moms/families/kids hate them pic.twitter.com/etngjhhT1H — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 11, 2020
Back to last night. The mob is still fighting the battle of the police parking garage.
Most of the officers left, but this group has been standing in the garage for a longggggggg time. pic.twitter.com/v2AXyQtaSu — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 13, 2020
And that’s about it. Another pointless riot but at least the mob won’t get bad press for disturbing suburban neighborhoods this time.


hotair--2020-08-13--Trump: We can't fund the Postal Service or else it'll encourage universal mail-in voting

“ Did the president just admit to sabotaging the post office for the purpose of suppressing voter participation ?
” asked reporter Tim Alberta of the clip below .
Well … sort of , yeah .
Although I ’ d say it ’ s more that he ’ s admitting he won ’ t fix the post office than that he ’ s sabotaging it .
Let ’ s back up .
For weeks , Democrats have accused Trump of playing games with the Postal Service in order to hamstring the agency .
He ’ s spent months crusading against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except in Florida ! )
, and destined to lead to chaos on Election Night — or Election Week , I should say .
Those complaints aren ’ t totally without merit ; based on New York ’ s recent experience , the odds of chaos are high .
But voting by mail may be the only truly safe option this fall depending on how bad the second wave of COVID is .
And as a basic matter , voting by mail is legal in every state .
In most you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request an “ absentee ” ballot .
Since you have the right to vote by mail , your government should do whatever it can to make your exercise of that right feasible .
Dems have viewed problems with the Postal Service lately entirely through an electoral lens .
Is Trump *deliberately* sabotaging the agency to make it more difficult to vote by mail ?
they wonder .
Newspapers have been tracking backlogs in mail delivery as Trump loyalist turned postmaster general Louis DeJoy reorganizes the USPS .
They ’ ve also noticed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local governments mail ballots to voters with first-class postage to ensure timely delivery instead of the usual third-class postage , upping the cost .
“ In past elections , ” notes WaPo , “ when states have chosen to send election mail under third-class designations , postal workers were instructed to treat those items as though they were first-class.
” Not this year , I guess .
The benign explanation for all this is that the Postal Service has had money problems for ages , those problems have turned more critical of late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choices needed to keep the USPS afloat .
The Democratic conspiratorial alternative is that DeJoy is a lackey in the Bill Barr mold , tasked with coopting his agency to serve the president ’ s political interests .
In Barr ’ s case that meant cutting Roger Stone and Mike Flynn special sentencing breaks ; in DeJoy ’ s case , it supposedly means hobbling mail delivery with an eye to discouraging voters from using it in the first place .
Or , in a truly sinister scenario , to ensure in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state election headquarters past the deadline , too late to be counted .
Watch three minutes of Trump this morning on Fox Business , as he ’ s asked about the stalled stimulus negotiations between Democrats and Republicans .
Bear in mind that a deal , if one is eventually reached , will approach $ 2 trillion — “ trillion ” with a T — and that funding for the Postal Service plus funding for mail-in ballots would amount to something like $ 28 billion .
That ’ s a little more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which millions of people are depending to keep them liquid in the midst of a grinding economic downturn .
Even so , says Trump , it ’ s a dealbreaker .
Why ?
Because “ if [ Democrats ] don ’ t get those two items , that means you can ’ t have universal mail-in voting because they ’ re not equipped to have it.
” Note Bartiromo ’ s incredulity that $ 28 billion for voting and the post office might end up killing a multi-trillion-dollar package aimed at keeping out-of-work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the sticking points that ’ s holding back stimulus for Americans during this coronavirus ?
” she asks .
She ’ s not a hostile interviewer either , rather the opposite .
Oh yes , says Trump .
Because $ 3 billion for mail ballots — which would be 0.15 percent of a $ 2 trillion deal — is a lot of money .
Lest there ’ s any doubt that this is something he opposes but might reluctantly sign on to if it ’ s part of a deal or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an administration official removed that doubt for WaPo .
“ We told them very clearly that the president was not going to sign the bill if [ money for the Postal Service ] was in it , ” the official said .
“ I don ’ t know if we used the v-bomb , but the president was not going to sign it , and we told them that.
” Liberal Bill Scher is urging people on his own side not to overstate Trump ’ s point to Bartiromo .
“ Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any stimulus bill to aid mail voting since he doesn ’ t want universal mail voting , ” says Scher .
“ He is NOT copping to purposefully slowing mail delivery to prevent ballots from counting… ” Right — and the reason Scher ’ s worried about that is precisely because he *doesn ’ t* want this talking point to spread on the left and convince voters that they can ’ t trust the Postal Service to deliver their ballots .
That would achieve precisely what Democrats suspect Trump of wanting , discouraging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether because of age or COVID risks or both , might not be able to make it to the polls in-person instead .
Even voting via a hobbled Postal Service beats not voting at all .
But if Trump isn ’ t copping to deliberately slowing down the Postal Service , he certainly is copping to not wanting to speed it up .
If he ’ s worried ( not unreasonably ) about mail-in ballots being processed efficiently , one would think a proper democratic solution would be to make mail voting more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You don ’ t starve the USPS of funding three months before an election in which voting by mail is expected to reach an all-time high .
You increase it , especially if you ’ re already in the process tossing trillions of dollars to taxpayers to keep the economy moving .
So , no , Trump ’ s not admitting that he ’ s trying to break the Postal Service ’ s legs .
But he ’ s certainly admitting that he won ’ t offer it a crutch as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite plain about his reason : It *is* election-related , because of his personal doubts about mail-in voting , never mind that 70 percent of Americans support it and all 50 states allow it to some degree or another .
There have been more theatrical dystopian moments during his presidency ( e.g.
, Lafayette Park ) , but on the merits and given the scale of the potential consequences , I ’ m not sure any have been worse than this .
Here ’ s another clip making the rounds today , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ casually dismissing “ voting rights ” as “ not our game.
” Some House Dems who figured prominently in impeachment are talking very tough about what Trump said to Bartiromo .
Hearings may be coming .

“Did the president just admit to sabotaging the post office for the purpose of suppressing voter participation?” asked reporter Tim Alberta of the clip below.
Well … sort of, yeah. Although I’d say it’s more that he’s admitting he won’t fix the post office than that he’s sabotaging it.
Let’s back up. For weeks, Democrats have accused Trump of playing games with the Postal Service in order to hamstring the agency. He’s spent months crusading against mail-in voting as unreliable, fraud-prone (except in Florida!), and destined to lead to chaos on Election Night — or Election Week, I should say. Those complaints aren’t totally without merit; based on New York’s recent experience, the odds of chaos are high. But voting by mail may be the only truly safe option this fall depending on how bad the second wave of COVID is. And as a basic matter, voting by mail is legal in every state. In most you don’t even need an absentee excuse to request an “absentee” ballot. Since you have the right to vote by mail, your government should do whatever it can to make your exercise of that right feasible.
Dems have viewed problems with the Postal Service lately entirely through an electoral lens. Is Trump *deliberately* sabotaging the agency to make it more difficult to vote by mail? they wonder. Newspapers have been tracking backlogs in mail delivery as Trump loyalist turned postmaster general Louis DeJoy reorganizes the USPS. They’ve also noticed the agency’s recommendation that state and local governments mail ballots to voters with first-class postage to ensure timely delivery instead of the usual third-class postage, upping the cost. “In past elections,” notes WaPo, “when states have chosen to send election mail under third-class designations, postal workers were instructed to treat those items as though they were first-class.” Not this year, I guess.
The benign explanation for all this is that the Postal Service has had money problems for ages, those problems have turned more critical of late, and DeJoy is making the hard choices needed to keep the USPS afloat. The Democratic conspiratorial alternative is that DeJoy is a lackey in the Bill Barr mold, tasked with coopting his agency to serve the president’s political interests. In Barr’s case that meant cutting Roger Stone and Mike Flynn special sentencing breaks; in DeJoy’s case, it supposedly means hobbling mail delivery with an eye to discouraging voters from using it in the first place. Or, in a truly sinister scenario, to ensure in November that many millions of ballots arrive at state election headquarters past the deadline, too late to be counted.
Watch three minutes of Trump this morning on Fox Business, as he’s asked about the stalled stimulus negotiations between Democrats and Republicans. Bear in mind that a deal, if one is eventually reached, will approach $2 trillion — “trillion” with a T — and that funding for the Postal Service plus funding for mail-in ballots would amount to something like $28 billion. That’s a little more than one percent of a fiscal program on which millions of people are depending to keep them liquid in the midst of a grinding economic downturn. Even so, says Trump, it’s a dealbreaker.
Why? Because “if [Democrats] don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.”
Note Bartiromo’s incredulity that $28 billion for voting and the post office might end up killing a multi-trillion-dollar package aimed at keeping out-of-work people functioning. “This is one of the sticking points that’s holding back stimulus for Americans during this coronavirus?” she asks. She’s not a hostile interviewer either, rather the opposite.
Oh yes, says Trump. Because $3 billion for mail ballots — which would be 0.15 percent of a $2 trillion deal — is a lot of money.
Lest there’s any doubt that this is something he opposes but might reluctantly sign on to if it’s part of a deal or if it’s a true dealbreaker, an administration official removed that doubt for WaPo. “We told them very clearly that the president was not going to sign the bill if [money for the Postal Service] was in it,” the official said. “I don’t know if we used the v-bomb, but the president was not going to sign it, and we told them that.”
Liberal Bill Scher is urging people on his own side not to overstate Trump’s point to Bartiromo. “Trump is saying here he opposes extra money in any stimulus bill to aid mail voting since he doesn’t want universal mail voting,” says Scher. “He is NOT copping to purposefully slowing mail delivery to prevent ballots from counting…” Right — and the reason Scher’s worried about that is precisely because he *doesn’t* want this talking point to spread on the left and convince voters that they can’t trust the Postal Service to deliver their ballots. That would achieve precisely what Democrats suspect Trump of wanting, discouraging voting by mail among people who, whether because of age or COVID risks or both, might not be able to make it to the polls in-person instead. Even voting via a hobbled Postal Service beats not voting at all.
But if Trump isn’t copping to deliberately slowing down the Postal Service, he certainly is copping to not wanting to speed it up. If he’s worried (not unreasonably) about mail-in ballots being processed efficiently, one would think a proper democratic solution would be to make mail voting more, not less, efficient and reliable. You don’t starve the USPS of funding three months before an election in which voting by mail is expected to reach an all-time high. You increase it, especially if you’re already in the process tossing trillions of dollars to taxpayers to keep the economy moving.
So, no, Trump’s not admitting that he’s trying to break the Postal Service’s legs. But he’s certainly admitting that he won’t offer it a crutch as it limps along. And he’s quite plain about his reason: It *is* election-related, because of his personal doubts about mail-in voting, never mind that 70 percent of Americans support it and all 50 states allow it to some degree or another. There have been more theatrical dystopian moments during his presidency (e.g., Lafayette Park), but on the merits and given the scale of the potential consequences, I’m not sure any have been worse than this.
Here’s another clip making the rounds today, of Larry Kudlow discussing the stimulus negotiations and casually dismissing “voting rights” as “not our game.” Some House Dems who figured prominently in impeachment are talking very tough about what Trump said to Bartiromo. Hearings may be coming.