hotair--2020-07-30--Pass the Portland popcorn: Wall of Moms accused of "anti-Blackness" by fellow protesters

Revolutions , especially “ glorious people ’ s revolutions , ” have one quality in common — the tendency to eat themselves .
Robespierre discovered this just a bit too late during the French revolution , so the Portland Wall of Moms have no excuse for being caught unawares .
The stunt group at the front of the Portland riots acting as pseudo-human shields got denounced by Don ’ t Shoot Portland , the Black Lives Matter-affiliated group that had demanded more of a leadership role within the PWoM .
Portland Wall of Moms , a group formed in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nightly downtown protests , was accused publicly Wednesday of “ anti-Blackness ” by leaders of an existing , Black-led community group .
Wall of Moms , whose members said they aimed to support and protect other Black Lives Matter protesters near the fence in front of the federal courthouse , announced Friday that its white leadership had rescinded their positions to allow women of color to be in charge .
New leaders announced Friday include Teressa Raiford , executive director of Don ’ t Shoot Portland , Demetria Hester and Danialle James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Don ’ t Shoot Portland took to Instagram to urge people against supporting the Wall of Moms , saying that it was no longer working with the moms group .
Don ’ t Shoot Portland accused PWoM of attempting to seize back control of their own group by filing incorporating paperwork with Oregon without consulting DSP .
This is evidence of “ anti-Blackness , ” DSP accused in the Instagram denouncement announcement : This kitchen-sink explanation offers many reasons for the disaffection between the two groups , but it ’ s clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the main issue .
Their statement complains of “ safety ” issues , saying that PWoM ’ s lack of communication “ put many on the ground in direct danger.
” Taking part in riots is what put their members in “ direct danger.
” To the extent that the so-called Wall of Moms acted as human shields , that mitigated the danger , at least theoretically , so it ’ s unclear why that had to be coordinated through DSP at all .
The speed of the rupture is notable in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , MSNBC ’ s Ari Melber was featuring the Wall of Moms as heroes of the Portland uprising .
Bev Barnum got a lot of national notoriety , which might have been triggered some resentment : Even at that time , though , storm clouds were gathering .
Byron York writes that trouble has been brewing for a while between the groups conducting demonstrations and riots in Portland : The paper reported that members of a black-led group , Don ’ t Shoot Portland , which has existed for six years and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have accused the leaders of Wall of Moms of “ anti-Blackness.
” Trouble was brewing last week , the Oregonian reported , when Wall of Moms announced on Friday “ that its white leadership had rescinded their positions to allow women of color to be in charge.
” But that wasn ’ t enough .
On Wednesday , Don ’ t Shoot Portland took a very big shot at the Wall of Moms , charging that the group is only interested in driving federal law enforcement out of Portland and perpetuating itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall of Moms had also started incorporating itself in other cities and states , the New York Times reported just a couple of days ago .
That might also have set off DSP and other groups who want to keep a tight grip on protests and activism , especially given the composition of these groups : Wall of Moms marchers are mostly white , and many are first-time protesters .
The Wall of Moms groups consist of predominantly white women who have garnered a swell of attention that Black mothers protesting in Portland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and organizers said in interviews .
That attention is not lost on the participants nor the organizations they partner with , some said .
“ Black moms are leading this , ” said Jennifer Kristiansen , 37 , a lawyer and Wall of Moms member who was arrested during a Portland demonstration .
“ Moms didn ’ t just show up a couple nights ago .
Black moms have always been there.
” … Wall of Moms groups in Missouri , North Carolina , Alabama , Texas , Chicago and Maryland are reaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next steps , organizers from each group said in interviews .
It does seem that WoM is very interested in self-perpetuation , as any group would be , although that doesn ’ t necessarily mean it ’ s not interested in the ostensible mission for their activism too .
However , we ’ ve certainly seen a pattern of causes turning into industries that benefit organizers while not doing much for the causes that inspired them , York notes .
Does that apply to WoM , and willthe DSP denunciation “ anti-Blackness ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , riven by racial strife , the future of the newly-incorporated Wall of Moms is unclear .
Remember the saying from the American intellectual Eric Hoffer : “ Every great cause begins as a movement , becomes a business , and eventually degenerates into a racket.
” Wall of Moms transitioned from the movement stage to the business stage in record time — a matter of days .
It may already be well on its way to becoming a racket .
So at the very moment the national media celebrated Wall of Moms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , singing lullabies and handing out sunflowers , the original Wall of Moms in Portland was collapsing from its own internal tensions .
Should anyone be surprised ?
Surprised ?
Naah , although the speed of the collapse is certainly remarkable .
Amused ?
Certainly .
Popcorn ?
Much appreciated .

Revolutions, especially “glorious people’s revolutions,” have one quality in common — the tendency to eat themselves. Robespierre discovered this just a bit too late during the French revolution, so the Portland Wall of Moms have no excuse for being caught unawares. The stunt group at the front of the Portland riots acting as pseudo-human shields got denounced by Don’t Shoot Portland, the Black Lives Matter-affiliated group that had demanded more of a leadership role within the PWoM.
Hilarity eventually ensued:
Portland Wall of Moms, a group formed in recent weeks and quickly recognized as a staple of nightly downtown protests, was accused publicly Wednesday of “anti-Blackness” by leaders of an existing, Black-led community group. Wall of Moms, whose members said they aimed to support and protect other Black Lives Matter protesters near the fence in front of the federal courthouse, announced Friday that its white leadership had rescinded their positions to allow women of color to be in charge. New leaders announced Friday include Teressa Raiford, executive director of Don’t Shoot Portland, Demetria Hester and Danialle James. But less than a week later, Don’t Shoot Portland took to Instagram to urge people against supporting the Wall of Moms, saying that it was no longer working with the moms group.
Don’t Shoot Portland accused PWoM of attempting to seize back control of their own group by filing incorporating paperwork with Oregon without consulting DSP. This is evidence of “anti-Blackness,” DSP accused in the Instagram denouncement announcement:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CDO2rh_hNJR/
This kitchen-sink explanation offers many reasons for the disaffection between the two groups, but it’s clearly the issue of control of PWoM that is the main issue. Their statement complains of “safety” issues, saying that PWoM’s lack of communication “put many on the ground in direct danger.” Taking part in riots is what put their members in “direct danger.” To the extent that the so-called Wall of Moms acted as human shields, that mitigated the danger, at least theoretically, so it’s unclear why that had to be coordinated through DSP at all.
The speed of the rupture is notable in itself. Just a few days ago, MSNBC’s Ari Melber was featuring the Wall of Moms as heroes of the Portland uprising. Bev Barnum got a lot of national notoriety, which might have been triggered some resentment:
Even at that time, though, storm clouds were gathering. Byron York writes that trouble has been brewing for a while between the groups conducting demonstrations and riots in Portland:
The paper reported that members of a black-led group, Don’t Shoot Portland, which has existed for six years and is affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement, have accused the leaders of Wall of Moms of “anti-Blackness.” Trouble was brewing last week, the Oregonian reported, when Wall of Moms announced on Friday “that its white leadership had rescinded their positions to allow women of color to be in charge.” But that wasn’t enough. On Wednesday, Don’t Shoot Portland took a very big shot at the Wall of Moms, charging that the group is only interested in driving federal law enforcement out of Portland and perpetuating itself — not in supporting black causes.
Wall of Moms had also started incorporating itself in other cities and states, the New York Times reported just a couple of days ago. That might also have set off DSP and other groups who want to keep a tight grip on protests and activism, especially given the composition of these groups:
Wall of Moms marchers are mostly white, and many are first-time protesters. The Wall of Moms groups consist of predominantly white women who have garnered a swell of attention that Black mothers protesting in Portland for months did not receive, participants and organizers said in interviews. That attention is not lost on the participants nor the organizations they partner with, some said. “Black moms are leading this,” said Jennifer Kristiansen, 37, a lawyer and Wall of Moms member who was arrested during a Portland demonstration. “Moms didn’t just show up a couple nights ago. Black moms have always been there.” … Wall of Moms groups in Missouri, North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Chicago and Maryland are reaching out to local activists and plotting their next steps, organizers from each group said in interviews.
It does seem that WoM is very interested in self-perpetuation, as any group would be, although that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not interested in the ostensible mission for their activism too. However, we’ve certainly seen a pattern of causes turning into industries that benefit organizers while not doing much for the causes that inspired them, York notes. Does that apply to WoM, and willthe DSP denunciation “anti-Blackness” kill that business model?
So now, riven by racial strife, the future of the newly-incorporated Wall of Moms is unclear. Remember the saying from the American intellectual Eric Hoffer: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Wall of Moms transitioned from the movement stage to the business stage in record time — a matter of days. It may already be well on its way to becoming a racket. So at the very moment the national media celebrated Wall of Moms as a movement spreading across the country, singing lullabies and handing out sunflowers, the original Wall of Moms in Portland was collapsing from its own internal tensions. Should anyone be surprised?
Surprised? Naah, although the speed of the collapse is certainly remarkable. Amused? Certainly. Popcorn? Much appreciated.


hotair--2020-07-30--Seattle launches investigation after supply van full of weapons found trailing behind rioters

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Police Chief Carmen Best held a press conference Wednesday to announce an investigation was being launched into the riots which took place in the city over the weekend .
One aspect of the weekend ’ s events the Police Chief discussed was a van which was seen following a small group of violent rioters .
Witnesses saw people taking weapons out of the van and police later seized it and found it was full of homemade weapons and armor .
On Wednesday , Best told reporters that officers saw a van following a group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it stopped outside the East Precinct .
At about the same time , she said , explosions started going off outside the precinct .
Best said a witness later told police they had seen baseball bats and explosives inside the same van earlier in the day .
Police later impounded the van and , after obtaining a search warrant , discovered firework pyrotechnics , smoke bombs , stun guns , bear and pepper spray , makeshift spike strips and gas masks , Best said… Seattle Police Sgt .
James Lee , who works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said his team also found remnants of a Molotov cocktail that exploded near King County ’ s juvenile detention facility , which is under construction .
Sgt .
Lee discussed photos of items found in the van , including a taser and homemade spike strips which were intended to flatten the tires of police bikes .
Lee also showed photos of canisters of bear spray which he said had been “ causing burns and itching and stinging to their face and exposed skin.
” Chief Best interjected that the use of bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal offense.
” Four construction trailers were burned out during the riots Saturday .
A Starbucks coffee shop was vandalized inside and out and then set on fire .
That shop was on the ground floor of an apartment building .
The fire department evacuated that building and , fortunately , put out the fire before it got out of control .
A total of 59 Seattle police officers were injured Saturday .
Chief Best said the items found in the van were “ evidence that not everyone that comes to these protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us have figured that out by now but there are still plenty of progressives in the media downplaying the violence as if it weren ’ t very significant .
The obvious question based on the presentation is who is behind this .
No arrests have been made yet so we can ’ t identify any of them by name .
During a Q & A after the press conference a reporter suggested it was worrisome that this van contained hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of equipment and had caused a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew nothing about who they were .
Chief Best smiled and replied , “ Well , nothing I ’ m going to share today.
” So hopefully that ’ s an indication that they do have some leads and arrest will happen soon .
In a report about the press conference , King 5 repeatedly referred to “ anarchists ” and said some were from out of state .
There ’ s a mention of court documents but no link to any documents in the published story .
So we ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see where this is going and if these people will turn out to be organized anarchists/Antifa .

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Police Chief Carmen Best held a press conference Wednesday to announce an investigation was being launched into the riots which took place in the city over the weekend. One aspect of the weekend’s events the Police Chief discussed was a van which was seen following a small group of violent rioters. Witnesses saw people taking weapons out of the van and police later seized it and found it was full of homemade weapons and armor.
On Wednesday, Best told reporters that officers saw a van following a group of protesters around 4:30 p.m. Saturday, before it stopped outside the East Precinct. At about the same time, she said, explosions started going off outside the precinct. Best said a witness later told police they had seen baseball bats and explosives inside the same van earlier in the day. Police later impounded the van and, after obtaining a search warrant, discovered firework pyrotechnics, smoke bombs, stun guns, bear and pepper spray, makeshift spike strips and gas masks, Best said… Seattle Police Sgt. James Lee, who works with the department’s arson/bomb squad, said his team also found remnants of a Molotov cocktail that exploded near King County’s juvenile detention facility, which is under construction.
Sgt. Lee discussed photos of items found in the van, including a taser and homemade spike strips which were intended to flatten the tires of police bikes. Lee also showed photos of canisters of bear spray which he said had been “causing burns and itching and stinging to their face and exposed skin.” Chief Best interjected that the use of bear spray on human beings was a “federal offense.”
Four construction trailers were burned out during the riots Saturday. A Starbucks coffee shop was vandalized inside and out and then set on fire. That shop was on the ground floor of an apartment building. The fire department evacuated that building and, fortunately, put out the fire before it got out of control. A total of 59 Seattle police officers were injured Saturday. Chief Best said the items found in the van were “evidence that not everyone that comes to these protests is peaceful.”
I think most of us have figured that out by now but there are still plenty of progressives in the media downplaying the violence as if it weren’t very significant.
The obvious question based on the presentation is who is behind this. No arrests have been made yet so we can’t identify any of them by name. During a Q&A after the press conference a reporter suggested it was worrisome that this van contained hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of equipment and had caused a lot of mayhem in the city yet the police knew nothing about who they were. Chief Best smiled and replied, “Well, nothing I’m going to share today.” So hopefully that’s an indication that they do have some leads and arrest will happen soon.
In a report about the press conference, King 5 repeatedly referred to “anarchists” and said some were from out of state. There’s a mention of court documents but no link to any documents in the published story. So we’ll have to hold out a little longer to see where this is going and if these people will turn out to be organized anarchists/Antifa.
Here’s the King 5 report.


hotair--2020-07-30--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Election delay, NBA scandal, human trafficking, abortion pres

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Election delay, NBA scandal, human trafficking, abortion pressure, elder care, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Can a president delay an election ?
Dr. Paul Kengor discusses Donald Trump ’ s suggestion , and why it matters .
• The NBA has another big scandal in China , after it shamed league officials into keeping silent about repression in Hong Kong .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for us .
• What is human trafficking , where does it happen , and how can we fight it ?
Dr. Roza Pati of St. Thomas University School of Law explains it for us .
• What is new in the fight against abortion ?
We ’ ll talk to Kathleen Gallagher and Kristi Hamrick .
• As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold , the uniquely vulnerable position of the elderly has become more high-profile than ever .
Dr. Charles Camosy of Fordham University explains the ethics and challenges of honoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more to come … stay tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour .
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
Can a president delay an election? Dr. Paul Kengor discusses Donald Trump’s suggestion, and why it matters.
The NBA has another big scandal in China, after it shamed league officials into keeping silent about repression in Hong Kong. Sports-law expert Brooks Singer breaks it down for us.
What is human trafficking, where does it happen, and how can we fight it? Dr. Roza Pati of St. Thomas University School of Law explains it for us.
What is new in the fight against abortion? We’ll talk to Kathleen Gallagher and Kristi Hamrick.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold, the uniquely vulnerable position of the elderly has become more high-profile than ever. Dr. Charles Camosy of Fordham University explains the ethics and challenges of honoring our fathers and mothers.
And more to come … stay tuned!
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-07-30--Breaking: DC circuit tosses Flynn order, will rehear en banc

So much for clearing things up .
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals tossed an earlier 2-1 ruling written by Judge Neomi Rao ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn , as requested by the Department of Justice .
Instead , the full bench of the appellate court will rehear the arguments presented by attorneys from all three parties — Flynn , the DoJ , and Sullivan himself : A federal appeals court on Thursday tossed out its order that a trial court judge dismiss the criminal case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue .
The ruling is a blow both Flynn and the Justice Department , which has sought to drop the prosecution of him for lying to FBI agents about his conversations in the weeks before the inauguration of President Donald Trump .
… A three-judge panel in the federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington in late June ordered Sullivan to dismiss the case after hearing arguments from lawyers for the judge , Flynn and prosecutors .
But Sullivan asked the full appeals court to reconsider that order , which is said Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three weeks for the court to rule on Sullivan ’ s request for an en banc review .
That in itself might indicate some reluctance to take on a case that hasn ’ t exactly reflected glory on anyone involved in it , including most assuredly Emmet Sullivan and the court .
The fact that they granted this means that they are concerned that all of the irregularities have added up to a mess that requires very careful deliberation to unravel .
It appears that the court doesn ’ t disagree with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They just don ’ t sound convinced that a mandamus order is the correct move .
Note the language from the order , which tells the parties to focus their arguments on whether “ other adequate means to attain the relief ” might be available other than the mandumus order : Whom would that benefit ?
It seems unlikely to benefit Flynn or the DoJ .
It requires a majority of the panel to agree to a petition for en banc review , according to the federal rules of appellate procedure .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote , either , unless one of the judges in the appellate circuit requests it .
It ’ s possible that they want to perform some Deus ex machina intervention that will put all interests aright .
That could potentially include support for prosecutorial privilege and discretion while perhaps allowing Sullivan some face-saving reinterpretation of his actions , after Rao ’ s reading of the riot act in her decision .
However , I don ’ t think I ’ d bet all in on that option .
It seems more likely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considering Judge Robert Wilkins ’ mainly procedural dissent , in which he argued that the matter should have waited for Sullivan ’ s eventual ruling .
Rao rebutted that idea forcefully in her ruling , but it might very well be that it didn ’ t convince the other jurists in the DC Circuit .
The oral arguments for the en banc review will take place on August 11 , but that might present problems for the appellate circuit too .
The DoJ keeps finding more evidence of investigatory misconduct related to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguably already rising to the level where a judge would apply harsh sanctions to the prosecution of a case — if prosecutors didn ’ t withdraw the charges first , that is .
Sidney Powell will have even more ammunition than she did with the initial appeal of Sullivan ’ s extraordinary attempt to prolong the drama , and the continuing embarrassment of this case might sap any enthusiasm to protect Sullivan ’ s prerogatives .
Although , I probably wouldn ’ t bet on that , either .
This looks like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end .
And that means we might be waiting until 2021 to determine what happens with Flynn .

So much for clearing things up. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals tossed an earlier 2-1 ruling written by Judge Neomi Rao ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn, as requested by the Department of Justice. Instead, the full bench of the appellate court will rehear the arguments presented by attorneys from all three parties — Flynn, the DoJ, and Sullivan himself:
A federal appeals court on Thursday tossed out its order that a trial court judge dismiss the criminal case against former national security advisor Michael Flynn, and said it will rehear arguments on the issue. The ruling is a blow both Flynn and the Justice Department, which has sought to drop the prosecution of him for lying to FBI agents about his conversations in the weeks before the inauguration of President Donald Trump. … A three-judge panel in the federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington in late June ordered Sullivan to dismiss the case after hearing arguments from lawyers for the judge, Flynn and prosecutors. But Sullivan asked the full appeals court to reconsider that order, which is said Thursday it will do.
It took nearly three weeks for the court to rule on Sullivan’s request for an en banc review. That in itself might indicate some reluctance to take on a case that hasn’t exactly reflected glory on anyone involved in it, including most assuredly Emmet Sullivan and the court. The fact that they granted this means that they are concerned that all of the irregularities have added up to a mess that requires very careful deliberation to unravel.
It appears that the court doesn’t disagree with the premise that Sullivan may have overstepped. They just don’t sound convinced that a mandamus order is the correct move. Note the language from the order, which tells the parties to focus their arguments on whether “other adequate means to attain the relief” might be available other than the mandumus order:
Break: DC Circuit will rehear Michael Flynn case as full court, per new order pic.twitter.com/uatExzgeFQ — Mike Scarcella (@MikeScarcella) July 30, 2020
Whom would that benefit? It seems unlikely to benefit Flynn or the DoJ. It requires a majority of the panel to agree to a petition for en banc review, according to the federal rules of appellate procedure. That need not take the form of a vote, either, unless one of the judges in the appellate circuit requests it. It’s possible that they want to perform some Deus ex machina intervention that will put all interests aright. That could potentially include support for prosecutorial privilege and discretion while perhaps allowing Sullivan some face-saving reinterpretation of his actions, after Rao’s reading of the riot act in her decision.
However, I don’t think I’d bet all in on that option. It seems more likely that the majority of the panel might be considering Judge Robert Wilkins’ mainly procedural dissent, in which he argued that the matter should have waited for Sullivan’s eventual ruling. Rao rebutted that idea forcefully in her ruling, but it might very well be that it didn’t convince the other jurists in the DC Circuit.
The oral arguments for the en banc review will take place on August 11, but that might present problems for the appellate circuit too. The DoJ keeps finding more evidence of investigatory misconduct related to the prosecution of Flynn, and that is arguably already rising to the level where a judge would apply harsh sanctions to the prosecution of a case — if prosecutors didn’t withdraw the charges first, that is. Sidney Powell will have even more ammunition than she did with the initial appeal of Sullivan’s extraordinary attempt to prolong the drama, and the continuing embarrassment of this case might sap any enthusiasm to protect Sullivan’s prerogatives. Although, I probably wouldn’t bet on that, either.
This looks like it will go to the Supreme Court in the end. And that means we might be waiting until 2021 to determine what happens with Flynn.


hotair--2020-07-30--Pompeo: The Justice Department and others will make the decision about whether the election is delay

Pompeo: The Justice Department and others will make the decision about whether the election is delayed

No , Mike , they won ’ t .
Unless by “ others ” you mean Congress , for cripes sake .
The only thing more obnoxious than Trump ’ s tweet this morning is the thought of Bill Barr dressing up a de facto coup as some sort of law enforcement operation .
This is at least the second time a top administration official has punted when asked about delaying the election , by the way .
Jared Kushner also ducked when asked about it in May , but Kushner seemed merely to be hedging in the moment because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sets the date of elections .
Kushner ’ s not a cabinet officer either .
Pompeo is , as Tim Kaine helpfully reminded him , and he ’ s a Harvard Law grad .
What ’ s his excuse for being agnostic about moving the election apart from raw toadyism in not wanting to contradict the president on one of his worst ideas ever ?
Or does Pompeo mean to imply he thinks the DOJ should have a say in when America votes ?
The correct answer when asked whether we might delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t delay it even if the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is rampaging through Manhattan on Election Day.
” Or , if that ’ s too colorful , something like this : Trump ’ s more outlandish tweets invariably ignite debates within political media about what his “ angle ” is in tweeting them .
Did he propose an election delay to distract from this morning ’ s gruesome GDP data ?
Was he trying to preemptively delegitimize an impending loss to Biden by setting himself up to argue that he would have won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted on holding the election as scheduled , when it was too dangerous/complicated for his fans to vote ?
I ’ m in this camp with Lachlan Markay : Trump isn ’ t nearly as clever about manufacturing distractions as most of his detractors assume .
If he ’ s floating a trial balloon about delaying the election , the most likely reason is that he ’ s nervous about the polls and starting to grasp for ways that he might avoid a likely defeat .
A “ delay ” is one such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning ’ s tweet also inspired a round of people being called to account for scoffing at Biden back in April when he speculated that Trump “ is gon na try to kick back the election somehow , come up with some rationale why it can ’ t be held.
” I don ’ t know why that idea seemed preposterous to others at the time ; Trump is so neurotic about being thought of as unpopular that he came up with a conspiracy theory in 2016 to explain the vote totals in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s zero chance that he ’ ll sit by idly and endure a possible humiliation at the polls if there ’ s anything he can do to avert it .
In any event , some commentators did think Biden was out of his gourd for believing that Trump would do anything to stay in power… …and are feeling less certain about that today : Jonathan Turley also lambasted Biden at length in April ( “ Biden Goes Postal ” ) only to have to write a new post this morning wearily reminding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election and the date that the electoral college meets to cast its votes , and the Constitution of course sets the date for when a president ’ s term ends .
None of that ’ s going to change .
Although what a Republican-controlled Congress might conceivably do at Trump ’ s request to tinker with the election sure would make for an interesting thought experiment .
Anyway , there are other potential nightmare scenarios that might be foisted upon the country as the president panics over a likely defeat so let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : If the coronavirus is still a factor in the fall , Trump could claim emergency powers to keep people in cities where outbreaks have been worse from going to polling places in person , in the name of public health , Hasen said .
That could depress turnout in the heavily populated urban areas that tend to vote Democratic… Hasen said the president could also lean on state legislatures to take voting for president away from citizens entirely in the name of public safety .
The members of the electoral college who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be chosen by the voting public .
Instead , the state legislatures could select the presidential electors as they did in the early days of our republic .
If he ’ s worried about the election being delayed as opposed to hoping it might be delayed , why doesn ’ t he do something to help facilitate day-of voting ?
“ Trump could take steps to help secure the election system and ensure safe elections in a coronavirus-stricken country , ” writes David Graham .
“ He could help fund efforts by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better prepare for an influx of mail-in ballots .
He could assist the U.S .
Postal Service in preparing for a busy election.
” It speaks volumes of his illiberal instincts that when he raises the prospect of voting being difficult , his solution isn ’ t to try to make it easier , it ’ s to try to make it impossible , however temporarily .
And needless to say , grasping for ways to avert a verdict by the voters reeks of weakness , a blaring siren that he thinks he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normally consumed with projecting strength would avoid the idea of postponing the election if only for that reason , one would think .
I ’ ll leave you with this , another way in which Trump ’ s tweet might create political problems for him .
If the outlook on COVID is so daunting that we should consider delaying the election so that people don ’ t feel forced to resort to dubious mail-in ballots , why the hell are we reopening anything right now ?
Keep schools closed , drive cases way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safer voting in person in November .

No, Mike, they won’t. Unless by “others” you mean Congress, for cripes sake.
The only thing more obnoxious than Trump’s tweet this morning is the thought of Bill Barr dressing up a de facto coup as some sort of law enforcement operation.
This is at least the second time a top administration official has punted when asked about delaying the election, by the way. Jared Kushner also ducked when asked about it in May, but Kushner seemed merely to be hedging in the moment because he wasn’t sure offhand who sets the date of elections. Kushner’s not a cabinet officer either. Pompeo is, as Tim Kaine helpfully reminded him, and he’s a Harvard Law grad. What’s his excuse for being agnostic about moving the election apart from raw toadyism in not wanting to contradict the president on one of his worst ideas ever?
Or does Pompeo mean to imply he thinks the DOJ should have a say in when America votes?
Senator @timkaine: "A president cannot delay an election. The date of the election is established by Congress. It was established in 1845. There is no ability for a president to delay an election." pic.twitter.com/651HddZZnX — CSPAN (@cspan) July 30, 2020
The correct answer when asked whether we might delay the election is, “We shouldn’t delay it even if the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man is rampaging through Manhattan on Election Day.” Or, if that’s too colorful, something like this:
Make no mistake: the election will happen in New Hampshire on November 3rd. End of story. Our voting system in NH is secure, safe, and reliable. We have done it right 100% of the time for 100 years – this year will be no different. — Chris Sununu (@GovChrisSununu) July 30, 2020
Trump’s more outlandish tweets invariably ignite debates within political media about what his “angle” is in tweeting them. Did he propose an election delay to distract from this morning’s gruesome GDP data? Was he trying to preemptively delegitimize an impending loss to Biden by setting himself up to argue that he would have won if only we hadn’t irresponsibly insisted on holding the election as scheduled, when it was too dangerous/complicated for his fans to vote? I’m in this camp with Lachlan Markay:
https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1288836274409877504
Trump isn’t nearly as clever about manufacturing distractions as most of his detractors assume. If he’s floating a trial balloon about delaying the election, the most likely reason is that he’s nervous about the polls and starting to grasp for ways that he might avoid a likely defeat. A “delay” is one such way. Simple as that.
This morning’s tweet also inspired a round of people being called to account for scoffing at Biden back in April when he speculated that Trump “is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held.” I don’t know why that idea seemed preposterous to others at the time; Trump is so neurotic about being thought of as unpopular that he came up with a conspiracy theory in 2016 to explain the vote totals in an election he won. There’s zero chance that he’ll sit by idly and endure a possible humiliation at the polls if there’s anything he can do to avert it. In any event, some commentators did think Biden was out of his gourd for believing that Trump would do anything to stay in power…
This is a classic example of bias, resulting in the media effectively taking sides. Biden’s extreme, dangerous conspiracy theory should have caused a feeding frenzy in the media. But the MSM prefers to target Trump, so Biden gets another pass. https://t.co/uP0gEM9dvA — Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) April 25, 2020
…and are feeling less certain about that today:
This is not an idea anyone, especially POTUS, should float. Our democracy is based on elections in which everyone knows the rules and they apply to all. Election Day is and will be Nov 3, 2020. Mr. President – please don’t even pretend to mess with this. It’s a harmful idea. https://t.co/bbBJbkNigV — Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) July 30, 2020
Jonathan Turley also lambasted Biden at length in April (“Biden Goes Postal”) only to have to write a new post this morning wearily reminding the president that Congress sets the date of the election and the date that the electoral college meets to cast its votes, and the Constitution of course sets the date for when a president’s term ends. None of that’s going to change.
Although what a Republican-controlled Congress might conceivably do at Trump’s request to tinker with the election sure would make for an interesting thought experiment.
Anyway, there are other potential nightmare scenarios that might be foisted upon the country as the president panics over a likely defeat so let’s start scoffing at these now:
If the coronavirus is still a factor in the fall, Trump could claim emergency powers to keep people in cities where outbreaks have been worse from going to polling places in person, in the name of public health, Hasen said. That could depress turnout in the heavily populated urban areas that tend to vote Democratic… Hasen said the president could also lean on state legislatures to take voting for president away from citizens entirely in the name of public safety. The members of the electoral college who officially choose the president do not need to be chosen by the voting public. Instead, the state legislatures could select the presidential electors as they did in the early days of our republic.
If he’s worried about the election being delayed as opposed to hoping it might be delayed, why doesn’t he do something to help facilitate day-of voting? “Trump could take steps to help secure the election system and ensure safe elections in a coronavirus-stricken country,” writes David Graham. “He could help fund efforts by states to open new polling places or better prepare for an influx of mail-in ballots. He could assist the U.S. Postal Service in preparing for a busy election.” It speaks volumes of his illiberal instincts that when he raises the prospect of voting being difficult, his solution isn’t to try to make it easier, it’s to try to make it impossible, however temporarily.
And needless to say, grasping for ways to avert a verdict by the voters reeks of weakness, a blaring siren that he thinks he’ll probably lose. A president normally consumed with projecting strength would avoid the idea of postponing the election if only for that reason, one would think.
I’ll leave you with this, another way in which Trump’s tweet might create political problems for him. If the outlook on COVID is so daunting that we should consider delaying the election so that people don’t feel forced to resort to dubious mail-in ballots, why the hell are we reopening anything right now? Keep schools closed, drive cases way down, and then Americans will feel safer voting in person in November.


hotair--2020-07-30--Traffic court notices in Chicago have been a mess, the Court Clerk says it's racist to ask why

Cook County , IL includes the city of Chicago and has a population of more than 5 million people .
It ’ s a big job to manage all of the court dates for the county and that ’ s especially true in the midst of a pandemic .
Traffic cases in the county have been moved entirely online in the form of Zoom meetings , but many people aren ’ t getting the message .
In fact , some people are getting the wrong message in the form of court date notifications telling them to show up at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they find themselves waiting for hours in a line that stretches for several blocks .
When they finally get to the front of the line they are informed that traffic cases are handled online and while they were waiting in the line , they missed their online court dates .
When local news outlet WGN first reported about this two weeks ago , a spokesman for Cook County Court Clerk Dorothy Brown didn ’ t respond to a request for an explanation .
But at a minimum , Brown ’ s office should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notification system wasn ’ t working well and that the media was taking notice .
Yesterday , roughly two weeks later , WGN came back to the story and found that the situation was still a mess .
There is still a line of people showing up at the Daley Center for traffic court only to find out traffic court is online only at the moment .
And one of the people they had interviewed for their earlier story finally received a notice about the online court date .
The court date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the postcard the date it was mailed was July 16 .
This particular man had driven three hours each way and waited 3 hours on a line to find out he ’ d missed his online appearance .
WGN finally got a chance to speak to Court Clerk Dorothy Brown about why all this was happening and her response was , shall we say , very interesting .
Brown said the only reason she was being asked was because WGN “ felt like this black woman ’ s office had to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Regardless of what I say today , this story will probably come out very negative for my office as it always has come out over the last 20 years , continuing to perpetuate the internalized , mediated and institutionalized types of racism directly onto me.
” Again , it ’ s worth noting that WGN ’ s initial story barely mentioned Dorothy Brown and the people they interviewed on camera , who were irritated at the confusion about how to deal with traffic tickets , were black .
But somehow , asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is institutional racism ?
“ I ’ m confused why it ’ s racist to ask about all the folks who have been confused and drove down to the Daley Center for court appearances that they didn ’ t have to attend , ” the WGN reporter asked .
Brown apologized for the confusion and then the interview took another strange turn .
About those postcards that were mailed after the court dates , Brown said “ a few ” like that went out but claimed it was not “ in error.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aware ” some cards were past the court date but had decided it was best for people to get a late notice than no notice .
Asked about the “ logic ” of sending late notices intentionally , Brown again said that focusing on that was a sign of “ unconscious bias.
” To me this looks like a pretty lame excuse from someone whose office isn ’ t doing a great job , but I find myself wondering what Robin DiAngelo , author of White Fragility , would make of this situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know .

Cook County, IL includes the city of Chicago and has a population of more than 5 million people. It’s a big job to manage all of the court dates for the county and that’s especially true in the midst of a pandemic. Traffic cases in the county have been moved entirely online in the form of Zoom meetings, but many people aren’t getting the message.
In fact, some people are getting the wrong message in the form of court date notifications telling them to show up at the courthouse. But when they get there they find themselves waiting for hours in a line that stretches for several blocks. When they finally get to the front of the line they are informed that traffic cases are handled online and while they were waiting in the line, they missed their online court dates.
When local news outlet WGN first reported about this two weeks ago, a spokesman for Cook County Court Clerk Dorothy Brown didn’t respond to a request for an explanation. But at a minimum, Brown’s office should have been aware by that point that the notification system wasn’t working well and that the media was taking notice.
Yesterday, roughly two weeks later, WGN came back to the story and found that the situation was still a mess. There is still a line of people showing up at the Daley Center for traffic court only to find out traffic court is online only at the moment. And one of the people they had interviewed for their earlier story finally received a notice about the online court date. The court date was July 7 but on the back of the postcard the date it was mailed was July 16. This particular man had driven three hours each way and waited 3 hours on a line to find out he’d missed his online appearance.
WGN finally got a chance to speak to Court Clerk Dorothy Brown about why all this was happening and her response was, shall we say, very interesting. Brown said the only reason she was being asked was because WGN “felt like this black woman’s office had to have done something wrong.”
Brown continued, “Regardless of what I say today, this story will probably come out very negative for my office as it always has come out over the last 20 years, continuing to perpetuate the internalized, mediated and institutionalized types of racism directly onto me.”
Again, it’s worth noting that WGN’s initial story barely mentioned Dorothy Brown and the people they interviewed on camera, who were irritated at the confusion about how to deal with traffic tickets, were black. But somehow, asking the person responsible why this is happening is institutional racism?
“I’m confused why it’s racist to ask about all the folks who have been confused and drove down to the Daley Center for court appearances that they didn’t have to attend,” the WGN reporter asked.
Brown apologized for the confusion and then the interview took another strange turn. About those postcards that were mailed after the court dates, Brown said “a few” like that went out but claimed it was not “in error.” She claimed her office was “fully aware” some cards were past the court date but had decided it was best for people to get a late notice than no notice.
Asked about the “logic” of sending late notices intentionally, Brown again said that focusing on that was a sign of “unconscious bias.” To me this looks like a pretty lame excuse from someone whose office isn’t doing a great job, but I find myself wondering what Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, would make of this situation. Maybe it’s better not to know.
Here’s the WGN clip.


hotair--2020-07-30--CBS affiliate: We tried mailing ballots, and it went about as good as you'd expect

Forget vote fraud for the moment , while we try to forget delays too .
Are Americans willing to suffer a 3 % failure rate or higher in ballot submission in adopting mass vote-by-mail systems in a presidential election ?
Or even in local elections ?
Augusta CBS affiliate WRDW tried an experiment in mailing ballots , and had three out of a hundred go missing .
And it took concerted efforts by the reporter just to get the other 97 back at all : One thing is clear : You need to give it even more time than officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mail system .
How long might it take for that vote to actually arrive and be counted ?
CBS News decided to test it , sending 100 mock ballots simulating a hundred voters in locations all across Philadelphia to a post office box .
After some delays , 97 arrived .
In a close election , 3 % could be pivotal , especially in what ’ s expected to be a record year for mail-in-voting .
This points up the added risks of voting by mail .
It introduces several handling points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t otherwise exist .
All of those are potential points of failure .
Furthermore , because the security protocols are more complicated , those introduce even more points of failure .
And unlike voting in person , the voter never knows that they have failed — and has no opportunity to rectify the errors and remain enfranchised for that election .
We didn ’ t need this experiment to discuss failure rates in vote-by-mail systems .
California trashed over a hundred thousand mailed-in ballots in its March primary for various issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just under 2 % in an election where 5.7 million votes were cast , and that ’ s not counting other disqualified ballots .
In New York ’ s primary last month , the New York Times estimated that tens of thousands of mailed-in ballots have already been disqualified — and they ’ re still not done counting the vote there either .
Florida also trashed tens of thousands of mail-in ballots .
That means , as the WRDW reporter noted in Pennsylvania , that a significant percentage of voters got disenfranchised .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 1.6 % of the vote , while Donald Trump won Wisconsin by 0.8 % , Pennsylvania by 0.7 % , and Michigan by 0.2 % .
Any voting process that has a 2 % or greater failure rate will risk producing results that the losing side won ’ t accept unless a landslide occurs in each and every state .
And that ’ s only in terms of the presidential elections ; this same problem exists all the way down the ballot .
This isn ’ t a risk for Trump alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Joe Biden , and every candidate on the ballot this year .
This isn ’ t a reason to postpone an election .
It is , however , a very good reason to stop vote-by-mail systems and use the most reliable voting systems available in order to build confidence in the results .
Those systems use paper ballots , with scanning technology to validate ballots before voters leave and to count the votes accurately and quickly , while maintaining the paper records for potential recounts later .
If we can go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end over policy , we can cast ballots in person , too .

Forget vote fraud for the moment, while we try to forget delays too. Are Americans willing to suffer a 3% failure rate or higher in ballot submission in adopting mass vote-by-mail systems in a presidential election? Or even in local elections? Augusta CBS affiliate WRDW tried an experiment in mailing ballots, and had three out of a hundred go missing. And it took concerted efforts by the reporter just to get the other 97 back at all:
Local news’ experiment in mail-in voting ends in disaster: "I just don’t trust the mail" pic.twitter.com/BUPP5a9TK9 — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) July 29, 2020
One thing is clear: You need to give it even more time than officials might recommend to get your ballot through the mail system. How long might it take for that vote to actually arrive and be counted? CBS News decided to test it, sending 100 mock ballots simulating a hundred voters in locations all across Philadelphia to a post office box. After some delays, 97 arrived. In a close election, 3% could be pivotal, especially in what’s expected to be a record year for mail-in-voting.
This points up the added risks of voting by mail. It introduces several handling points between voters and the ballot counters that don’t otherwise exist. All of those are potential points of failure. Furthermore, because the security protocols are more complicated, those introduce even more points of failure. And unlike voting in person, the voter never knows that they have failed — and has no opportunity to rectify the errors and remain enfranchised for that election.
We didn’t need this experiment to discuss failure rates in vote-by-mail systems. California trashed over a hundred thousand mailed-in ballots in its March primary for various issues. That represents a failure rate of just under 2% in an election where 5.7 million votes were cast, and that’s not counting other disqualified ballots. In New York’s primary last month, the New York Times estimated that tens of thousands of mailed-in ballots have already been disqualified — and they’re still not done counting the vote there either. Florida also trashed tens of thousands of mail-in ballots.
That means, as the WRDW reporter noted in Pennsylvania, that a significant percentage of voters got disenfranchised. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won Minnesota by 1.6% of the vote, while Donald Trump won Wisconsin by 0.8%, Pennsylvania by 0.7%, and Michigan by 0.2%. Any voting process that has a 2% or greater failure rate will risk producing results that the losing side won’t accept unless a landslide occurs in each and every state. And that’s only in terms of the presidential elections; this same problem exists all the way down the ballot. This isn’t a risk for Trump alone — it’s also a risk for Joe Biden, and every candidate on the ballot this year.
This isn’t a reason to postpone an election. It is, however, a very good reason to stop vote-by-mail systems and use the most reliable voting systems available in order to build confidence in the results. Those systems use paper ballots, with scanning technology to validate ballots before voters leave and to count the votes accurately and quickly, while maintaining the paper records for potential recounts later. If we can go to Walmart and attend protests for hours on end over policy, we can cast ballots in person, too.


hotair--2020-07-30--RIP: Herman Cain passes away from coronavirus at age 74

A consummate American success story , well remembered this morning on social media by his former campaign spokesman , Ellen Carmichael .
Stage IV cancer at age 60 — and he beat it , went on to host his own radio show , then parlayed that fame into an upstart run for the GOP presidential nomination that had him leading the polls at one stage of the race .
Presidential campaigns are grueling even for young candidates .
Cain did it at 65 as a cancer survivor and seemed to have had the time of his life .
Political historians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a harbinger of Trump ’ s success later , proving that a businessman outsider with a populist touch could get surprisingly far head-to-head with the GOP establishment .
If Cain had been a well-known national celebrity like Trump when he launched his bid rather than a minor right-wing media celebrity , who knows how far he would have went ?
Dan Calabrese provided a few details of his former boss ’ s battle with COVID on Cain ’ s website this morning : Let me deal with some of the particulars of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was first hospitalized with COVID-19 that this was going to be a rough fight .
He had trouble breathing and was taken to the hospital by ambulance .
We all prayed that the initial meds they gave him would get his breathing back to normal , but it became clear pretty quickly that he was in for a battle .
We didn ’ t release detailed updates on his condition to the public or to the media because neither his family nor we thought there was any reason for that .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five days ago when doctors told us they thought he would eventually recover , although it wouldn ’ t be quick .
We were relieved to be told that , and passed on the news via Herman ’ s social media .
And yet we also felt real concern about the fact that he never quite seemed to get to the point where the doctors could advance him to the recovery phase .
Trump critics are pointing out on Twitter this morning that Cain attended the president ’ s ill-advised rally in Tulsa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there ’ s no way to tell if he contracted the virus there .
“ He had been on a whirlwind travel schedule in June , stopping in multiple cities , ” the site notes .
There ’ s no way to tell either if he was normally a stickler about taking precautions and was infected anyway , but he did decide to forgo a mask at the rally : Someone in my own extended family was the same way , a few years older than Cain with a history of health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent him from going out and doing the things he wanted to do .
He passed away in April , also from COVID .
“ He was a great friend , a great guy , ” said Dick Morris of Cain to Newsmax .
“ Suddenly , the plague strikes home.
’ ’ Yep .
One death is a tragedy , 150,000 are a statistic .
I can ’ t remember where I saw it but someone speculated that Trump ’ s recent pivot towards mask-wearing and taking more of a “ safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driven partly by Cain ’ s long ordeal with COVID in the hospital .
The White House must have known that it was touch-and-go with his recovery and of course they knew that Cain had attended the Tulsa rally .
If he passed away , they expected that the media would lay blame at Trump ’ s feet and treat Cain ’ s death as an object lesson in the campaign ’ s recklessness in prioritizing reopening over public health .
So they got ahead of it by shifting towards making health their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most notably by Trump canceling his convention mega-rally in Jacksonville .
Maybe that ’ s true , or maybe Trump ’ s pivot was a simple reaction to the polls lately , but it could be that he had the same reaction to Cain ’ s hospitalization as Morris — once the plague strikes home by threatening someone you know , it ’ s harder to treat it as not such a big deal .
Watch the Clinton clip embedded in Carmichael ’ s thread , as its one of Cain ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Matt Lewis too .
Imagine starting out in life being told you ’ re so inferior that you have to drink from a separate water fountain and getting as far as Herman Cain got .

A consummate American success story, well remembered this morning on social media by his former campaign spokesman, Ellen Carmichael.
https://twitter.com/ellencarmichael/status/1288842163078520838
https://twitter.com/ellencarmichael/status/1288842763040165891
https://twitter.com/ellencarmichael/status/1288843601431199745
https://twitter.com/ellencarmichael/status/1288844851153444866
https://twitter.com/ellencarmichael/status/1288845277542207489
https://twitter.com/ellencarmichael/status/1288846045376581633
…he told me how wrong he had been, how wonderful of a time he had and how they invited him to speak at a future Friday service. His life was clearly changed by the experience. I hung up the phone and cried myself. — Ellen Carmichael (@ellencarmichael) July 30, 2020
Stage IV cancer at age 60 — and he beat it, went on to host his own radio show, then parlayed that fame into an upstart run for the GOP presidential nomination that had him leading the polls at one stage of the race. Presidential campaigns are grueling even for young candidates. Cain did it at 65 as a cancer survivor and seemed to have had the time of his life. Political historians will look back at his run as a harbinger of Trump’s success later, proving that a businessman outsider with a populist touch could get surprisingly far head-to-head with the GOP establishment. If Cain had been a well-known national celebrity like Trump when he launched his bid rather than a minor right-wing media celebrity, who knows how far he would have went?
Dan Calabrese provided a few details of his former boss’s battle with COVID on Cain’s website this morning:
Let me deal with some of the particulars of the last few weeks. We knew when he was first hospitalized with COVID-19 that this was going to be a rough fight. He had trouble breathing and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. We all prayed that the initial meds they gave him would get his breathing back to normal, but it became clear pretty quickly that he was in for a battle. We didn’t release detailed updates on his condition to the public or to the media because neither his family nor we thought there was any reason for that. There were hopeful indicators, including a mere five days ago when doctors told us they thought he would eventually recover, although it wouldn’t be quick. We were relieved to be told that, and passed on the news via Herman’s social media. And yet we also felt real concern about the fact that he never quite seemed to get to the point where the doctors could advance him to the recovery phase.
Trump critics are pointing out on Twitter this morning that Cain attended the president’s ill-advised rally in Tulsa on June 20 but Newsmax is right that there’s no way to tell if he contracted the virus there. “He had been on a whirlwind travel schedule in June, stopping in multiple cities,” the site notes. There’s no way to tell either if he was normally a stickler about taking precautions and was infected anyway, but he did decide to forgo a mask at the rally:
Someone in my own extended family was the same way, a few years older than Cain with a history of health trouble who refused to let the pandemic prevent him from going out and doing the things he wanted to do. He passed away in April, also from COVID. “He was a great friend, a great guy,” said Dick Morris of Cain to Newsmax. “Suddenly, the plague strikes home.’’ Yep. One death is a tragedy, 150,000 are a statistic.
I can’t remember where I saw it but someone speculated that Trump’s recent pivot towards mask-wearing and taking more of a “safety first” approach to the pandemic was driven partly by Cain’s long ordeal with COVID in the hospital. The White House must have known that it was touch-and-go with his recovery and of course they knew that Cain had attended the Tulsa rally. If he passed away, they expected that the media would lay blame at Trump’s feet and treat Cain’s death as an object lesson in the campaign’s recklessness in prioritizing reopening over public health. So they got ahead of it by shifting towards making health their top priority, the theory goes, most notably by Trump canceling his convention mega-rally in Jacksonville. Maybe that’s true, or maybe Trump’s pivot was a simple reaction to the polls lately, but it could be that he had the same reaction to Cain’s hospitalization as Morris — once the plague strikes home by threatening someone you know, it’s harder to treat it as not such a big deal.
Watch the Clinton clip embedded in Carmichael’s thread, as its one of Cain’s finest moments. I like this clip from Matt Lewis too. Imagine starting out in life being told you’re so inferior that you have to drink from a separate water fountain and getting as far as Herman Cain got.


hotair--2020-07-30--Watch: Sneak peek of "The Comey Rule" released, Showtime's bid to shake up the presidential election

A trailer has been released by Showtime for the upcoming docudrama adapted from James Comey ’ s book , A Higher Loyalty .
It ’ s titled The Comey Rule .
The sneak preview is dark and ominous , declaring that no matter which side you are on , you only know one side of the story .
Dramatic , right ?
It is a four-hour mini-series that will air on September 27 and 28 .
Originally , Showtime scheduled the limited series to air after the presidential election in November but , because of the pushback from those involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the release has been pushed up .
What ’ s the point of a hit piece against President Trump if it comes after the election happens ?
This is the description used in a piece on the production when I wrote about it in June : According to Showtime , the series is an immersive , behind-the-headlines account of the historically turbulent events surrounding the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath , which divided a nation .
It ’ s not a biopic , but is instead the story of two powerful figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different personalities , ethics and loyalties put them on a collision course .
It ’ s described as an insider ’ s journey down the corridors of power , where decision-makers struggle to apply old norms to a dramatic new paradigm in the face of Russia ’ s deep and unprecedented penetration into American politics , with our nation ’ s rule of law hanging in the balance .
Each character ’ s actions in these historic months made the careers of some , destroyed the careers of others and helped shape the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Part one of the series examines the earliest days of the Russia investigation , the FBI ’ s investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s emails and their impact on Election Night 2016 , when Donald Trump stunned the world and was elected president .
Part two is a virtual day-by-day account of the tempestuous relationship between Comey and Trump and the intense and chaotic first months of the Trump presidency – where allies became enemies , enemies became friends and truth depended on what side you were on .
Who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia , Russia , and Hillary ’ s emails ?
I can ’ t stop rolling my eyes when I read the bit about the comparison between Trump ’ s ethics and Comey ’ s .
Comey managed to tick off both sides of the political aisle in order to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by allowing the FBI to become a political arm of Trump ’ s opponents , especially among creatures of the swamp .
Comey got a sweet book deal when he tried to rehabilitate his reputation and now he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the liberal cable network Showtime .
Painting the president in the worst possible light will be priority one .
So , you can understand why the anti-Trumpers on this project were upset that Showtime first scheduled this for after the election .
The goal is to stir things up and do the bidding of his opponent .
Both Jeff Daniels , who plays Comey , and Brendan Gleeson , who plays President Donald Trump , are Democrat activists .
Daniels even changed up his working schedule so that he could participate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ray learned of the original air date he launched a protest .
Showtime caved .
“ We all were hoping to get this story in front of the American people months before the coming election , ” read Ray ’ s protest letter , according to Deadline .
“ And that was a reasonable expectation considering that we ’ d been given a mandate by the network to do whatever was necessary to deliver by May 15 .
But at some point in March or April , that mandate changed .
Word started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about our airdate had been made at the very highest levels of Viacom : all talk of our airing before the election was suddenly a ‘ non-starter.
’ I and my fellow producers asked for a chance to plead our case on the matter , but we were told that even the discussion itself was a ‘ non-starter ’ … Why ?
I don ’ t know .
The health of a media company depends on attracting audiences — and our movie , aired in August of an election year , would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine the billboards ?
Comey Vs. Trump !
A cast loaded with Emmy winners !
Yet here we are….
” Ultimately , of course , Ray prevailed and the date was changed .
It is being referred to as “ activistic filmmaking ” .
Though some concerns by reviewers are voiced over the fact that Trump ’ s first term isn ’ t even finished yet and here comes the books and adaptations meant to affect his re-election bid , the purpose of the two-night series .
Comparisons are being made to other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Men and W. From a purely artistic standpoint , I ’ m not entirely sure we get the best pieces of political filmmaking when they ’ re produced so closely to the thing that ’ s actually happening ( see : Oliver Stone ‘ s W. ) .
In this case , Trump hasn ’ t even finished his first term , and we ’ re already fictionalizing his first term .
How can we know what it means in a broader context so we know what to say about it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows no precedents , and Ray ’ s purpose of urgent activistic filmmaking is both palpable and contagious .
The trailer gives me shades of popcorn-political thrillers of the ’ 90s , and of the maestro of “ important people saying mean things quickly ” Aaron Sorkin .
Plus , All the President ’ s Men was only released two years after President Nixon ’ s resignation .
I ’ ll be watching this thing — and I imagine Ray hopes many potential voters will be , too .
There is no mystery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gushing and critics will do their best to applaud the man that neither side of the aisle respect , just to muddy the waters before the presidential election .
Comey can write as many books as he can get deals for but his reputation is forever slimed and the destruction he brought upon the FBI will take decades to undo .

A trailer has been released by Showtime for the upcoming docudrama adapted from James Comey’s book, A Higher Loyalty. It’s titled The Comey Rule. The sneak preview is dark and ominous, declaring that no matter which side you are on, you only know one side of the story.
Dramatic, right? It is a four-hour mini-series that will air on September 27 and 28. Originally, Showtime scheduled the limited series to air after the presidential election in November but, because of the pushback from those involved – the actors and the filmmaker – the release has been pushed up. What’s the point of a hit piece against President Trump if it comes after the election happens? This is the description used in a piece on the production when I wrote about it in June:
According to Showtime, the series is an immersive, behind-the-headlines account of the historically turbulent events surrounding the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath, which divided a nation. It’s not a biopic, but is instead the story of two powerful figures, Comey and Trump, whose strikingly different personalities, ethics and loyalties put them on a collision course. It’s described as an insider’s journey down the corridors of power, where decision-makers struggle to apply old norms to a dramatic new paradigm in the face of Russia’s deep and unprecedented penetration into American politics, with our nation’s rule of law hanging in the balance. Each character’s actions in these historic months made the careers of some, destroyed the careers of others and helped shape the incendiary political landscape we live in today. Part one of the series examines the earliest days of the Russia investigation, the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and their impact on Election Night 2016, when Donald Trump stunned the world and was elected president. Part two is a virtual day-by-day account of the tempestuous relationship between Comey and Trump and the intense and chaotic first months of the Trump presidency – where allies became enemies, enemies became friends and truth depended on what side you were on.
Who’s ready for some more of Russia, Russia, Russia, and Hillary’s emails? I can’t stop rolling my eyes when I read the bit about the comparison between Trump’s ethics and Comey’s. Comey managed to tick off both sides of the political aisle in order to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by allowing the FBI to become a political arm of Trump’s opponents, especially among creatures of the swamp. Comey got a sweet book deal when he tried to rehabilitate his reputation and now he’ll rake in some more money from the liberal cable network Showtime. Painting the president in the worst possible light will be priority one.
So, you can understand why the anti-Trumpers on this project were upset that Showtime first scheduled this for after the election. The goal is to stir things up and do the bidding of his opponent. Both Jeff Daniels, who plays Comey, and Brendan Gleeson, who plays President Donald Trump, are Democrat activists. Daniels even changed up his working schedule so that he could participate in this hit piece. When filmmaker Billy Ray learned of the original air date he launched a protest. Showtime caved.
“We all were hoping to get this story in front of the American people months before the coming election,” read Ray’s protest letter, according to Deadline. “And that was a reasonable expectation considering that we’d been given a mandate by the network to do whatever was necessary to deliver by May 15. But at some point in March or April, that mandate changed. Word started drifting back to me that a decision about our airdate had been made at the very highest levels of Viacom: all talk of our airing before the election was suddenly a ‘non-starter.’ I and my fellow producers asked for a chance to plead our case on the matter, but we were told that even the discussion itself was a ‘non-starter’ … Why? I don’t know. The health of a media company depends on attracting audiences — and our movie, aired in August of an election year, would have been very big news. Can you imagine the billboards? Comey Vs. Trump! A cast loaded with Emmy winners! Yet here we are….” Ultimately, of course, Ray prevailed and the date was changed.
It is being referred to as “activistic filmmaking”. Though some concerns by reviewers are voiced over the fact that Trump’s first term isn’t even finished yet and here comes the books and adaptations meant to affect his re-election bid, the purpose of the two-night series. Comparisons are being made to other political thrillers like All the President’s Men and W.
From a purely artistic standpoint, I’m not entirely sure we get the best pieces of political filmmaking when they’re produced so closely to the thing that’s actually happening (see: Oliver Stone‘s W.). In this case, Trump hasn’t even finished his first term, and we’re already fictionalizing his first term. How can we know what it means in a broader context so we know what to say about it? Then again, Trump’s presidency knows no precedents, and Ray’s purpose of urgent activistic filmmaking is both palpable and contagious. The trailer gives me shades of popcorn-political thrillers of the ’90s, and of the maestro of “important people saying mean things quickly” Aaron Sorkin. Plus, All the President’s Men was only released two years after President Nixon’s resignation. I’ll be watching this thing — and I imagine Ray hopes many potential voters will be, too.
There is no mystery here. The Hollywood reviews will be gushing and critics will do their best to applaud the man that neither side of the aisle respect, just to muddy the waters before the presidential election. Comey can write as many books as he can get deals for but his reputation is forever slimed and the destruction he brought upon the FBI will take decades to undo.


hotair--2020-07-30--Cambridge, Mass. next to propose allowing unarmed civilians to make traffic stops

In the Democrats ’ rush to either defund or abolish the police around the country , one uniquely bad and dangerous idea seems to have taken hold in a growing number of places .
Viewing police officers as some sort of risk to public safety , municipal officials have begun looking for responsibilities normally handled by the cops that could be turned over to unarmed civilians .
One favorite choice is turning out to be traffic enforcement .
These social justice monitors would presumably be less likely to assault or racially stereotype motorists or something .
The latest community to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massachusetts .
Some members of the City Council have introduced a proposal to have unarmed city workers take care of traffic duties .
( CBS Boston ) Two Cambridge city councilors are proposing letting city workers take over primary traffic enforcement duties from the police department .
The policy order sponsored by Councilors Quinton Zondervan and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler says unarmed city employees should make traffic stops , “ which would reduce the possibility of violence during such encounters.
” The proposal states that Black and brown drivers are pulled over and searched more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist outcome ” that is the result of systemic biases .
“ The presence of an armed police officer during a routine traffic stop raises the tension of the encounter unnecessarily and can itself lead to conflict , causing harmful stress to both parties and damaging the relationship between police and the community , ” the policy order states .
I guess Cambridge may have gotten this idea from Berkeley , California who already began working on a similar plan .
As we discussed when that proposal was first unveiled , a scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to happen .
It ’ s conceivable that , with some rigorous training , a civilian municipal employee with a flashing light stuck on the roof of their car could pull over a compliant motorist and issue either a ticket or a warning for traffic violations .
And that ’ s the way the majority of traffic stops end , thankfully .
But not all of them .
Every time a police officer pulls over a car , they first run the plates and let the dispatcher know they are preparing to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cruiser , traffic cops unclasp their holster , freeing up their service weapon in case it ’ s needed on a second ’ s notice .
And they do that for a reason .
You never know who is in the car you just pulled over , what their mental state may be or if they are armed and ready to freak out .
The Cambridge City Council members claim to have already taken these realities into consideration .
They insist that regular police officers will still be tasked with “ apprehending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and other related situations that clearly go beyond routine traffic enforcement.
” But as the Cambridge Police Commissioner quickly pointed out , there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop .
When you run the plates of a car that just blew through a stop sign and find that the car belongs to kindly old Mr. Simpson , a widower with no points on his license , you may be justified in relaxing a bit .
He ’ s not likely to start any trouble .
But what if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Ronny “ Double Tap ” Washington , who just carjacked Mr. Simpson five minutes ago but the crime hasn ’ t been reported yet ?
And what if good old Ronny is still holding his Glock-17 in his lap and knows that if he gets busted again today he ’ ll be doing at least twenty years in the Big House ?
When your unarmed municipal worker gets up to the driver ’ s side door of the vehicle holding a pad of speeding tickets , they may be in for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gun barrel is leveled at them , I somehow doubt Ronny will be in the mood to be asked if he wouldn ’ t mind remaining in his vehicle while a real police officer is summoned to handle the situation .
What we ’ re seeing in Cambridge is yet another example of critical decisions about the functions of law enforcement being made by people who clearly have absolutely no idea how policing actually works .
And somebody is going to wind up paying the price for that .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their lives .

In the Democrats’ rush to either defund or abolish the police around the country, one uniquely bad and dangerous idea seems to have taken hold in a growing number of places. Viewing police officers as some sort of risk to public safety, municipal officials have begun looking for responsibilities normally handled by the cops that could be turned over to unarmed civilians. One favorite choice is turning out to be traffic enforcement. These social justice monitors would presumably be less likely to assault or racially stereotype motorists or something. The latest community to explore this insane plan is Cambridge, Massachusetts. Some members of the City Council have introduced a proposal to have unarmed city workers take care of traffic duties. (CBS Boston)
Two Cambridge city councilors are proposing letting city workers take over primary traffic enforcement duties from the police department. The policy order sponsored by Councilors Quinton Zondervan and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler says unarmed city employees should make traffic stops, “which would reduce the possibility of violence during such encounters.” The proposal states that Black and brown drivers are pulled over and searched more often than white drivers – a “racist outcome” that is the result of systemic biases. “The presence of an armed police officer during a routine traffic stop raises the tension of the encounter unnecessarily and can itself lead to conflict, causing harmful stress to both parties and damaging the relationship between police and the community,” the policy order states.
I guess Cambridge may have gotten this idea from Berkeley, California who already began working on a similar plan. As we discussed when that proposal was first unveiled, a scheme like this is simply a disaster waiting to happen. It’s conceivable that, with some rigorous training, a civilian municipal employee with a flashing light stuck on the roof of their car could pull over a compliant motorist and issue either a ticket or a warning for traffic violations. And that’s the way the majority of traffic stops end, thankfully.
But not all of them. Every time a police officer pulls over a car, they first run the plates and let the dispatcher know they are preparing to engage with someone. Upon getting out of the cruiser, traffic cops unclasp their holster, freeing up their service weapon in case it’s needed on a second’s notice. And they do that for a reason. You never know who is in the car you just pulled over, what their mental state may be or if they are armed and ready to freak out.
The Cambridge City Council members claim to have already taken these realities into consideration. They insist that regular police officers will still be tasked with “apprehending known criminals, dangerous or erratic drivers, and other related situations that clearly go beyond routine traffic enforcement.”
But as the Cambridge Police Commissioner quickly pointed out, there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop. When you run the plates of a car that just blew through a stop sign and find that the car belongs to kindly old Mr. Simpson, a widower with no points on his license, you may be justified in relaxing a bit. He’s not likely to start any trouble. But what if the guy behind the wheel turns out to be Ronny “Double Tap” Washington, who just carjacked Mr. Simpson five minutes ago but the crime hasn’t been reported yet? And what if good old Ronny is still holding his Glock-17 in his lap and knows that if he gets busted again today he’ll be doing at least twenty years in the Big House?
When your unarmed municipal worker gets up to the driver’s side door of the vehicle holding a pad of speeding tickets, they may be in for a violent and perhaps terminal surprise. When the gun barrel is leveled at them, I somehow doubt Ronny will be in the mood to be asked if he wouldn’t mind remaining in his vehicle while a real police officer is summoned to handle the situation.
What we’re seeing in Cambridge is yet another example of critical decisions about the functions of law enforcement being made by people who clearly have absolutely no idea how policing actually works. And somebody is going to wind up paying the price for that. Let’s hope they don’t pay with their lives.


hotair--2020-07-30--Trump: Hey, maybe we *should* postpone the election

Good grief .
For months , Donald Trump ’ s allies and even a few of his critics have blasted Democrats and a handful of media figures for their baseless theories that the president would cancel or delay the national election .
Joe Biden got ridiculed for saying in April , “ Mark my words : I think he is gon na try to kick back the election somehow , come up with some rationale why it can ’ t be held , ” even though the law and the constitution are clear that presidents can ’ t do that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted it out : The best that could be said for this tweet is that Trump ’ s just spitballing , but even that ’ s an indictment of its own .
No president should just be spitballing a suggestion like this , not in public and not even in private , where it would leak to the press quickly enough anyway .
The US held an election in the middle of its Civil War in 1864 ; we can hold an election in the middle of a pandemic , especially when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should reopen for business .
This is an exceedingly dumb idea , any way one looks at it , which is another reason to refrain from publicly entertaining it .
Theoretically , Congress could postpone the election , as the requirement to hold it on a certain date is set in statute passed by Congress ( the Presidential Election Day Act of 1845 ) , but what would be the point ?
The Constitution ends the president ’ s term on January 20 , and that is a hard out , as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t authorize an extension of Trump ’ s term past that point without amending the Constitution , and needless to say , Trump won ’ t get thirty-eight states to approve extending a Trump term in office .
The issue of the transition from one session of Congress to another is a bit more ambiguous , but it ’ s also possible that we won ’ t have a legitimate Congress in place either without amending the Constitution once again .
And doing so within less than five months , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave it as a paranoid-conspiracy theory for the Left , Trump has essentially vindicated Biden and the paranoids .
And for what purpose ?
Trump can ’ t do what he ’ s suggesting , Congress wouldn ’ t entertain the thought for one hot second ( they ’ re just six months out from an attempt to remove him ) , and it won ’ t work anyway for the reasons above .
What could possibly be gained from tweeting out this absurd idea , other than perhaps distracting from the bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expecting anyway ?
It ’ s such a bad argument that it actually might set back the legitimate arguments to avoid mail-in balloting .
Trump just handed his political opponents and the media ( but I repeat myself ) a very big bat .
And the beating won ’ t stop until their morale improves .

Good grief. For months, Donald Trump’s allies and even a few of his critics have blasted Democrats and a handful of media figures for their baseless theories that the president would cancel or delay the national election. Joe Biden got ridiculed for saying in April, “Mark my words: I think he is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held,” even though the law and the constitution are clear that presidents can’t do that.
And then Trump … just … tweeted it out:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273
The best that could be said for this tweet is that Trump’s just spitballing, but even that’s an indictment of its own. No president should just be spitballing a suggestion like this, not in public and not even in private, where it would leak to the press quickly enough anyway. The US held an election in the middle of its Civil War in 1864; we can hold an election in the middle of a pandemic, especially when the president himself keeps insisting we can and should reopen for business.
This is an exceedingly dumb idea, any way one looks at it, which is another reason to refrain from publicly entertaining it. Theoretically, Congress could postpone the election, as the requirement to hold it on a certain date is set in statute passed by Congress (the Presidential Election Day Act of 1845), but what would be the point? The Constitution ends the president’s term on January 20, and that is a hard out, as we say in the radio biz. Congress can’t authorize an extension of Trump’s term past that point without amending the Constitution, and needless to say, Trump won’t get thirty-eight states to approve extending a Trump term in office. The issue of the transition from one session of Congress to another is a bit more ambiguous, but it’s also possible that we won’t have a legitimate Congress in place either without amending the Constitution once again. And doing so within less than five months, too.
Rather than recognize those impossibilities and leave it as a paranoid-conspiracy theory for the Left, Trump has essentially vindicated Biden and the paranoids. And for what purpose? Trump can’t do what he’s suggesting, Congress wouldn’t entertain the thought for one hot second (they’re just six months out from an attempt to remove him), and it won’t work anyway for the reasons above. What could possibly be gained from tweeting out this absurd idea, other than perhaps distracting from the bad GDP report everyone was more or less expecting anyway? It’s such a bad argument that it actually might set back the legitimate arguments to avoid mail-in balloting.
Trump just handed his political opponents and the media (but I repeat myself) a very big bat. And the beating won’t stop until their morale improves.


hotair--2020-07-30--Is Joe Biden ready for the UFO question?

As regular readers are already aware , UFOs have been in the news quite a bit lately .
There have been major developments in ongoing investigations of the Pentagon ’ s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force ( UAPTA ) and what they ’ ve been up to .
Congressional briefings not made available to the media have been taking place .
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is aware that UAPs have been infiltrating our restricted airspace in the middle of military training exercises and over our nuclear weapons facilities .
Like it or not , this is a thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s eventually going to have to come up in the presidential election .
Which candidate will be best suited to deal with this situation as it unfolds ?
Over at Medium , Bryce Zabel took up the challenge of determining if Joe Biden is ready to handle this hot potato if and when reporters start asking him about it .
( Assuming he ever emerges from his basement again between now and election day . )
Volunteering to act as Biden ’ s unpaid adviser on the subject , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the questions to come and what he needs to say in response .
There ’ s just no way around this .
You need a policy about how you are going to deal with UFOs .
In fact , you ’ ll have to decide if you ’ re even going to call them that , or whether you ’ ll use UAP , the new , improved acronym that indicates Unidentified Aerial Phenomena .
Either way , the U.S. Navy , the Department of Defense , the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York Times , half the Twittersphere and even Donald Trump Jr. and his dad have just dumped UFOs smack dab into the middle of your march to the White House .
You are going to be asked about this , and soon , and you better not make a joke about it and talk about little green men .
That won ’ t work anymore .
The issue has gotten very serious very quickly .
By the way , you should follow Bryce on Twitter if you have any interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bryce is right about one thing there , or at least I certainly hope he is .
Politicians can ’ t simply get away with answering a question about UFOs with a joke about “ little green men ” and expect to move on to the next topic .
This is something that ’ s happening right now .
The New York Times is talking about it .
Marco Rubio , the acting Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee is talking about it .
And it ’ s not just a question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sky .
This is being viewed as a potentially serious threat to national security .
And Joe Biden will need to demonstrate that he ’ s up to the task .
( God help us all . )
If any of our intrepid reporters covering the election are on the ball and up to date on this material , here are some of the questions Bryce believes that Biden will be asked .
• Will you declassify UFO data ?
Release the high-resolution full versions of the Navy videos ?
• Does the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” vehicles ?
• What do you think happened in Roswell , New Mexico in 1947 ?
• Are you aware that these UAP vehicles have repeatedly shown an interest in the world ’ s nuclear arsenals , and what would you do about it ?
• Were you briefed on this topic either as a Senator or as the Vice-President , and what did you learn ?
We ’ ve seen enough of Joe Biden on the campaign trail over the past couple of years ( at least until he disappeared into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a feel for how he ’ s been handling questions from the media .
To put it charitably , Uncle Joe doesn ’ t really seem to be at the top of his game anymore , frequently becoming confused about where he is or losing the thread in the middle of a sentence .
Is he really ready for the barrage of questions Bryce is laying out if someone in the media actually musters the temerity to ask him ?
As noted above , this is no longer a subject Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to brief him before he either promises to declassify material or says that it would be impossible to do so .
( It ’ s a lot more complicated than a simple , binary choice . )
Assuming he was briefed on the topic , either when he was in the Senate or as Barack Obama ’ s VP , will he be able to get away with saying that he knows things but he can ’ t say because it ’ s classified ?
Sure , he could say that , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answers seems to be wearing thin .
I don ’ t know if anyone would bother asking him about Roswell , but UAP incursions on nuclear arsenals around the globe is an established fact at this point .
And it makes people nervous .
I sort of feel sorry for both Biden and Trump if they are asked what they “ plan to do about it.
” How do we know what to do about it when we still don ’ t really know what “ it ” is ?
Or… do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minds want to know .
In any event , the subject is now out on the table for debate .
I sincerely hope some of the media figures covering the campaign are getting ready to tackle this .
And Joe might want to consider putting Bryce on the campaign payroll as a consultant for a while .
Otherwise , he ’ s going to wind up with egg on his face .

As regular readers are already aware, UFOs have been in the news quite a bit lately. There have been major developments in ongoing investigations of the Pentagon’s Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTA) and what they’ve been up to. Congressional briefings not made available to the media have been taking place. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is aware that UAPs have been infiltrating our restricted airspace in the middle of military training exercises and over our nuclear weapons facilities. Like it or not, this is a thing that’s happening. As such, it’s eventually going to have to come up in the presidential election. Which candidate will be best suited to deal with this situation as it unfolds?
Over at Medium, Bryce Zabel took up the challenge of determining if Joe Biden is ready to handle this hot potato if and when reporters start asking him about it. (Assuming he ever emerges from his basement again between now and election day.) Volunteering to act as Biden’s unpaid adviser on the subject, the author attempts to prepare Joe Biden for the questions to come and what he needs to say in response.
There’s just no way around this. You need a policy about how you are going to deal with UFOs. In fact, you’ll have to decide if you’re even going to call them that, or whether you’ll use UAP, the new, improved acronym that indicates Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Either way, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Marco Rubio, Harry Reid, the New York Times, half the Twittersphere and even Donald Trump Jr. and his dad have just dumped UFOs smack dab into the middle of your march to the White House. You are going to be asked about this, and soon, and you better not make a joke about it and talk about little green men. That won’t work anymore. The issue has gotten very serious very quickly.
By the way, you should follow Bryce on Twitter if you have any interest in this subject at all.
Moving on, Bryce is right about one thing there, or at least I certainly hope he is. Politicians can’t simply get away with answering a question about UFOs with a joke about “little green men” and expect to move on to the next topic. This is something that’s happening right now. The New York Times is talking about it. Marco Rubio, the acting Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee is talking about it. And it’s not just a question of strange lights being seen in the sky. This is being viewed as a potentially serious threat to national security. And Joe Biden will need to demonstrate that he’s up to the task. (God help us all.)
If any of our intrepid reporters covering the election are on the ball and up to date on this material, here are some of the questions Bryce believes that Biden will be asked.
Will you declassify UFO data? Release the high-resolution full versions of the Navy videos?
Does the U.S. possess crash wreckage from “off-world” vehicles?
What do you think happened in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947?
Are you aware that these UAP vehicles have repeatedly shown an interest in the world’s nuclear arsenals, and what would you do about it?
Were you briefed on this topic either as a Senator or as the Vice-President, and what did you learn?
We’ve seen enough of Joe Biden on the campaign trail over the past couple of years (at least until he disappeared into his basement when the pandemic hit) to have a feel for how he’s been handling questions from the media. To put it charitably, Uncle Joe doesn’t really seem to be at the top of his game anymore, frequently becoming confused about where he is or losing the thread in the middle of a sentence. Is he really ready for the barrage of questions Bryce is laying out if someone in the media actually musters the temerity to ask him?
As noted above, this is no longer a subject Biden can just wave away. Somebody needs to brief him before he either promises to declassify material or says that it would be impossible to do so. (It’s a lot more complicated than a simple, binary choice.) Assuming he was briefed on the topic, either when he was in the Senate or as Barack Obama’s VP, will he be able to get away with saying that he knows things but he can’t say because it’s classified? Sure, he could say that, but the public’s patience for such answers seems to be wearing thin.
I don’t know if anyone would bother asking him about Roswell, but UAP incursions on nuclear arsenals around the globe is an established fact at this point. And it makes people nervous. I sort of feel sorry for both Biden and Trump if they are asked what they “plan to do about it.” How do we know what to do about it when we still don’t really know what “it” is? Or… do we know? Does Joe know? Inquiring minds want to know.
In any event, the subject is now out on the table for debate. I sincerely hope some of the media figures covering the campaign are getting ready to tackle this. And Joe might want to consider putting Bryce on the campaign payroll as a consultant for a while. Otherwise, he’s going to wind up with egg on his face.