hotair--2020-09-30--Huge early advantage in Democratic mail-in ballot requests and votes sparks anxiety -- in both parti

Huge early advantage in Democratic mail-in ballot requests and votes sparks anxiety -- in both parties

As you might expect , the source of the anxiety is different for each party .
For the GOP , it ’ s a simple numbers game .
A lot of mail-in ballots have come in already and it ’ s widely understood that Democrats are far more prone to vote by mail than Republicans are .
The Quinnipiac poll of South Carolina that I wrote about earlier contained this eye-popping number in response to a question about whether voters there plan to vote in person or by mail : If you ’ re a Republican and you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots pouring in early , you ’ re left with a terrifying question .
Is this simply evidence of a shift in preferences among Dems in how they vote ?
Or is this early evidence of massive turnout among Democrats this year ?
Of the more than 9 million voters who requested mail ballots through Monday in Florida , Pennsylvania , North Carolina , Maine and Iowa , the five battleground states where such data is publicly available , 52 percent were Democrats .
Twenty-eight percent were Republicans , and 20 percent were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party data obtained by The Washington Post shows a similar trend in Ohio , Minnesota , New Hampshire and Wisconsin .
Even more alarming to some Republicans , Democrats are also returning their ballots at higher rates than GOP voters in two of those states where that information is available : Florida and North Carolina… “ It ’ s astronomical , ” said one Republican strategist involved in Senate races who said he was “ horrified ” by the discrepancy and , like others interviewed for this report , spoke on the condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You see these numbers in a state like North Carolina , and how can you not be concerned ?
” Republicans could conceivably offset all of those votes by showing up in person on Election Day , but that ’ s where COVID becomes an X factor .
If there are bad outbreaks in swing states on November 3 , how many seniors and people with preexisting conditions who intended to vote for Trump will decide it ’ s too risky to go out and stay home ?
Mail-in votes were the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McConnell has reportedly spoken with Trump at least twice to try to get him to back off his crusade against voting by mail because of it , but to no avail .
For Trump , in an odd way , I think it ’ s a matter of self-interest : He ’ d rather preserve his ability to claim that he was cheated if he loses by insisting that mail-in voting is hopelessly fraudulent than embrace mail-in voting and give himself every possible chance to win , knowing that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
One political scientist who ’ s tracking this year ’ s voting by mail told WaPo that in some states upwards of 10 percent of turnout from 2016 has already been recorded — and it ’ s not even October .
This guy thinks it ’ s possible that the number of votes cast this year *before* Election Day will exceed total turnout in 2016 .
We may have more votes on the books this fall before polls open on November 3 than we had when polls closed last time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about , then ?
Read this post from last week if you missed it .
Partly they ’ re worried about how Trump will exploit their mail-in advantage to his own ends .
If he leads when polls close on Election Day because of the surge in Republican same-day voting , he ’ ll claim that he won and that the counting of Democratic mail-in votes afterward that ends up erasing his lead is a product of cheating .
Voting in person , either on Election Day or through early voting , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why lefty organizers are suddenly pushing people to eschew mail ballots and go to the polls instead .
But the other reason they ’ re worried is that mail ballots really are less reliable than ballots cast in person .
We saw a small-scale example of what can go wrong a few days ago in Pennsylvania .
Imagine that happening to hundreds of thousands of votes for Biden in states where the race is tight and it may mean the difference between victory and defeat .
From the Atlantic : Mail votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in different locations , including postmarking the ballots , signing in various places , and using the proper number of envelopes .
For that reason , it can confuse first-time voters , and even experienced voters used to queuing at local high schools .
Two studies of the 2018 midterm elections in Florida and Georgia found that young and minority voters are especially likely to have their mail ballots rejected .
( Both those voting groups skew Democratic . )
With millions of people voting by mail for the first time this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots .
In the 2020 primaries , more than 550,000 mail and absentee ballots were disqualified , a much higher number than four years ago .
The problem is especially severe in some swing states .
More than 23,000 mailed ballots were rejected in the presidential primaries in Wisconsin—more than Donald Trump ’ s margin of victory in that state in 2016 .
Deep-blue districts have had the same problem : New York City alone threw out more than 84,000 ballots this primary season… Democrats ’ big edge in early voting and mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in a close election , the combination of innocent mistakes by voters , mass litigation in close states , and conspiracy theories about mail-in voting could create the mother of all electoral headaches .
The Atlantic notes a recent analysis by the Philadelphia Inquirer that found more than six percent of the votes cast in last year ’ s municipal election were “ naked ballots.
” In Pennsylvania someone who ’ s voting by mail is supposed to enclose their ballot in an unmarked inner “ secrecy ” envelope and then place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their identifying information .
A naked ballot is one where the voter forgets the inner envelope and places the ballot directly in the outer one .
Any such ballot cast this fall is illegal , per the state ’ s supreme court .
Imagine Biden winning Pennsylvania by three or four points and Trump emerging with a one-point victory that hands him the presidency because six percent of the ballots were tossed for being “ naked.
” The country would be ungovernable .
The silver lining in this dark cloud of uncertainty is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend days after November 3 counting ballots are exaggerated .
An op-ed published last week in the Wall Street Journal noted that many states — notably Florida — begin verifying and counting mail ballots before the polls close on Election Day , which means those votes should be tabulated by the wee hours of election night .
We ’ ll have a sense of who won in those places before we go to bed .
Even in states like Michigan where the count may take longer , the fact that mail ballots are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have a good idea of who won even before those votes are tabulated .
If , for instance , Trump and Biden are tied in MI after in-person voting , with only mail ballots remaining to be counted , it ’ s a very safe bet that Michigan has turned blue .
Trump will still claim that he ’ s been cheated , of course , but Trump isn ’ t really the X factor in all this .
Americans who might be inclined to believe him are .
A same-day election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was on the up-and-up .

As you might expect, the source of the anxiety is different for each party. For the GOP, it’s a simple numbers game. A lot of mail-in ballots have come in already and it’s widely understood that Democrats are far more prone to vote by mail than Republicans are. The Quinnipiac poll of South Carolina that I wrote about earlier contained this eye-popping number in response to a question about whether voters there plan to vote in person or by mail:
If you’re a Republican and you’re hearing reports of an avalanche of mail ballots pouring in early, you’re left with a terrifying question. Is this simply evidence of a shift in preferences among Dems in how they vote? Or is this early evidence of massive turnout among Democrats this year?
Of the more than 9 million voters who requested mail ballots through Monday in Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maine and Iowa, the five battleground states where such data is publicly available, 52 percent were Democrats. Twenty-eight percent were Republicans, and 20 percent were unaffiliated. Additional internal Democratic and Republican Party data obtained by The Washington Post shows a similar trend in Ohio, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Even more alarming to some Republicans, Democrats are also returning their ballots at higher rates than GOP voters in two of those states where that information is available: Florida and North Carolina… “It’s astronomical,” said one Republican strategist involved in Senate races who said he was “horrified” by the discrepancy and, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal concerns. “You see these numbers in a state like North Carolina, and how can you not be concerned?”
Republicans could conceivably offset all of those votes by showing up in person on Election Day, but that’s where COVID becomes an X factor. If there are bad outbreaks in swing states on November 3, how many seniors and people with preexisting conditions who intended to vote for Trump will decide it’s too risky to go out and stay home? Mail-in votes were the party’s lifeline for those people. McConnell has reportedly spoken with Trump at least twice to try to get him to back off his crusade against voting by mail because of it, but to no avail. For Trump, in an odd way, I think it’s a matter of self-interest: He’d rather preserve his ability to claim that he was cheated if he loses by insisting that mail-in voting is hopelessly fraudulent than embrace mail-in voting and give himself every possible chance to win, knowing that he’s out of excuses if he doesn’t.
One political scientist who’s tracking this year’s voting by mail told WaPo that in some states upwards of 10 percent of turnout from 2016 has already been recorded — and it’s not even October. This guy thinks it’s possible that the number of votes cast this year *before* Election Day will exceed total turnout in 2016. We may have more votes on the books this fall before polls open on November 3 than we had when polls closed last time.
What do Democrats have to be anxious about, then? Read this post from last week if you missed it. Partly they’re worried about how Trump will exploit their mail-in advantage to his own ends. If he leads when polls close on Election Day because of the surge in Republican same-day voting, he’ll claim that he won and that the counting of Democratic mail-in votes afterward that ends up erasing his lead is a product of cheating. Voting in person, either on Election Day or through early voting, would deny him that talking point, which is why lefty organizers are suddenly pushing people to eschew mail ballots and go to the polls instead.
But the other reason they’re worried is that mail ballots really are less reliable than ballots cast in person. We saw a small-scale example of what can go wrong a few days ago in Pennsylvania. Imagine that happening to hundreds of thousands of votes for Biden in states where the race is tight and it may mean the difference between victory and defeat. From the Atlantic:
Mail votes require several steps, and different steps in different locations, including postmarking the ballots, signing in various places, and using the proper number of envelopes. For that reason, it can confuse first-time voters, and even experienced voters used to queuing at local high schools. Two studies of the 2018 midterm elections in Florida and Georgia found that young and minority voters are especially likely to have their mail ballots rejected. (Both those voting groups skew Democratic.) With millions of people voting by mail for the first time this year, experts expect more errors—and more rejected ballots. In the 2020 primaries, more than 550,000 mail and absentee ballots were disqualified, a much higher number than four years ago. The problem is especially severe in some swing states. More than 23,000 mailed ballots were rejected in the presidential primaries in Wisconsin—more than Donald Trump’s margin of victory in that state in 2016. Deep-blue districts have had the same problem: New York City alone threw out more than 84,000 ballots this primary season… Democrats’ big edge in early voting and mail votes might be a salutary achievement. But in a close election, the combination of innocent mistakes by voters, mass litigation in close states, and conspiracy theories about mail-in voting could create the mother of all electoral headaches.
The Atlantic notes a recent analysis by the Philadelphia Inquirer that found more than six percent of the votes cast in last year’s municipal election were “naked ballots.” In Pennsylvania someone who’s voting by mail is supposed to enclose their ballot in an unmarked inner “secrecy” envelope and then place that in an outer envelope that contains their identifying information. A naked ballot is one where the voter forgets the inner envelope and places the ballot directly in the outer one. Any such ballot cast this fall is illegal, per the state’s supreme court.
Imagine Biden winning Pennsylvania by three or four points and Trump emerging with a one-point victory that hands him the presidency because six percent of the ballots were tossed for being “naked.” The country would be ungovernable.
The silver lining in this dark cloud of uncertainty is that the scenarios in which swing states spend days after November 3 counting ballots are exaggerated. An op-ed published last week in the Wall Street Journal noted that many states — notably Florida — begin verifying and counting mail ballots before the polls close on Election Day, which means those votes should be tabulated by the wee hours of election night. We’ll have a sense of who won in those places before we go to bed. Even in states like Michigan where the count may take longer, the fact that mail ballots are trending heavily blue this year means we may have a good idea of who won even before those votes are tabulated. If, for instance, Trump and Biden are tied in MI after in-person voting, with only mail ballots remaining to be counted, it’s a very safe bet that Michigan has turned blue. Trump will still claim that he’s been cheated, of course, but Trump isn’t really the X factor in all this. Americans who might be inclined to believe him are. A same-day election result would help reassure them that everything was on the up-and-up.


hotair--2020-09-30--Cardinal Dolan to Senate: Imposing a religious test on Barrett "out of bounds," you know

What makes this episcopal throat-clearing notable is its source .
Cardinal Timothy Dolan has good relations with politicians across the political spectrum and tries his best to foster bipartisanship and comity in tone , at least — as one should expect from faith leaders .
That has its limits , however , and for Dolan that limit was exceeded in the 2017 confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett .
“ There should be no religious tests for candidates , ” Dolan noted on his SiriusXM show earlier today , and complained about attacks by Senate Democrats on Barrett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There were some really nasty comments , ” Dolan recalls , and suggests that the Senate just avoid the “ tawdry nastiness ” will not come up again this time .
Or else ?
Cardinal Timothy Dolan raved about Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s credentials to serve on the US Supreme Court — and warned that her deep Catholic faith should be respected , not attacked , during confirmation hearings .
“ She takes her Catholic faith seriously , but that is not why she was nominated as a justice to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think she is nominated because she is the best candidate around , ” Dolan said on his SiriusXM show “ Conversation with Cardinal Dolan.
” … Dolan complained that Barrett was mistreated during her prior confirmation hearing to become a federal appellate judge , saying some senators “ were testing her on her faith.
” “ That ’ s just out of bounds , folks , ” he said .
“ The Constitution — and [ Barrett ] knows the Constitution pretty well — says that there should be no religious test for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another woman who made her faith central to her life didn ’ t receive any such scrutiny over it , either at that time or any other time : “ What I admired in the accolades to Ruth Bader Ginsburg , there were a lot of articles about her deep Jewish faith and how she was not afraid to say that the values of her Jewish faith animated how she lived , and how she judged , ” Dolan said .
“ Nobody found that controversial .
“ She always said she faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother and a Jew .
Well , it seems like what Judge Barrett is facing : woman , mother and Catholic.
” We know the reason for that lack of scrutiny — abortion .
Catholicism was just a stalking horse for Democrats to paint Barrett as weird and dangerous .
At first it appeared that progressives were clearing the ground for a repeat , especially in the media , where hyperbolic rehashes of People of Praise and Barrett ’ s views on faith in the public square have been percolating ever since Ginsburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Democrats haven ’ t taken the bait , but that doesn ’ t mean they won ’ t when the issue becomes acute in the confirmation hearing .
Their progressive base wants Barrett torn to pieces and will be very unhappy if Barrett instead gets the kind of hearing that Dolan suggests on his show today — focused on her character and qualifications .
Dolan sets his expectations pretty clearly on that point too , although he doesn ’ t formally endorse Barrett : Dolan said he did not know Barrett personally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He said people he ’ s spoken to who know Barrett well “ sparkle about her.
” “ Is she erudite ?
Is she articulate ?
Is she a woman of integrity , strength and independence ?
They all rave about her character , ” he said .
Whether or not Dolan intended it to be a warning , it clearly sends a signal to Senate Democrats and to the Biden campaign .
They ’ re hoping to peel off Catholic voters from Trump in a big way this time around , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they start provoking Catholic leadership with Know-Nothingism arguments over supposed “ fundamental conflict [ s ] ” between public service and Catholicism .
Can they resist that urge ?
Joe Biden ’ s mild response in last night ’ s debate sends a similar signal — ixnay on atholic-Cay ashing-bay .

What makes this episcopal throat-clearing notable is its source. Cardinal Timothy Dolan has good relations with politicians across the political spectrum and tries his best to foster bipartisanship and comity in tone, at least — as one should expect from faith leaders. That has its limits, however, and for Dolan that limit was exceeded in the 2017 confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett. “There should be no religious tests for candidates,” Dolan noted on his SiriusXM show earlier today, and complained about attacks by Senate Democrats on Barrett’s Catholic faith during that process.
“There were some really nasty comments,” Dolan recalls, and suggests that the Senate just avoid the “tawdry nastiness” will not come up again this time. Or else?
Cardinal Timothy Dolan raved about Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s credentials to serve on the US Supreme Court — and warned that her deep Catholic faith should be respected, not attacked, during confirmation hearings. “She takes her Catholic faith seriously, but that is not why she was nominated as a justice to the Supreme Court, is it? I think she is nominated because she is the best candidate around,” Dolan said on his SiriusXM show “Conversation with Cardinal Dolan.” … Dolan complained that Barrett was mistreated during her prior confirmation hearing to become a federal appellate judge, saying some senators “were testing her on her faith.” “That’s just out of bounds, folks,” he said. “The Constitution — and [Barrett] knows the Constitution pretty well — says that there should be no religious test for candidates.”
Furthermore. Dolan notes that another woman who made her faith central to her life didn’t receive any such scrutiny over it, either at that time or any other time:
“What I admired in the accolades to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there were a lot of articles about her deep Jewish faith and how she was not afraid to say that the values of her Jewish faith animated how she lived, and how she judged,” Dolan said. “Nobody found that controversial. “She always said she faced three biases; a woman, a mother and a Jew. Well, it seems like what Judge Barrett is facing: woman, mother and Catholic.”
We know the reason for that lack of scrutiny — abortion. Catholicism was just a stalking horse for Democrats to paint Barrett as weird and dangerous. At first it appeared that progressives were clearing the ground for a repeat, especially in the media, where hyperbolic rehashes of People of Praise and Barrett’s views on faith in the public square have been percolating ever since Ginsburg’s death. Thus far, Senate Democrats haven’t taken the bait, but that doesn’t mean they won’t when the issue becomes acute in the confirmation hearing. Their progressive base wants Barrett torn to pieces and will be very unhappy if Barrett instead gets the kind of hearing that Dolan suggests on his show today — focused on her character and qualifications.
Dolan sets his expectations pretty clearly on that point too, although he doesn’t formally endorse Barrett:
Dolan said he did not know Barrett personally but was “proud” of her. He said people he’s spoken to who know Barrett well “sparkle about her.” “Is she erudite? Is she articulate? Is she a woman of integrity, strength and independence? They all rave about her character,” he said.
Whether or not Dolan intended it to be a warning, it clearly sends a signal to Senate Democrats and to the Biden campaign. They’re hoping to peel off Catholic voters from Trump in a big way this time around, but that will be tough to do if they start provoking Catholic leadership with Know-Nothingism arguments over supposed “fundamental conflict[s]” between public service and Catholicism. Can they resist that urge? Joe Biden’s mild response in last night’s debate sends a similar signal — ixnay on atholic-Cay ashing-bay.


hotair--2020-09-30--"Sad" Chris Wallace on debate: “I never dreamt that it would go off the tracks the way it did"

My half-hearted hot take about this is that he ’ s secretly thrilled with how it went .
He clearly doesn ’ t think much of Trump .
If last night ’ s sh*tshow contributes to a Trump defeat in November , Wallace can console himself with the fact that he played a bit part in it .
But no , I don ’ t really believe he ’ s thrilled .
He went into the debate acclaimed as a solid choice for moderator and came out having completely lost control , the presiding figure at one of the tawdriest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Drudge ’ s headline for the better part of the last 24 hours has been “ Night Exposes Nation In Decline , ” which is perfectly apt .
It was so embarrassing that the debate commission is scrambling to change the rules today to avert a reprise next time .
To top it off , Wallace is being scapegoated by some in righty media , including employees of his own network , for Trump ’ s performance .
I think he ’ s staring in the mirror today , imagining people reminiscing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember that Trump/Biden debate that Chris Wallace hosted ?
That ’ s when it really hit me for the first time that America ’ s civic culture is a sick joke and that our decline was irreversible.
” “ I ’ ve read some of the reviews , I know people think , Well , gee , I didn ’ t jump in soon enough , ” Mr. Wallace said , his voice betraying some hoarseness from the previous night ’ s proceedings .
“ I guess I didn ’ t realize — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hindsight being 20/20 — that this was going to be the president ’ s strategy , not just for the beginning of the debate but the entire debate.
” Recalling his thoughts as he sat onstage , with tens of millions of Americans watching live , Mr. Wallace said : “ I ’ m a pro .
I ’ ve never been through anything like this.
” … [ A ] s the president gave no sign of backing off , Mr. Wallace said , he grew more alarmed .
“ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of the debate — which I don ’ t know that I ever really did — then it was going to just go completely off the tracks , ” he said… Asked what he was feeling when he called the debate to a temporary halt — instructing the candidates that “ the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions ” — Mr. Wallace said , “ The answer to that question is easy : Desperation.
” Interestingly , he ’ s not a fan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to cut the candidates ’ mics .
For one thing , supporters will inevitably cry foul play when their guy is prevented from interrupting their opponent in the middle of telling a lie .
For another , it wouldn ’ t stop the candidates from disrupting each other or the debate .
They can still hear each other onstage , and if they ’ re loud enough with their interruptions the audience might be able to hear them through the other candidate ’ s live mic .
Trump being Trump , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his mic is turned off .
All of which is to say that there ’ s no technological fix for our collective civic disaster .
There was nothing Wallace could have done to stop the interruptions short of admonishing the candidates impotently .
He even tried to placate Trump at point as one might a child by reassuring him after an interruption that he ’ d like the next debate question better .
Trump behaved the way he did because he thought it would appeal to a meaningful part of the U.S. electorate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but maybe not inaccurate — commentary on the population .
As I write this at 6 p.m .
ET , I haven ’ t heard or seen any account of Wallace appearing on Fox News today to discuss the debate .
Did I miss something or has he really been AWOL on his own network ?
If so , why ?
Was that a Wallace decision , not wanting to be confronted by Trump-friendly hosts about how he was too hard on Trump , or was that a network decision in trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did issue a statement of support for him this afternoon… …but I wonder if that ’ s aimed primarily at Fox ’ s primetime hosts .
Tucker , Hannity , and Ingraham are the three Trumpiest anchors on the network , people who might be naturally inclined to absolve Trump for his performance during their programs tonight by blaming Wallace instead .
Especially since Trump himself took to amplifying criticisms of Wallace this morning : Maybe Fox management is giving the network ’ s A-listers a little nudge to proceed with caution when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll leave you with this , a shot at Wallace taken this afternoon by Jake Tapper after Trump ’ s spokesman tried to bulldoze him during an interview .
When you ’ re anchoring your own show , you have the luxury of cutting off a guest at any moment .
When you ’ re moderating a debate and one of the participants is the president , you ’ re stuck .
I ’ d be eager to hear media pros explain what Wallace should have done .
Harangue Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
End the debate early ?
C ’ mon .

My half-hearted hot take about this is that he’s secretly thrilled with how it went. He clearly doesn’t think much of Trump. If last night’s sh*tshow contributes to a Trump defeat in November, Wallace can console himself with the fact that he played a bit part in it.
But no, I don’t really believe he’s thrilled. He went into the debate acclaimed as a solid choice for moderator and came out having completely lost control, the presiding figure at one of the tawdriest spectacles in the history of presidential politics. Drudge’s headline for the better part of the last 24 hours has been “Night Exposes Nation In Decline,” which is perfectly apt. It was so embarrassing that the debate commission is scrambling to change the rules today to avert a reprise next time.
To top it off, Wallace is being scapegoated by some in righty media, including employees of his own network, for Trump’s performance.
I think he’s staring in the mirror today, imagining people reminiscing about this 25 years later. “Remember that Trump/Biden debate that Chris Wallace hosted? That’s when it really hit me for the first time that America’s civic culture is a sick joke and that our decline was irreversible.”
“I’ve read some of the reviews, I know people think, Well, gee, I didn’t jump in soon enough,” Mr. Wallace said, his voice betraying some hoarseness from the previous night’s proceedings. “I guess I didn’t realize — and there was no way you could, hindsight being 20/20 — that this was going to be the president’s strategy, not just for the beginning of the debate but the entire debate.” Recalling his thoughts as he sat onstage, with tens of millions of Americans watching live, Mr. Wallace said: “I’m a pro. I’ve never been through anything like this.”… [A]s the president gave no sign of backing off, Mr. Wallace said, he grew more alarmed. “If I didn’t try to seize control of the debate — which I don’t know that I ever really did — then it was going to just go completely off the tracks,” he said… Asked what he was feeling when he called the debate to a temporary halt — instructing the candidates that “the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions” — Mr. Wallace said, “The answer to that question is easy: Desperation.”
Interestingly, he’s not a fan of the plan to give moderators the power to cut the candidates’ mics. For one thing, supporters will inevitably cry foul play when their guy is prevented from interrupting their opponent in the middle of telling a lie. For another, it wouldn’t stop the candidates from disrupting each other or the debate. They can still hear each other onstage, and if they’re loud enough with their interruptions the audience might be able to hear them through the other candidate’s live mic. Trump being Trump, he might just start shouting his criticisms if his mic is turned off.
All of which is to say that there’s no technological fix for our collective civic disaster. There was nothing Wallace could have done to stop the interruptions short of admonishing the candidates impotently. He even tried to placate Trump at point as one might a child by reassuring him after an interruption that he’d like the next debate question better. Trump behaved the way he did because he thought it would appeal to a meaningful part of the U.S. electorate. Which is a brutal, depressing — but maybe not inaccurate — commentary on the population.
As I write this at 6 p.m. ET, I haven’t heard or seen any account of Wallace appearing on Fox News today to discuss the debate. Did I miss something or has he really been AWOL on his own network? If so, why? Was that a Wallace decision, not wanting to be confronted by Trump-friendly hosts about how he was too hard on Trump, or was that a network decision in trying to avoid that dynamic? Fox execs did issue a statement of support for him this afternoon…
Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott & President Jay Wallace send out note to staff calling debate a "unique situation" and hailing Chris Wallace: "No moderator could have managed a debate of that magnitude better than Chris" Chris Wallace to NYT: "A terrible missed opportunity." https://t.co/Wk9Vj8QfWw — David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) September 30, 2020
…but I wonder if that’s aimed primarily at Fox’s primetime hosts. Tucker, Hannity, and Ingraham are the three Trumpiest anchors on the network, people who might be naturally inclined to absolve Trump for his performance during their programs tonight by blaming Wallace instead. Especially since Trump himself took to amplifying criticisms of Wallace this morning:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311294017469063171
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311385306571042816
Trump is RTing a bunch of people whining about Chris Wallace? Why? pic.twitter.com/WF9MKkTYRf — Justin Logan (@JustinTLogan) September 30, 2020
Maybe Fox management is giving the network’s A-listers a little nudge to proceed with caution when criticizing a member of the team.
I’ll leave you with this, a shot at Wallace taken this afternoon by Jake Tapper after Trump’s spokesman tried to bulldoze him during an interview. When you’re anchoring your own show, you have the luxury of cutting off a guest at any moment. When you’re moderating a debate and one of the participants is the president, you’re stuck. I’d be eager to hear media pros explain what Wallace should have done. Harangue Trump, as if that would have stopped him? End the debate early? C’mon.


hotair--2020-09-30--A new academic paper explains how anarchists use social media to instigate violence

A white paper published by academic authors from Rutgers University looks closely at the ways anarchists use social media to organize and instigate violence against their targets .
The paper is titled “ Network-Enabled Anarchy : How Militant Anarcho-Socialist Networks Use Social Media to Instigate Widespread Violence Against Political Opponents and Law Enforcement ” and was published two weeks ago .
The core of the research involved looking at millions of social media comments and memes and comparing how anarchists operate online to the behavior of other groups like ISIS and Boogaloo extremists .
What the research found was summed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a lot to this report but it starts with observations about where extremist/anarchist memes and language is flourishing online .
A number of far-left subreddits , including one ( now deleted ) for Chapo Trap House served as major hubs for this material : A qualitative investigation on Reddit revealed evidence of a network of interconnected subcultural forums , several with attached , private chat groups , which broadcast socialist , anarchist , and/or communist leanings , and evince themes like demonization and dehumanization of police and political opponents as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recently banned Chapotraphouse and related subcommunities such as r/moretankiechapo ( in which “ tankie ” refers to authoritarian , hard line Stalinists ) , r/dankleft ( roughly 100,000 members ) , a radical board which produces cartoonish and dehumanizing political memes , and r/socialistRA ( roughly 55,000 members ) , a left-wing gun-enthusiast activist group and spoof of the NRA known as the Socialist Rifle Association ( SRA ) , which describes itself as “ working class , progressive , anarchist , socialist , communist , eco-warrior , animal liberator , anti-fascist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ-plus.
” There ’ s a chart in the report that shows all of these groups have grown dramatically since 2018 .
In looking at the material posted in these groups the researchers also found evidence of a “ martyr narrative ” particularly surrounding Willem Van Spronsen , an anarchists who died in a shootout while attempting to firebomb an ICE detention facility : One group that admires Van Spronsen is the Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front , a group with more than 36,000 followers on Twitter ( and a large number on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create “ network-enabled mobs ” who are organized to carry out various roles .
The report highlights this training graphic showing how these mobs divide into various roles which are collectively intended to frustrate police efforts to limit violence and damage : The report then outlines several instances where planning and execution of destructive behavior was carried out online .
The report also includes a reference to this earlier NYPD report on various violent tactics aimed at the police , from firebombs to laser pointers .
The report concludes that this all seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward attacks on infrastructure or a mass-casualty event : While this report is suggestive rather than conclusive , these data hint that insurgent behavior , stochastic terror and even attacks on vital infrastructure may be fomenting , and even indicate the possibility of a mass-casualty event .
The need for regular , reliable and responsible reporting with methods such as those used in this briefing with similar computational techniques is now imperative .
Antifa defenders used to brag that they had a body count of zero .
They can ’ t say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporter in Portland .
The direction this is moving should be clear to anyone who is paying attention .
Pretty clearly Joe Biden isn ’ t paying attention .

A white paper published by academic authors from Rutgers University looks closely at the ways anarchists use social media to organize and instigate violence against their targets. The paper is titled “Network-Enabled Anarchy: How Militant Anarcho-Socialist Networks Use Social Media to Instigate Widespread Violence Against Political Opponents and Law Enforcement” and was published two weeks ago.
The core of the research involved looking at millions of social media comments and memes and comparing how anarchists operate online to the behavior of other groups like ISIS and Boogaloo extremists. What the research found was summed up in this table:
There’s a lot to this report but it starts with observations about where extremist/anarchist memes and language is flourishing online. A number of far-left subreddits, including one (now deleted) for Chapo Trap House served as major hubs for this material:
A qualitative investigation on Reddit revealed evidence of a network of interconnected subcultural forums, several with attached, private chat groups, which broadcast socialist, anarchist, and/or communist leanings, and evince themes like demonization and dehumanization of police and political opponents as well as violent insurgency. These subcultural forums include the recently banned Chapotraphouse and related subcommunities such as r/moretankiechapo (in which “tankie” refers to authoritarian, hard line Stalinists), r/dankleft (roughly 100,000 members), a radical board which produces cartoonish and dehumanizing political memes, and r/socialistRA (roughly 55,000 members), a left-wing gun-enthusiast activist group and spoof of the NRA known as the Socialist Rifle Association (SRA), which describes itself as “working class, progressive, anarchist, socialist, communist, eco-warrior, animal liberator, anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, PoC, LGBTQ-plus.”
There’s a chart in the report that shows all of these groups have grown dramatically since 2018. In looking at the material posted in these groups the researchers also found evidence of a “martyr narrative” particularly surrounding Willem Van Spronsen, an anarchists who died in a shootout while attempting to firebomb an ICE detention facility:
Immediately following his death, his manifesto appeared on r/Chapotraphouse and within hours, on Facebook and Twitter with support by prominent left wing political figures. In his manifesto, Spronsen calls to his “comrades” to undertake a “revolution” against “the forces of evil,” embodied by the “predatory state” and its “fascist hooligans,” [23] evidencing the intended initiation of an armed, mass revolutionary confrontation against law enforcement.
One group that admires Van Spronsen is the Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front, a group with more than 36,000 followers on Twitter (and a large number on Instagram). The YLF seeks to create “network-enabled mobs” who are organized to carry out various roles. The report highlights this training graphic showing how these mobs divide into various roles which are collectively intended to frustrate police efforts to limit violence and damage:
The report then outlines several instances where planning and execution of destructive behavior was carried out online. The report also includes a reference to this earlier NYPD report on various violent tactics aimed at the police, from firebombs to laser pointers. The report concludes that this all seems to be escalating, possibly even moving toward attacks on infrastructure or a mass-casualty event:
While this report is suggestive rather than conclusive, these data hint that insurgent behavior, stochastic terror and even attacks on vital infrastructure may be fomenting, and even indicate the possibility of a mass-casualty event. The need for regular, reliable and responsible reporting with methods such as those used in this briefing with similar computational techniques is now imperative.
Antifa defenders used to brag that they had a body count of zero. They can’t say that anymore after the murder of a Trump supporter in Portland. The direction this is moving should be clear to anyone who is paying attention. Pretty clearly Joe Biden isn’t paying attention.


hotair--2020-09-30--Tapper to Harris: Why won't Biden -- or you -- "give a straight answer" on court packing?

Because the question puts Joe Biden and Kamala Harris between a rock and a hard place , and everyone knows it .
Members of their own party in the Senate have floated the idea of packing the court if Democrats win the election and take control of Washington .
That would require a bill to pass Congress and a president to sign the bill , and it would dramatically remake the Article III branch of government .
That makes it a top-tier presidential-election issue , and Joe Biden knows it .
Last night , though , Biden refused to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into consideration while voting : WALLACE : All right .
I have one final question for you , Mr. Vice President .
If Senate Republicans — we were talking originally about the Supreme Court here .
If Senate Republicans go ahead and confirm Justice Barrett , there has been talk about ending the filibuster or even packing the court , adding to the nine justices there .
You called this a distraction by the president , but in fact it wasn ’ t brought up by the president ; it was brought up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Congress .
WALLACE : So my question to you , is you have refused in the past to talk about it .
Are you willing to tell the American people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster , or packing the court… BIDEN : Whatever the position I take on that , that will become the issue .
The issue is the American people should speak .
You should go out and vote .
You ’ re in voting now .
Vote and let your senators know how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Make sure you in fact let people know .
TRUMP : He doesn ’ t want to answer the question .
BIDEN : I ’ m not going to answer that question because… TRUMP : Why wouldn ’ t you answer that question ?
BIDEN : Would you shut up , man ?
That ’ s an unusually blunt way of refusing to answer a question .
Essentially , Biden doesn ’ t want to discuss any policy , because his strategy is to make Donald Trump himself the only issue in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy , but this answer is terrible in that Biden makes that strategy too obvious .
Americans may not like Trump , by and large , but they also don ’ t like buying a pig in the poke , either .
So how should Biden duck questions ?
He might want to take some lessons from his running mate .
After the debate , CNN ’ s Jake Tapper tried to pin Kamala Harris down on the same issue .
Rather than just refuse to answer the question , Harris instead answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and runs out the clock on Tapper : TAPPER : There are a number of Democrats in Washington , as you know , who are saying that if Judge Barrett is confirmed and if you and Joe Biden win and the Democrats take back the Senate , then there should be consideration of adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court .
Neither you nor Joe Biden are willing to give us a straight answer as to whether or not you are willing to entertain that idea .
But it ’ s not some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about it .
Chuck Schumer , the Democratic leader in the Senate , has said that he ’ s not taking anything off the table .
Is that an idea that you are willing to think about ?
HARRIS : We are 35 days away from an election that is probably the most important election of our lifetime and our children ’ s lifetime .
And there is nothing about these next 35 days that Joe or I will take for granted .
And so the focus right now is on reminding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is very much in play .
It is about reminding people that people are voting right now , almost 1 million people Jake in our country have already voted , we are in the midst of an election and the Republican leader of the Senate together with Donald Trump are in the spirit of hypocrisy , trying to push through a nominee while the American people are voting .
And so Joe has been really clear .
Let ’ s focus on what is happening right now .
Deal with later-later .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is the American people are voting and they should be the ones to decide who will have the next lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court .
Let ’ s not get distracted .
Let ’ s be focused on what is right in front of us .
Because there is a lot at stake in terms of the integrity of our democracy , of our election system and this process that should take place over the next 35 days .
TAPPER : I will respectfully note that you also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Senator Kamala Harris , I appreciate your time this evening .
Thank you so much .
HARRIS : Good to be with you , Jake .
Thanks for the question .
Tapper then turned in frustration to Abby Phillip on the set , who pointed out the avoidance strategy : TAPPER : All right , yes .
So , I don ’ t really understand Abby why they won ’ t answer that question .
I guess they just feel like — it ’ s — well , yes , I guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand , why don ’ t you explain for the American people ?
PHILLIP : They won ’ t that answer that question because this is sort of like the Medicare for all of the general election .
Which is that there is an idea that is being talked about on the left of their party and they want to stay in the middle .
That is why they won ’ t answer the question .
This is an excellent analogy .
Supportive talk for court-packing will scare off centrists ; opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their engagement and energy , which are already in short supply for this campaign .
It goes further than that , though , because any discussion of policy shifts the focus off of Trump and onto a five-decade denizen of DC whose track record only begun to get unpeeled by Trump last night .
If and when we have another debate , Trump has to get more focused on Biden ’ s policies and specifics of his track record .
Every single Trump answer on policy should start off with , “ My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this and failed , by [ insert Biden policy record here ] .
I have been here for 45 months , and this is what I have done.
” That will take more prep than Trump exhibited last night , but the result will be much more effective .
Then perhaps Trump will be in position to offer Harris ’ “ Thanks for the question !
” after getting what he wants out of it .

Because the question puts Joe Biden and Kamala Harris between a rock and a hard place, and everyone knows it. Members of their own party in the Senate have floated the idea of packing the court if Democrats win the election and take control of Washington. That would require a bill to pass Congress and a president to sign the bill, and it would dramatically remake the Article III branch of government. That makes it a top-tier presidential-election issue, and Joe Biden knows it.
Last night, though, Biden refused to answer the question lest voters take that answer into consideration while voting:
WALLACE: All right. I have one final question for you, Mr. Vice President. If Senate Republicans — we were talking originally about the Supreme Court here. If Senate Republicans go ahead and confirm Justice Barrett, there has been talk about ending the filibuster or even packing the court, adding to the nine justices there. You called this a distraction by the president, but in fact it wasn’t brought up by the president; it was brought up by some of your Democratic colleagues in the Congress. BIDEN: I’m saying… WALLACE: So my question to you, is you have refused in the past to talk about it. Are you willing to tell the American people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster, or packing the court… BIDEN: Whatever the position I take on that, that will become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You’re in voting now. Vote and let your senators know how strongly you feel. Vote now. Make sure you in fact let people know. TRUMP: He doesn’t want to answer the question. BIDEN: I’m not going to answer that question because… TRUMP: Why wouldn’t you answer that question? BIDEN: The question is… TRUMP: The radical left… BIDEN: Would you shut up, man?
That’s an unusually blunt way of refusing to answer a question. Essentially, Biden doesn’t want to discuss any policy, because his strategy is to make Donald Trump himself the only issue in the election. It’s a smart strategy, but this answer is terrible in that Biden makes that strategy too obvious. Americans may not like Trump, by and large, but they also don’t like buying a pig in the poke, either.
So how should Biden duck questions? He might want to take some lessons from his running mate. After the debate, CNN’s Jake Tapper tried to pin Kamala Harris down on the same issue. Rather than just refuse to answer the question, Harris instead answers her own version of the question, and runs out the clock on Tapper:
TAPPER: There are a number of Democrats in Washington, as you know, who are saying that if Judge Barrett is confirmed and if you and Joe Biden win and the Democrats take back the Senate, then there should be consideration of adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neither you nor Joe Biden are willing to give us a straight answer as to whether or not you are willing to entertain that idea. But it’s not some fringe idea. Democrats in Washington are talking about it. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, has said that he’s not taking anything off the table. Is that an idea that you are willing to think about? HARRIS: We are 35 days away from an election that is probably the most important election of our lifetime and our children’s lifetime. And there is nothing about these next 35 days that Joe or I will take for granted. And so the focus right now is on reminding people that we have this election. It is very much in play. It is about reminding people that people are voting right now, almost 1 million people Jake in our country have already voted, we are in the midst of an election and the Republican leader of the Senate together with Donald Trump are in the spirit of hypocrisy, trying to push through a nominee while the American people are voting. And so Joe has been really clear. Let’s focus on what is happening right now. Deal with later-later. Focus on what is happening right now, which is the American people are voting and they should be the ones to decide who will have the next lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Let’s not get distracted. Let’s be focused on what is right in front of us. Because there is a lot at stake in terms of the integrity of our democracy, of our election system and this process that should take place over the next 35 days. TAPPER: I will respectfully note that you also declined to answer that question with me. Senator Kamala Harris, I appreciate your time this evening. Thank you so much. HARRIS: Good to be with you, Jake. Thanks for the question.
Tapper then turned in frustration to Abby Phillip on the set, who pointed out the avoidance strategy:
TAPPER: All right, yes. So, I don’t really understand Abby why they won’t answer that question. I guess they just feel like — it’s — well, yes, I guess — PHILLIP: I understand (inaudible). (CROSSTALK) TAPPER: I understand, why don’t you explain for the American people? PHILLIP: They won’t that answer that question because this is sort of like the Medicare for all of the general election. Which is that there is an idea that is being talked about on the left of their party and they want to stay in the middle. That is why they won’t answer the question.
This is an excellent analogy. Supportive talk for court-packing will scare off centrists; opposition to it will anger progressives and risk losing their engagement and energy, which are already in short supply for this campaign. It goes further than that, though, because any discussion of policy shifts the focus off of Trump and onto a five-decade denizen of DC whose track record only begun to get unpeeled by Trump last night.
If and when we have another debate, Trump has to get more focused on Biden’s policies and specifics of his track record. Every single Trump answer on policy should start off with, “My opponent has had 47 years to fix this and failed, by [insert Biden policy record here]. I have been here for 45 months, and this is what I have done.” That will take more prep than Trump exhibited last night, but the result will be much more effective. Then perhaps Trump will be in position to offer Harris’ “Thanks for the question!” after getting what he wants out of it.


hotair--2020-09-30--NY Times: Anarchists have been organizing destruction at BLM protests for their own reasons

The Times published this as an opinion piece ( it ’ s written by a member of the editorial board ) but most of the material in it reads like straight reporting .
Author Farah Stockman starts by relating the story of an out-of-work photographer named Jeremy Lee Quinn who spent time recording looting in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death and noticed that the activity didn ’ t seem to be random but planned by groups of “ black bloc ” anarchists hovering at the edges of the crowd .
Initially , Quinn believed these people might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lives Matter , but after seeking them out he found that wasn ’ t the case .
Mr. Quinn began studying footage of looting from around the country and saw the same black outfits and , in some cases , the same masks .
He decided to go to a protest dressed like that himself , to figure out what was really going on .
He expected to find white supremacists who wanted to help re-elect President Trump by stoking fear of Black people .
What he discovered instead were true believers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , Mr. Quinn , a 40-something theater student who worked at Univision until the pandemic , has spent the past four months marching with “ black bloc ” anarchists in half a dozen cities across the country , chronicling the experience on his website , Public Report… Mr. Quinn discovered a thorny truth about the mayhem that unfolded in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd , an unarmed Black man in Minneapolis .
It wasn ’ t mayhem at all .
While talking heads on television routinely described it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial injustice , it was strategically planned , facilitated and advertised on social media by anarchists who believed that their actions advanced the cause of racial justice .
In some cities , they were a fringe element , quickly expelled by peaceful organizers .
But in Washington , Portland and Seattle they have attracted a “ cultlike energy , ” Mr. Quinn told me .
In short , Quinn was seeing what local sheriffs and police around the country have seen , anarchists adopting Black Lives Matter talking points as a justification for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not necessary to take Quinn ’ s word for this because the goals of these anarchists are spelled out at sites like one called Crimethinc .
The front page of that site is current devoted to a lengthy analysis of the “ siege ” of the police precinct in Minneapolis .
Here ’ s a sample : The crowd mostly originated from working-class and poor Black and Brown neighborhoods .
This was especially true of those who threw things at the police and vandalized and looted stores .
Those who do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world that oppresses them are more likely to fight and steal from it when the opportunity arises .
The crowd had no interest in justifying itself to onlookers and it was scarcely interested in “ signifying ” anything to anyone outside of itself .
There were no signs or speeches , only chants that served the tactical purposes of “ hyping up ” ( “ Fuck 12 !
” ) and interrupting police violence with strategically deployed “ innocence ” ( “ Hands up !
Don ’ t shoot !
” ) … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nourish the crowd… Second , looting boosted the crowd ’ s morale by creating solidarity and joy through a shared act of collective transgression .
The act of gift giving and the spirit of generosity was made accessible to all , providing a positive counterpoint to the head-to-head conflicts with the police .
Third , and most importantly , looting contributed to keeping the situation ungovernable .
As looting spread throughout the city , police forces everywhere were spread thin .
Their attempts to secure key targets only gave looters free rein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like a fist squeezing water , the police found themselves frustrated by an opponent that expanded exponentially .
Stockman writes that while BLM initially saw a surge of public support , the anarchists tactics wore out the public over time .
There ’ s a law of diminishing returns with this ideology , one that some BLM activists are now more aware of .
Stockman concludes : Stockman quotes an anarchist podcast speaker ( anonymous of course ) who said , “ some insurrectionary anarchists believe that the meaning of being an anarchist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that struggle reveals.
” In other words , there aren ’ t necessarily any constructive goals here .
The chaos is an end in itself .
To quote a line from a great film : Some men just want to watch the world burn .
It would be great if a few more people on the left could take this organized , destructive threat seriously .

The Times published this as an opinion piece (it’s written by a member of the editorial board) but most of the material in it reads like straight reporting. Author Farah Stockman starts by relating the story of an out-of-work photographer named Jeremy Lee Quinn who spent time recording looting in the wake of George Floyd’s death and noticed that the activity didn’t seem to be random but planned by groups of “black bloc” anarchists hovering at the edges of the crowd. Initially, Quinn believed these people might be far-right extremists looking to discredit Black Lives Matter, but after seeking them out he found that wasn’t the case.
Mr. Quinn began studying footage of looting from around the country and saw the same black outfits and, in some cases, the same masks. He decided to go to a protest dressed like that himself, to figure out what was really going on. He expected to find white supremacists who wanted to help re-elect President Trump by stoking fear of Black people. What he discovered instead were true believers in “insurrectionary anarchism.” To better understand them, Mr. Quinn, a 40-something theater student who worked at Univision until the pandemic, has spent the past four months marching with “black bloc” anarchists in half a dozen cities across the country, chronicling the experience on his website, Public Report… Mr. Quinn discovered a thorny truth about the mayhem that unfolded in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man in Minneapolis. It wasn’t mayhem at all. While talking heads on television routinely described it as a spontaneous eruption of anger at racial injustice, it was strategically planned, facilitated and advertised on social media by anarchists who believed that their actions advanced the cause of racial justice. In some cities, they were a fringe element, quickly expelled by peaceful organizers. But in Washington, Portland and Seattle they have attracted a “cultlike energy,” Mr. Quinn told me.
In short, Quinn was seeing what local sheriffs and police around the country have seen, anarchists adopting Black Lives Matter talking points as a justification for their behavior. Stockman says it’s not necessary to take Quinn’s word for this because the goals of these anarchists are spelled out at sites like one called Crimethinc. The front page of that site is current devoted to a lengthy analysis of the “siege” of the police precinct in Minneapolis. Here’s a sample:
The crowd mostly originated from working-class and poor Black and Brown neighborhoods. This was especially true of those who threw things at the police and vandalized and looted stores. Those who do not identify as “owners” of the world that oppresses them are more likely to fight and steal from it when the opportunity arises. The crowd had no interest in justifying itself to onlookers and it was scarcely interested in “signifying” anything to anyone outside of itself. There were no signs or speeches, only chants that served the tactical purposes of “hyping up” (“Fuck 12!”) and interrupting police violence with strategically deployed “innocence” (“Hands up! Don’t shoot!”)… Looting served three critical aims. First, it liberated supplies to heal and nourish the crowd… Second, looting boosted the crowd’s morale by creating solidarity and joy through a shared act of collective transgression. The act of gift giving and the spirit of generosity was made accessible to all, providing a positive counterpoint to the head-to-head conflicts with the police. Third, and most importantly, looting contributed to keeping the situation ungovernable. As looting spread throughout the city, police forces everywhere were spread thin. Their attempts to secure key targets only gave looters free rein over other areas in the city. Like a fist squeezing water, the police found themselves frustrated by an opponent that expanded exponentially.
Stockman writes that while BLM initially saw a surge of public support, the anarchists tactics wore out the public over time. There’s a law of diminishing returns with this ideology, one that some BLM activists are now more aware of. Stockman concludes:
They are experts at unraveling an old order but considerably less skilled at building a new one. That’s why, even after more than 100 days of protest in Portland, activists do not agree on a set of common policy goals.
Stockman quotes an anarchist podcast speaker (anonymous of course) who said, “some insurrectionary anarchists believe that the meaning of being an anarchist lies in the struggle itself and what that struggle reveals.” In other words, there aren’t necessarily any constructive goals here. The chaos is an end in itself. To quote a line from a great film: Some men just want to watch the world burn. It would be great if a few more people on the left could take this organized, destructive threat seriously.


hotair--2020-09-30--Tim Scott: Trump "misspoke" about Proud Boys, or he didn't

During a stop in Alliance , Ohio , Joe Biden spoke and then answered a few questions from the press .
When asked about President Trump ’ s remarks about white supremacists during the presidential debate Tuesday night , Biden tried to put his strongest message forward .
“ My message to Proud Boys and other white supremacists is to cease and desist .
The American people will decide who the next president is , period.
” The reporters gathered at the train stop were quite gentle with Biden , as usual .
The only questions asked were framed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to something Trump said during the debate .
There was no curiosity about Biden ’ s policies on anything , they just teed him up to trash Trump .
The Biden campaign strategy is to make Biden look as warm and fuzzy as possible .
He ’ s just Middle-Class Joe , riding Amtrak and talking to everyday Americans along the way .
He feels the pain of Americans who have lost their jobs due to the coronavirus or lost a loved one .
He looks right at the camera and emotes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he ’ s good at it .
A hot topic today is how Trump answered a demand from debate moderator Chris Wallace to denounce white supremacists .
This is the first presidential debate that I have ever heard a moderator make such a request from one of the candidates .
It all stems from the Unite the Right rally and march in Charlottesville in 2017 organized for neo-Nazis and white supremacists .
The event was to protest the removal of Confederate monuments .
It devolved into violence with 19 people injured and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was asked about it the next day he made mention that “ very good people ” came down on both sides of the monument removal debate .
The left and their messengers in the media immediately misquoted Trump and interpreted his answer to say Trump thought neo-Nazis and white supremacists are good people .
It was a deliberate smear and it has been allowed to continue up to the present day .
Wallace was asking about that in last night ’ s debate .
President Trump has been called a racist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nazi for four years .
His supporters are called that , too .
Never mind that Trump has a long history of working with people across racial and ethnic lines and has even been awarded honors from black community leaders in his past life as a businessman in New York City .
Democrats and their minions in the press always revert to the racist narrative against Republican presidents and Trump has been on the receiving end of this to an extent that past Republican presidents have not .
He ’ s 74 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the woke language .
So critics vilify him .
The hypocrisy is strong here .
Only Trump was asked about alleged racist past remarks .
Joe Biden was given a free pass from Chris Wallace .
Biden has some racist-sounding remarks in his own history .
Remember when he said , “ You can not go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin ’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent ” ?
How about when he said poor children are just as bright as white children , implying only people of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of examples of less than stellar remarks from gaffe-prone Joe .
Not a mention of those remarks though .
Trump needs to practice a more articulate answer to that question because it will continue to come up .
Last night he started out well by immediately saying that he does condemn white supremacy but then got off track when Biden chimed in and taunted him to denounce the Proud Boys or another specific group by name .
Trump should not have taken the bait .
He should have turned it back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his as a response .
Trump is uncomfortable talking about racism and he just needs to have a short , on-point response ready .
It was frustrating watching Biden get the last word on it .
Trump said , “ almost everything I see is from the left wing , not from the right wing.
” True enough during the Summer of Love and into the Autumn of Anarchy .
He went on to say that Status Quo Joe refuses to condemn Antifa .
Biden said , “ Antifa is an idea , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daft as Jerry Nadler when he said Antifa isn ’ t real .
Trump should have used that opportunity to talk about his “ Platinum Plan ” .
That ’ s an economic plan that declares both Antifa and the KKK as terrorist organizations .
The plan increases access to capital to black businesses by almost $ 500 billion , which will create 3 million new jobs for the black community .
It will create 50,000 new black-owned businesses , too .
On economic issues , especially pre-coronavirus , Trump is strongest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the KKK a terrorist organization , in fact , he nurtured friendships with segregationists in the Senate .
Trump ended up saying , “ Proud Boys , stand back and stand by.
” This led to the left ’ s meltdown that Trump wants to incite violence and wants the Proud Boys to be ready to do battle for him .
Senator Tim Scott was asked about Trump ’ s response this morning .
He said he thinks Trump misspoke and should correct it .
Scott has called out Trump in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , naturally , didn ’ t provide any cover and Mike Rounds straddled the fence .
“ I think he misspoke in response to Chris Wallace ’ s comment .
… I think he misspoke , I think he should correct it .
If he doesn ’ t correct it , I guess he didn ’ t misspeak , ” Scott said , when asked by ABC News if he found Trump ’ s remarks concerning .
Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , the party ’ s 2012 presidential nominee , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump should have denounced white supremacists during the debate .
Sen. Mike Rounds ( R-S.D . )
added that Trump should have been “ very clear.
” “ He should have made it very clear that there ’ s no room for people on the far left or the far more far right .
When it comes to either an antifa or these white supremacist groups , should have been very clear , ” Rounds told reporters .
It ’ s all crazy , just like everything else is in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been .
Biden wasn ’ t pressed on much of anything and Trump was put on the defense for everything .
Chris Wallace was the third debater as he sided with Biden and even chuckled with some of Biden ’ s uncivil remarks .
When Biden said he couldn ’ t get a word in “ with this clown ” , Wallace laughed and agreed .
The usual suspects in Hollywood were quick to condemn Trump ’ s performance .
Media darlings on the left blamed Trump for the crazy debate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate he ’ s ever seen , mostly because of Trump , of course , while Dana Bash called it a sh** show on live television .
CNN , kept it classy , right ?

During a stop in Alliance, Ohio, Joe Biden spoke and then answered a few questions from the press. When asked about President Trump’s remarks about white supremacists during the presidential debate Tuesday night, Biden tried to put his strongest message forward. “My message to Proud Boys and other white supremacists is to cease and desist. The American people will decide who the next president is, period.”
The reporters gathered at the train stop were quite gentle with Biden, as usual. The only questions asked were framed in a manner to get him to respond to something Trump said during the debate. There was no curiosity about Biden’s policies on anything, they just teed him up to trash Trump. The Biden campaign strategy is to make Biden look as warm and fuzzy as possible. He’s just Middle-Class Joe, riding Amtrak and talking to everyday Americans along the way. He feels the pain of Americans who have lost their jobs due to the coronavirus or lost a loved one. He looks right at the camera and emotes. After 47 years as an elected official, he’s good at it.
A hot topic today is how Trump answered a demand from debate moderator Chris Wallace to denounce white supremacists. This is the first presidential debate that I have ever heard a moderator make such a request from one of the candidates. It all stems from the Unite the Right rally and march in Charlottesville in 2017 organized for neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The event was to protest the removal of Confederate monuments. It devolved into violence with 19 people injured and one young woman was killed. When Trump was asked about it the next day he made mention that “very good people” came down on both sides of the monument removal debate. The left and their messengers in the media immediately misquoted Trump and interpreted his answer to say Trump thought neo-Nazis and white supremacists are good people. It was a deliberate smear and it has been allowed to continue up to the present day. Wallace was asking about that in last night’s debate.
President Trump has been called a racist, a white supremacist, and even a Nazi for four years. His supporters are called that, too. Never mind that Trump has a long history of working with people across racial and ethnic lines and has even been awarded honors from black community leaders in his past life as a businessman in New York City. Democrats and their minions in the press always revert to the racist narrative against Republican presidents and Trump has been on the receiving end of this to an extent that past Republican presidents have not. He’s 74 years old and isn’t fluent in the woke language. So critics vilify him.
The hypocrisy is strong here. Only Trump was asked about alleged racist past remarks. Joe Biden was given a free pass from Chris Wallace. Biden has some racist-sounding remarks in his own history. Remember when he said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent”? How about when he said poor children are just as bright as white children, implying only people of color are poor? Those are just a couple of examples of less than stellar remarks from gaffe-prone Joe. Not a mention of those remarks though.
Trump needs to practice a more articulate answer to that question because it will continue to come up. Last night he started out well by immediately saying that he does condemn white supremacy but then got off track when Biden chimed in and taunted him to denounce the Proud Boys or another specific group by name. Trump should not have taken the bait. He should have turned it back on Biden and used a past remark of his as a response. Trump is uncomfortable talking about racism and he just needs to have a short, on-point response ready. It was frustrating watching Biden get the last word on it.
Trump said, “almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing.” True enough during the Summer of Love and into the Autumn of Anarchy. He went on to say that Status Quo Joe refuses to condemn Antifa. Biden said, “Antifa is an idea, not an organization.” He sounded as daft as Jerry Nadler when he said Antifa isn’t real. Trump should have used that opportunity to talk about his “Platinum Plan”. That’s an economic plan that declares both Antifa and the KKK as terrorist organizations. The plan increases access to capital to black businesses by almost $500 billion, which will create 3 million new jobs for the black community. It will create 50,000 new black-owned businesses, too. On economic issues, especially pre-coronavirus, Trump is strongest. Biden never lead the charge to declare the KKK a terrorist organization, in fact, he nurtured friendships with segregationists in the Senate.
Trump ended up saying, “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.” This led to the left’s meltdown that Trump wants to incite violence and wants the Proud Boys to be ready to do battle for him.
Senator Tim Scott was asked about Trump’s response this morning. He said he thinks Trump misspoke and should correct it. Scott has called out Trump in the past over alleged racist remarks. Mitt Romney, naturally, didn’t provide any cover and Mike Rounds straddled the fence.
Reporter: “Do you find that concerning, the president's refusal last night during the debate to condemn white supremacist groups?" Sen. Tim Scott: “I think he misspoke. I think he should correct it. If he doesn't correct it, I guess he didn't misspeak." pic.twitter.com/qxDTrg7ulT — NBC News (@NBCNews) September 30, 2020
“I think he misspoke in response to Chris Wallace’s comment. … I think he misspoke, I think he should correct it. If he doesn’t correct it, I guess he didn’t misspeak,” Scott said, when asked by ABC News if he found Trump’s remarks concerning. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, told reporters on Wednesday that “of course” Trump should have denounced white supremacists during the debate. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) added that Trump should have been “very clear.” “He should have made it very clear that there’s no room for people on the far left or the far more far right. When it comes to either an antifa or these white supremacist groups, should have been very clear,” Rounds told reporters.
It’s all crazy, just like everything else is in 2020. The debate was not what it should have been. Biden wasn’t pressed on much of anything and Trump was put on the defense for everything. Chris Wallace was the third debater as he sided with Biden and even chuckled with some of Biden’s uncivil remarks. When Biden said he couldn’t get a word in “with this clown”, Wallace laughed and agreed.
The usual suspects in Hollywood were quick to condemn Trump’s performance.
Here’s the big takeaway from the debate: Trump was asked to condemn white supremacists, and not only did he refuse to do so, he told them to “stand back and stand by.” You know, as if he is their leader. That’s the takeaway. — Kumail Nanjiani (@kumailn) September 30, 2020
I want to live in a country where my President is not afraid to call white supremacists and Nazis racists thugs and terrorists and then do everything he can to stop them. #WithBidenWeCan #Debates2020 — Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) September 30, 2020
Trump didn't condemn white supremacists. He told 'em to wait for their cue. #Debates2020 https://t.co/JSpBCvcEs8 — Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) September 30, 2020
Media darlings on the left blamed Trump for the crazy debate. Jake Tapper said it was the worse debate he’s ever seen, mostly because of Trump, of course, while Dana Bash called it a sh** show on live television. CNN, kept it classy, right?


hotair--2020-09-30--Debate commission: Last night's sh*tshow proved that the remaining debates will require "additional

Debate commission: Last night's sh*tshow proved that the remaining debates will require "additional structure"; Update: Cutting mics?

This has the feel of a letter to mom and dad from the principal about their hyperactive child .
“ Billy is a bright boy and means well , but in light of the classroom disruptions caused by his ADHD we believe he would benefit from some … additional structure.
” All I can think is that they ’ re going to cut each candidate ’ s mic when the other is speaking to prevent interruptions .
What else could they do , realistically ?
I suppose they could chop the next debate into blocs and have only one candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump would come out and do 10 minutes of Q & A with voters at the townhall debate about COVID , then Biden would come out and do 10 minutes on another COVID-related subject .
Then Trump would come out for 10 on the next topic , etc .
But that ’ s not really a debate .
If the candidates are unable to interact then you might as well scrap the debates entirely and hold individual events with each .
Trump gets an hour-long townhall hosted by the commission , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of did that a few weeks ago .
What would be the point ?
Got ta do something , though .
According to WaPo ’ s analysis , there were 93 interruptions last night , an average of nearly one per minute .
Trump was responsible for 71 of them .
Should Biden just walk away ?
Top Democrats today are saying … no : “ The American people saw what Donald Trump is all about and sometimes people just see clips on the news of his rallies .
And I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see that .
So yes , I think that he should continue doing these debates , ” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) , who ran against Biden in the party ’ s presidential primary… “ Anybody who watched the debate , who watched the way that Donald Trump behaved , has to be worried about him , worried about our country , ” said Sen. Tom Carper ( D-Del . )
, who served with Biden in the Senate .
“ I would do the next two , but I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a firm command and control of the debate.
” … Biden “ has to show that he ’ s not afraid of standing up to a bully , ” said Sen. Angus King ( I-Maine ) , who caucuses with the Senate Democrats .
“ The more that people see the president in the form he was last night , the less support he has.
” Unless Team Biden really , truly does fear that their guy might have a “ senior moment ” onstage that ’ s so disturbing it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s no downside to doing the debates .
Trump is more likely to damage his own cause than he is to damage Biden ’ s .
FiveThirtyEight polled debate-watchers last night after it ended and found a tiny bit of movement towards Biden afterwards .
Beforehand , on a scale of one to 10 , the panel gave Biden an average of 5.0 when asked how likely they were to vote for him while Trump drew 3.8 .
After the debate , the numbers moved to 5.2 and 3.7 , respectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further evidence that Trump ’ s best shot at a campaign gamechanger didn ’ t change the game .
And this speaks for itself : You can treat the debate commission ’ s announcement today as good news for Trump in light of that data .
Maybe the “ additional structure ” will restrain him from indulging the impulse to interrupt that alienated people last night .
A debate where he ’ s forced by the rules to perform like a more traditional candidate will probably help him .
Ed has a post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night , which weren ’ t stellar .
Please read it , as he has an interesting take on why voters might be less interested in watching this year .
I won ’ t spoil his theory by describing but I will offer my own : It may be that most people simply made up their minds about the race long ago and don ’ t want to devote any more time to gathering information .
The most amazing fact about the polling in the most tumultuous year in decades is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything else about American life hasn ’ t been .
Sometimes Biden has led by five points , sometimes by nine , sometimes by seven , but no matter what insane new calamity befalls the country , it never shifts all that much and there are never all that many undecided voters .
The same goes for Trump ’ s job approval , which hasn ’ t moved all that much for nearly three years .
Sometimes it ’ s 43 , sometimes it ’ s 47 , sometimes it ’ s 45 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a simple reflection of the fact that the election is being treated by voters as a referendum on Trump and nearly everyone reached their personal verdict on him long ago .
You might watch the debates out of curiosity but you ’ re not watching them because you ’ re having trouble deciding .
And if your mind ’ s made up and the spectacle of combat doesn ’ t interest you , especially since the novelty of the Trump show has worn off since 2016 , why waste 90 minutes ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out last night then maybe we ’ ve all overestimated the public ’ s interest in seeing firsthand whether Sleepy Joe would have a “ sleepy ” moment onstage .
Last night was America ’ s clearest opportunity of the race to see a true choice before them instead of a referendum on the president — and a lot of people weren ’ t interested .
Why ?
Update : The next debate might bring us the first case in history of the president ’ s mic being cut at a public event @

This has the feel of a letter to mom and dad from the principal about their hyperactive child. “Billy is a bright boy and means well, but in light of the classroom disruptions caused by his ADHD we believe he would benefit from some … additional structure.”
BREAKING: Commission on Presidential Debates: "Last night’s debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues." pic.twitter.com/JQc4bhT75p — NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) September 30, 2020
All I can think is that they’re going to cut each candidate’s mic when the other is speaking to prevent interruptions. What else could they do, realistically?
I suppose they could chop the next debate into blocs and have only one candidate onstage at a time. For instance, Trump would come out and do 10 minutes of Q&A with voters at the townhall debate about COVID, then Biden would come out and do 10 minutes on another COVID-related subject. Then Trump would come out for 10 on the next topic, etc. But that’s not really a debate. If the candidates are unable to interact then you might as well scrap the debates entirely and hold individual events with each. Trump gets an hour-long townhall hosted by the commission, then Biden gets one.
But we already sort of did that a few weeks ago. What would be the point?
Gotta do something, though. According to WaPo’s analysis, there were 93 interruptions last night, an average of nearly one per minute. Trump was responsible for 71 of them.
Should Biden just walk away? Top Democrats today are saying … no:
“The American people saw what Donald Trump is all about and sometimes people just see clips on the news of his rallies. And I think it’s important for them to see that. So yes, I think that he should continue doing these debates,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who ran against Biden in the party’s presidential primary… “Anybody who watched the debate, who watched the way that Donald Trump behaved, has to be worried about him, worried about our country,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who served with Biden in the Senate. “I would do the next two, but I would make sure we have a moderator who has a firm command and control of the debate.”… Biden “has to show that he’s not afraid of standing up to a bully,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with the Senate Democrats. “The more that people see the president in the form he was last night, the less support he has.”
Unless Team Biden really, truly does fear that their guy might have a “senior moment” onstage that’s so disturbing it’ll cause him to lose votes, there’s no downside to doing the debates. Trump is more likely to damage his own cause than he is to damage Biden’s.
FiveThirtyEight polled debate-watchers last night after it ended and found a tiny bit of movement towards Biden afterwards. Beforehand, on a scale of one to 10, the panel gave Biden an average of 5.0 when asked how likely they were to vote for him while Trump drew 3.8. After the debate, the numbers moved to 5.2 and 3.7, respectively. Not a dramatic change, but further evidence that Trump’s best shot at a campaign gamechanger didn’t change the game. And this speaks for itself:
You can treat the debate commission’s announcement today as good news for Trump in light of that data. Maybe the “additional structure” will restrain him from indulging the impulse to interrupt that alienated people last night. A debate where he’s forced by the rules to perform like a more traditional candidate will probably help him.
Ed has a post coming up on the debate ratings last night, which weren’t stellar. Please read it, as he has an interesting take on why voters might be less interested in watching this year. I won’t spoil his theory by describing but I will offer my own: It may be that most people simply made up their minds about the race long ago and don’t want to devote any more time to gathering information. The most amazing fact about the polling in the most tumultuous year in decades is that it’s been freakishly stable even though everything else about American life hasn’t been. Sometimes Biden has led by five points, sometimes by nine, sometimes by seven, but no matter what insane new calamity befalls the country, it never shifts all that much and there are never all that many undecided voters. The same goes for Trump’s job approval, which hasn’t moved all that much for nearly three years. Sometimes it’s 43, sometimes it’s 47, sometimes it’s 45.
I think the debate ratings may be a simple reflection of the fact that the election is being treated by voters as a referendum on Trump and nearly everyone reached their personal verdict on him long ago. You might watch the debates out of curiosity but you’re not watching them because you’re having trouble deciding. And if your mind’s made up and the spectacle of combat doesn’t interest you, especially since the novelty of the Trump show has worn off since 2016, why waste 90 minutes? If that’s why people tuned out last night then maybe we’ve all overestimated the public’s interest in seeing firsthand whether Sleepy Joe would have a “sleepy” moment onstage. Last night was America’s clearest opportunity of the race to see a true choice before them instead of a referendum on the president — and a lot of people weren’t interested. Why?
Update: The next debate might bring us the first case in history of the president’s mic being cut at a public event.


hotair--2020-09-30--Suspect in ambush shooting of two LA deputies has been charged with attempted murder

A suspect is being charged with attempted murder for the ambush shooting of two LA deputies on Sep. 12 .
His name is Deonte Lee Murray and he had previously been arrested and charged with a violent carjacking that happened on Sep. 1 so he was already in custody .
Officials announced the charges against Deonte Lee Murray at a Wednesday news conference .
He was arrested Sept. 15 after a stakeout , car chase , and search in Lynwood that Sheriff Alex Villanueva initially said was unrelated to the deputy attack case .
Murray , 36 , was charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shooting and NBC4 reported that the surveillance that led to that arrest was part of the investigation into the deputy shooting .
Murray pleaded not guilty in the carjacking case and was expected to return to court in late October for a hearing .
Court and jail records showed he had been suddenly ordered to court in Compton Wednesday morning without an indication of the reason for the hearing .
So to break this down a bit more , on Sep. 1 Murray ( allegedly ) approached a car with a rifle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and took his car , a black Mercedes sedan .
Then on Sep. 12 he ( allegedly ) shot the two deputies in an ambush attack .
After investigating the shooting , police determined that the suspect in the attack had fled the ambush in a black Mercedes sedan and were aware that a similar car had been carjacked in the area less than two weeks earlier .
On Sep. 15 Murray was located , fled from police in a different car and was eventually found hiding in a trash can : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue Toyota coupe that crashed in the 3100 block of Carlin Avenue in Lynwood , and the sources said the driver ran from the car into a home or condo nearby .
A city block of homes nearby was being evacuated as members of the LA County Sheriff ’ s Department ’ s Special Enforcement Bureau , its SWAT team , prepared to search homes , apartments , buildings and yards… After an hourslong search , Deonte Murray , 36 , was arrested after being found inside a trash can with the assistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s department said in a nighttime news conference .
Murray has no known address but is known to frequent the area and is considered a local… At the time of his arrest , police said the manhunt for Murray was not connected to the ambush shooting .
However , during the car chase which led to his arrest , Murray tossed a “ ghost gun ” out of the car , obviously trying to get rid of it in case he was caught .
Police recovered that gun and several days later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ match for the gun used to shoot the two deputies .
The attempted murder charges have now been added to the carjacking case .
If convicted on all charges , Murray faces a maximum sentence of life in prison .
As for the motive in this case , LA County District Attorney Jackie Lacey said today , “ They became victims of a violent crime for one reason — they were doing their job and they were wearing the badge.
” Sheriff Alex Villanueva said , “ There are people who have such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re just willing to kill anybody unprovoked.
” This is the point when the entire national media will studiously ignore the question of what particular messages being spread right now might have helped to motivate this shooting .
The so-called “ climate of hate ” only gets mentioned on CNN and elsewhere when violence can be blamed on the right .
The two deputies shot in the attack have both been released from the hospital and are recovering at home .
Here ’ s the press conference announcing the charges against Murray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on the arrest which shows police came to the arrest with armored vehicles , a helicopter , a robot and a drone .
Clearly they thought this guy was a danger to the police .

A suspect is being charged with attempted murder for the ambush shooting of two LA deputies on Sep. 12. His name is Deonte Lee Murray and he had previously been arrested and charged with a violent carjacking that happened on Sep. 1 so he was already in custody.
Officials announced the charges against Deonte Lee Murray at a Wednesday news conference. He was arrested Sept. 15 after a stakeout, car chase, and search in Lynwood that Sheriff Alex Villanueva initially said was unrelated to the deputy attack case. Murray, 36, was charged that week with a Sept. 1 carjacking and shooting and NBC4 reported that the surveillance that led to that arrest was part of the investigation into the deputy shooting. Murray pleaded not guilty in the carjacking case and was expected to return to court in late October for a hearing. Court and jail records showed he had been suddenly ordered to court in Compton Wednesday morning without an indication of the reason for the hearing.
So to break this down a bit more, on Sep. 1 Murray (allegedly) approached a car with a rifle, shot the driver in the leg and took his car, a black Mercedes sedan. Then on Sep. 12 he (allegedly) shot the two deputies in an ambush attack. After investigating the shooting, police determined that the suspect in the attack had fled the ambush in a black Mercedes sedan and were aware that a similar car had been carjacked in the area less than two weeks earlier. On Sep. 15 Murray was located, fled from police in a different car and was eventually found hiding in a trash can:
The person being chased was driving a light blue Toyota coupe that crashed in the 3100 block of Carlin Avenue in Lynwood, and the sources said the driver ran from the car into a home or condo nearby. A city block of homes nearby was being evacuated as members of the LA County Sheriff’s Department’s Special Enforcement Bureau, its SWAT team, prepared to search homes, apartments, buildings and yards… After an hourslong search, Deonte Murray, 36, was arrested after being found inside a trash can with the assistance of a K9 unit, the sheriff’s department said in a nighttime news conference. Murray has no known address but is known to frequent the area and is considered a local…
At the time of his arrest, police said the manhunt for Murray was not connected to the ambush shooting. However, during the car chase which led to his arrest, Murray tossed a “ghost gun” out of the car, obviously trying to get rid of it in case he was caught. Police recovered that gun and several days later ballistics came back showing it was a match for the gun used to shoot the two deputies.
The attempted murder charges have now been added to the carjacking case. If convicted on all charges, Murray faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. As for the motive in this case, LA County District Attorney Jackie Lacey said today, “They became victims of a violent crime for one reason — they were doing their job and they were wearing the badge.” Sheriff Alex Villanueva said, “There are people who have such deep-seated hatred against law enforcement that they’re just willing to kill anybody unprovoked.”
This is the point when the entire national media will studiously ignore the question of what particular messages being spread right now might have helped to motivate this shooting. The so-called “climate of hate” only gets mentioned on CNN and elsewhere when violence can be blamed on the right.
The two deputies shot in the attack have both been released from the hospital and are recovering at home. Here’s the press conference announcing the charges against Murray. Below that is a local news report on the arrest which shows police came to the arrest with armored vehicles, a helicopter, a robot and a drone. Clearly they thought this guy was a danger to the police.