hotair--2020-09-23--No charges to be filed in mail-ballot toilet display

This is one crappy story ( sorry ) that may be mercifully drawing to a close without dragging on for the rest of the election season .
On Monday , we talked about the apparently irate voter in Mason , Michigan who didn ’ t have a very high opinion of the massive , mail-in voting scheme his state was adopting for the presidential election .
To show his displeasure , he set up a large sign on his lawn saying “ Place Mail In Ballots Here !
” Next to it , he had placed a used toilet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clerk ( a Democrat ) , who declared that the display represented an illegal plan to steal ballot from people .
She went on to demand that prosecutors look into the matter immediately and take action .
Well , it only took a single day for a county prosecutor ( also a Democrat ) to throw cold water on the idea .
It appears that there will be no investigation or prosecution forthcoming .
( Associated Press ) A prosecutor in Michigan has flushed a complaint about a toilet that was promoted as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Byrum , a Democrat , said it ’ s a felony to take illegal possession of absentee ballots .
But there was no evidence of an intent to violate Michigan law , said the office of county prosecutor Carol Siemon , a Democrat .
“ Instead , this seemed to be an effort to make a humorous political statement , ” the statement said .
While it may seem amazing in the midst of the 2020 quagmire , the Democrats actually managed to produce an official who was able to recognize “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
Good for her .
The County Clerk , Ms. Byrum , clearly has no such sense of humor , at least when it comes to a favorite pet issue of her party .
Any denigration of massive mail-in voting is seen as a direct threat to the Democrat ’ s chances of victory in November and their subsequent plans to eliminate the filibuster , pack the Supreme Court and do away with the electoral college .
( Oh , and they ’ re now adding statehood for both DC and Puerto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can easily view this toilet-art story as just a humorous , local joke , the response from the County Clerk in Mason is probably representative of a much larger movement among liberals .
It was only this morning when we looked at a new law in California making it a crime to speak disparagingly of or spread “ misinformation ” about mail-in voting .
Granted , it ’ s only a misdemeanor and probably wouldn ’ t result in more than a fine for first-time offenders , but it demonstrates the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it means protecting this bizarre plan .
There would be some delicious irony in all of this if the mail-in voter scheme backfires on them as a result of the law of unintended consequences .
And it could potentially happen .
Consider for a moment all of the pitfalls we ’ ve discussed here previously when it comes to sending ballots to everyone on the voter rolls , as they are doing in California and many other states .
A fair percentage of them are going to go to the wrong address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost in delivery or rejected during the authentication process .
At the same time , imagine the large percentage of Trump voters who are going to reject the idea and go deliver their ballot in person or simply vote at their local polling station if the option is offered .
In some of the tightly divided states , those lost ballots could be enough to make the difference and tip the race in Trump ’ s favor .
The court battles that follow would drag on for ages , but it would still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Woke Brigade as they lost their everloving minds .

This is one crappy story (sorry) that may be mercifully drawing to a close without dragging on for the rest of the election season. On Monday, we talked about the apparently irate voter in Mason, Michigan who didn’t have a very high opinion of the massive, mail-in voting scheme his state was adopting for the presidential election. To show his displeasure, he set up a large sign on his lawn saying “Place Mail In Ballots Here!” Next to it, he had placed a used toilet.
This drew the ire of the County Clerk (a Democrat), who declared that the display represented an illegal plan to steal ballot from people. She went on to demand that prosecutors look into the matter immediately and take action. Well, it only took a single day for a county prosecutor (also a Democrat) to throw cold water on the idea. It appears that there will be no investigation or prosecution forthcoming. (Associated Press)
A prosecutor in Michigan has flushed a complaint about a toilet that was promoted as a place to drop absentee ballots… Barb Byrum, a Democrat, said it’s a felony to take illegal possession of absentee ballots. But there was no evidence of an intent to violate Michigan law, said the office of county prosecutor Carol Siemon, a Democrat. “Instead, this seemed to be an effort to make a humorous political statement,” the statement said.
While it may seem amazing in the midst of the 2020 quagmire, the Democrats actually managed to produce an official who was able to recognize “a humorous political statement” when she saw one. Good for her.
The County Clerk, Ms. Byrum, clearly has no such sense of humor, at least when it comes to a favorite pet issue of her party. Any denigration of massive mail-in voting is seen as a direct threat to the Democrat’s chances of victory in November and their subsequent plans to eliminate the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court and do away with the electoral college. (Oh, and they’re now adding statehood for both DC and Puerto Rico to their wishlist.)
While you can easily view this toilet-art story as just a humorous, local joke, the response from the County Clerk in Mason is probably representative of a much larger movement among liberals. It was only this morning when we looked at a new law in California making it a crime to speak disparagingly of or spread “misinformation” about mail-in voting. Granted, it’s only a misdemeanor and probably wouldn’t result in more than a fine for first-time offenders, but it demonstrates the Democrats’ willingness to shut down free speech if it means protecting this bizarre plan.
There would be some delicious irony in all of this if the mail-in voter scheme backfires on them as a result of the law of unintended consequences. And it could potentially happen. Consider for a moment all of the pitfalls we’ve discussed here previously when it comes to sending ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, as they are doing in California and many other states. A fair percentage of them are going to go to the wrong address while others may be improperly formed, lost in delivery or rejected during the authentication process.
At the same time, imagine the large percentage of Trump voters who are going to reject the idea and go deliver their ballot in person or simply vote at their local polling station if the option is offered. In some of the tightly divided states, those lost ballots could be enough to make the difference and tip the race in Trump’s favor. The court battles that follow would drag on for ages, but it would still be hilarious to watch the reactions from the Woke Brigade as they lost their everloving minds.


hotair--2020-09-23--McConnell: Let us list all the ways in which Schumer is "a uniquely non-credible messenger" on judic

McConnell: Let us list all the ways in which Schumer is "a uniquely non-credible messenger" on judicial norms

Talk about bringing receipts .
Some Democrats have finally begun to back away from attacking the process of filling an open Supreme Court seat , but not Chuck Schumer .
He has spent most of his time the last few days attacking Mitch McConnell for hypocrisy ( fair enough ) and for destroying the norms of the Senate regarding its role in the federal judiciary — which is utterly absurd .
McConnell set the record straight on norm-busting in the upper chamber , and Schumer ’ s long history of it , in a floor speech this morning .
Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , but McConnell notes exactly when and how this generational food fight over judicial confirmations started , and who started it : It was Senate Democrats who began our modern challenges with their treatment of Robert Bork in 1987 .
But the acrimony really got going in the early 2000s , when a group of Senate Democrats took the almost-never-used tactic of filibustering nominations and turned it into a constant routine for the first time ever .
“ Who was a main driving force behind those tactics ?
Let ’ s consult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2003 .
Quote : ‘ Schumer decided [ to ] put ideology on the front burner in the confirmation process… ‘ I am the leader ( of the filibuster movement ) , and you know , I ’ m proud of it , ’ said the senator from Brooklyn.
’ Quote : ‘ Mr .
Schumer urged Democratic colleagues… to use a tactic that some were initially reluctant to pursue , and that has since roiled the Senate.
’ Throughout President Bush 43 ’ s two terms , our colleague built an entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Talented , hardworking people ’ s careers were destroyed — like the brilliant lawyer Miguel Estrada , a close friend of now-Justice Elena Kagan , who says he is ‘ extraordinary ’ and ‘ thoughtful ’ and would have made ‘ an excellent addition to any federal court.
’ People like that , destroyed by the Democrats ’ tactics .
“ This version of the now-Democratic Leader said filibustering judges was an essential part of the Senate .
He said that if Republicans ever used the nuclear option to ‘ change the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t get their way on every judge… it ’ ll be a doomsday for democracy.
’ But of course , in the very next presidential administration , the Democratic Leader leapt at the chance to press that ‘ doomsday ’ button himself .
Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for turning the judicial nomination process into a brute-force majoritarian war zone .
Schumer and Harry Reid literally created that with their 2013 rule change eliminating the filibuster from presidential appointments , including all judicial nominations except to the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bet for Democrats at the time , since Republicans routinely voted in significant numbers for Democrats ’ Supreme Court nominees and even appellate court appointments — while Democrats usually united in scorched-earth votes on nominations made by Republicans .
They only got burned by it in 2017 when McConnell removed the Supreme Court exception by following the precedent set by Reid and Schumer in 2013 .
As I wrote the other day , it ’ s not tough to imagine that we would have three seats open at the moment on the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have used the filibuster to block anyone nominated by Trump otherwise .
Schumer ’ s complaint about McConnell ’ s 2017 move is akin to a toddler ’ s lament of “ Mom , he hit me back !
” No one will argue that this is a healthy environment , of course .
It would be far better to return to a political environment where the two parties acknowledged the authority of a president to nominate jurists of his/her choice , and where the Senate restrained itself to considerations of competence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The author of the change in environment isn ’ t Mitch McConnell , however , no matter how much Schumer and his progressive allies protest otherwise .

Talk about bringing receipts. Some Democrats have finally begun to back away from attacking the process of filling an open Supreme Court seat, but not Chuck Schumer. He has spent most of his time the last few days attacking Mitch McConnell for hypocrisy (fair enough) and for destroying the norms of the Senate regarding its role in the federal judiciary — which is utterly absurd.
McConnell set the record straight on norm-busting in the upper chamber, and Schumer’s long history of it, in a floor speech this morning. Schumer may want to pretend this started in 2016, but McConnell notes exactly when and how this generational food fight over judicial confirmations started, and who started it:
It was Senate Democrats who began our modern challenges with their treatment of Robert Bork in 1987. But the acrimony really got going in the early 2000s, when a group of Senate Democrats took the almost-never-used tactic of filibustering nominations and turned it into a constant routine for the first time ever. “Who was a main driving force behind those tactics? Let’s consult some New York newspapers from the year 2003. Quote: ‘Schumer decided [to] put ideology on the front burner in the confirmation process… ‘I am the leader (of the filibuster movement), and you know, I’m proud of it,’ said the senator from Brooklyn.’ Quote: ‘Mr. Schumer urged Democratic colleagues… to use a tactic that some were initially reluctant to pursue, and that has since roiled the Senate.’ Throughout President Bush 43’s two terms, our colleague built an entire personal brand out of filibustering judicial nominees. Talented, hardworking people’s careers were destroyed — like the brilliant lawyer Miguel Estrada, a close friend of now-Justice Elena Kagan, who says he is ‘extraordinary’ and ‘thoughtful’ and would have made ‘an excellent addition to any federal court.’ People like that, destroyed by the Democrats’ tactics. “This version of the now-Democratic Leader said filibustering judges was an essential part of the Senate. He said that if Republicans ever used the nuclear option to ‘change the rules in midstream’ because ‘they can’t get their way on every judge… it’ll be a doomsday for democracy.’ But of course, in the very next presidential administration, the Democratic Leader leapt at the chance to press that ‘doomsday’ button himself.
Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for turning the judicial nomination process into a brute-force majoritarian war zone. Schumer and Harry Reid literally created that with their 2013 rule change eliminating the filibuster from presidential appointments, including all judicial nominations except to the Supreme Court. That was a safe enough bet for Democrats at the time, since Republicans routinely voted in significant numbers for Democrats’ Supreme Court nominees and even appellate court appointments — while Democrats usually united in scorched-earth votes on nominations made by Republicans. They only got burned by it in 2017 when McConnell removed the Supreme Court exception by following the precedent set by Reid and Schumer in 2013.
As I wrote the other day, it’s not tough to imagine that we would have three seats open at the moment on the Supreme Court without that 2017 change. Schumer would have used the filibuster to block anyone nominated by Trump otherwise. Schumer’s complaint about McConnell’s 2017 move is akin to a toddler’s lament of “Mom, he hit me back!”
No one will argue that this is a healthy environment, of course. It would be far better to return to a political environment where the two parties acknowledged the authority of a president to nominate jurists of his/her choice, and where the Senate restrained itself to considerations of competence and ethics rather than policy and politics. The author of the change in environment isn’t Mitch McConnell, however, no matter how much Schumer and his progressive allies protest otherwise.


hotair--2020-09-23--Democratic fear-mongering about the coronavirus vaccine is working

NBC News published a story today which suggests the fear-mongering Democrats have been doing about the forthcoming coronavirus vaccine is working .
The mother of a 10-year-old highlighted in the story is determined not to vaccinate her daughter even if the local school board says it ’ s mandatory : Michelle Vargas of Granite City , Illinois , has always vaccinated her 10-year-old daughter , Madison .
They both typically get flu shots .
But when a vaccine for the coronavirus eventually comes out , Vargas will not be giving it to her daughter — even if Madison ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no way in hell I would be playing politics with my daughter ’ s health and safety , ” said Vargas , 36 , an online fitness instructor .
If the public school Madison attends and loves says the vaccine is mandatory , “ we would find other options , ” she said… “ I understand that time is of the essence and a lot of people want to get on with their lives , ” she said .
“ But any time anything is rushed , integrity goes out the window.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent polls have shown that people are hesitant about the vaccine and states directly that , “ those polled said that they felt there will be insufficient data on the long-term effects of a rushed vaccine and that they are suspicious that pressure from President Donald Trump ahead of the election could compromise its safety standards.
” Where would people get that idea ?
From national Democrats including both members of the Biden ticket .
“ I don ’ t trust the president on vaccines , ” Joe Biden said on CNN last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be willing to trust Dr. Fauci .
Kamala Harris has also spread this message .
Earlier this month she said on CNN , “ I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he ’ s talking about.
” She added , “ I will not take his word for it.
” Biden and Harris aren ’ t alone in this , far from it .
Earlier this month a Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a debate that he was hesitant to take a COVID vaccine .
Democrats say they are just questioning Trump not science and not the vaccine development process itself , but clearly people like Michelle Vargas aren ’ t getting the distinction .
She ’ s not saying she ’ ll get the vaccine if it ’ s proven safe or if Dr. Fauci approves of it .
She ’ s saying “ there is no way in hell ” her daughter will get it no matter what local authorities decide .
Not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doses of a vaccine for everyone by the end of the year .
He recently said that could take until April .
So what happens if Biden wins the election ?
Does the same vaccine that Democrats have been casting doubt on suddenly become reliable and safe ?
I think Dems are assuming they can flip a switch on this but it ’ s not going to be so easy to put this particular genie back in the bottle .
In fact , the NBC story points out that anti-vaxxers are looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of view the Democratic fear-mongering has created : Katie Otteni , 24 , of Hickory , North Carolina , has never vaccinated her 22-month-old son , Dallas , and she has used the religious exemption to skirt his day care center ’ s vaccine requirement .
She and other like-minded friends embark on postcard campaigns to educate others about what they say are the dangers of vaccines , and she has been encouraged to see parents who normally do not agree with her expressing reluctance about any coming Covid-19 vaccine .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one vaccine they feel this way towards , but if they knew there was the same situation going on with the others , they would probably think differently , ” said Otteni , a waitress .
“ But it ’ s a start.
” The irony in having the “ party of science ” fear-mongering vaccines is hard to overlook but somehow the media is managing to do it .
Imagine for a moment if the GOP were doing this .
There would be open letters from epidemiologists on the front page of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for election would be pressed on whether they would take the vaccine .
As it is , we get tepid crap like this AP story titled , “ Democrats face quandary on vaccine support as election nears.
” As usual the media maintains two standards and as usual that will wind up hurting us all in the long run .

NBC News published a story today which suggests the fear-mongering Democrats have been doing about the forthcoming coronavirus vaccine is working. The mother of a 10-year-old highlighted in the story is determined not to vaccinate her daughter even if the local school board says it’s mandatory:
Michelle Vargas of Granite City, Illinois, has always vaccinated her 10-year-old daughter, Madison. They both typically get flu shots. But when a vaccine for the coronavirus eventually comes out, Vargas will not be giving it to her daughter — even if Madison’s school district requires it. “There is no way in hell I would be playing politics with my daughter’s health and safety,” said Vargas, 36, an online fitness instructor. If the public school Madison attends and loves says the vaccine is mandatory, “we would find other options,” she said… “I understand that time is of the essence and a lot of people want to get on with their lives,” she said. “But any time anything is rushed, integrity goes out the window.”
The piece points out that several recent polls have shown that people are hesitant about the vaccine and states directly that, “those polled said that they felt there will be insufficient data on the long-term effects of a rushed vaccine and that they are suspicious that pressure from President Donald Trump ahead of the election could compromise its safety standards.”
Where would people get that idea?
From national Democrats including both members of the Biden ticket. “I don’t trust the president on vaccines,” Joe Biden said on CNN last week. He added that he would be willing to trust Dr. Fauci. Kamala Harris has also spread this message. Earlier this month she said on CNN, “I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about.” She added, “I will not take his word for it.”
Biden and Harris aren’t alone in this, far from it. Earlier this month a Democratic Senate candidate in North Carolina suggested during a debate that he was hesitant to take a COVID vaccine.
Democrats say they are just questioning Trump not science and not the vaccine development process itself, but clearly people like Michelle Vargas aren’t getting the distinction. She’s not saying she’ll get the vaccine if it’s proven safe or if Dr. Fauci approves of it. She’s saying “there is no way in hell” her daughter will get it no matter what local authorities decide.
Not even President Trump believes we’ll have doses of a vaccine for everyone by the end of the year. He recently said that could take until April. So what happens if Biden wins the election? Does the same vaccine that Democrats have been casting doubt on suddenly become reliable and safe? I think Dems are assuming they can flip a switch on this but it’s not going to be so easy to put this particular genie back in the bottle. In fact, the NBC story points out that anti-vaxxers are looking at all the potential new converts to their point of view the Democratic fear-mongering has created:
Katie Otteni, 24, of Hickory, North Carolina, has never vaccinated her 22-month-old son, Dallas, and she has used the religious exemption to skirt his day care center’s vaccine requirement. She and other like-minded friends embark on postcard campaigns to educate others about what they say are the dangers of vaccines, and she has been encouraged to see parents who normally do not agree with her expressing reluctance about any coming Covid-19 vaccine. “It’s crazy, because this one vaccine they feel this way towards, but if they knew there was the same situation going on with the others, they would probably think differently,” said Otteni, a waitress. “But it’s a start.”
Great work, Democrats.
The irony in having the “party of science” fear-mongering vaccines is hard to overlook but somehow the media is managing to do it. Imagine for a moment if the GOP were doing this. There would be open letters from epidemiologists on the front page of the NY Times. Every Republican up for election would be pressed on whether they would take the vaccine. As it is, we get tepid crap like this AP story titled, “Democrats face quandary on vaccine support as election nears.” As usual the media maintains two standards and as usual that will wind up hurting us all in the long run.


hotair--2020-09-23--Carlson: Doesn't this new footage prove Rittenhouse fired in self-defense?

Did Kyle Rittenhouse commit murder in Kenosha — or did he act in self-defense ?
“ This is one of those rare cases , ” Tucker Carlson told his audience last night , “ where we might be able to reach firm conclusions about that before the trial.
” Maybe , although it ’ s always risky when doing so exclusively on the evidence conveniently supplied by the defense attorney ’ s non-profit organization .
However , Carlson does make a compelling case based on that video that prosecutors may have jumped the gun by charging Rittenhouse , at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Carlson by a nonprofit group run by Rittenhouse ’ s defamation attorney , Lin Wood , showed Rittenhouse before the riots began that night .
Rittenhouse told an interviewer that he was in the city to help clean up during the riots , which had been ongoing since the police shooting of Jacob Blake .
He was filmed scrubbing graffiti from a school earlier that morning .
… Joseph Rosenbaum , one of the protesters who was shot by Rittenhouse , was allegedly setting fires when he came in contact with Rittenhouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the footage .
As he was being chased , a protester identified as Alexander Blaine fired a shot .
The nonprofit group stated in a voice-over in the footage that Rittenhouse was cornered by Rosenbaum and fired four shots at him to escape because he did not know who had fired the first shot .
Three other shots were fired by an unknown shooter moments later .
“ With a total of eight shots fired , it remains unclear that Rosenbaum ’ s wounds were caused by Rittenhouse , ” the nonprofit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pretty compelling , or at least the video evidence here is .
It makes pretty clear that neither shooting incidents were started by Rittenhouse , which is one crucial element for a self-defense case , although it ’ s not the only element required .
In both scenes , Rittenhouse was clearly running away , and in the second he had already been repeatedly assaulted .
The alleged gunshot in the first confrontation immediately preceded Rittenhouse ’ s fire as men allegedly armed with blunt-force weapons ran up on Rittenhouse .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one in each direction .
While we have what appears to be compelling evidence , what we don ’ t have is all of the evidence .
In fact , we don ’ t even have proper foundation ( yet ) to ensure that this actually is evidence in the first shooting .
( Res ipsa loquitor on the second incident , we can assume . )
Just because a defense attorney claims it as such does not necessarily mean it ’ s so , after all .
However , if the provenance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then what we have here is a large amount of reasonable doubt for self-defense .
Defendants don ’ t have to prove themselves innocent ; prosecutors have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and have to deal with self-defense claims in order to succeed .
All the defense has to argue for lethal force in self-defense is that all of the required elements were present : a reasonable person would have felt their lives or grave bodily harm threatened , the defendant had not initiated the incident , he only used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat , and in many jurisdictions that he attempted to flee .
The defense doesn ’ t have to prove self-defense ; the prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it doesn ’ t apply .
If prosecutors charged Rittenhouse before seeing these videos , they rushed to judgment .
If they charged Rittenhouse after seeing these videos , then some other motive than justice is in play here , especially in the second shootings where Rittenhouse was in the middle of an aggravated assault after attempting to retreat .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after watching these videos is beyond comprehension .
In fact , one has to wonder whether these charges will ever see a courtroom .
Rittenhouse may have exercised poor judgment in entering a riot zone with a firearm , but that ’ s not the same thing as initiating a confrontation , nor is attempting to extinguish a fire started by arsonists .
At some point , prosecutors are going to have to explain their charging decisions in light of this video evidence , and that will not be a comfortable experience , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The full footage from Fight Back , is here .
Be warned that it is graphic in places , and might be disturbing to some viewers .
And keep in mind that we ’ re not sure yet whether this is all of the video or context in this case yet , as compelling as this might be .

Did Kyle Rittenhouse commit murder in Kenosha — or did he act in self-defense? “This is one of those rare cases,” Tucker Carlson told his audience last night, “where we might be able to reach firm conclusions about that before the trial.” Maybe, although it’s always risky when doing so exclusively on the evidence conveniently supplied by the defense attorney’s non-profit organization. However, Carlson does make a compelling case based on that video that prosecutors may have jumped the gun by charging Rittenhouse, at least:
The footage, which was given to Carlson by a nonprofit group run by Rittenhouse’s defamation attorney, Lin Wood, showed Rittenhouse before the riots began that night. Rittenhouse told an interviewer that he was in the city to help clean up during the riots, which had been ongoing since the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He was filmed scrubbing graffiti from a school earlier that morning. … Joseph Rosenbaum, one of the protesters who was shot by Rittenhouse, was allegedly setting fires when he came in contact with Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum began chasing Rittenhouse, according to the footage. As he was being chased, a protester identified as Alexander Blaine fired a shot. The nonprofit group stated in a voice-over in the footage that Rittenhouse was cornered by Rosenbaum and fired four shots at him to escape because he did not know who had fired the first shot. Three other shots were fired by an unknown shooter moments later. “With a total of eight shots fired, it remains unclear that Rosenbaum’s wounds were caused by Rittenhouse,” the nonprofit organization stated.
Carlson’s argument is pretty compelling, or at least the video evidence here is. It makes pretty clear that neither shooting incidents were started by Rittenhouse, which is one crucial element for a self-defense case, although it’s not the only element required. In both scenes, Rittenhouse was clearly running away, and in the second he had already been repeatedly assaulted. The alleged gunshot in the first confrontation immediately preceded Rittenhouse’s fire as men allegedly armed with blunt-force weapons ran up on Rittenhouse.
This still requires a couple of caveats — one in each direction. While we have what appears to be compelling evidence, what we don’t have is all of the evidence. In fact, we don’t even have proper foundation (yet) to ensure that this actually is evidence in the first shooting. (Res ipsa loquitor on the second incident, we can assume.) Just because a defense attorney claims it as such does not necessarily mean it’s so, after all.
However, if the provenance of these videos can be established, then what we have here is a large amount of reasonable doubt for self-defense. Defendants don’t have to prove themselves innocent; prosecutors have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and have to deal with self-defense claims in order to succeed. All the defense has to argue for lethal force in self-defense is that all of the required elements were present: a reasonable person would have felt their lives or grave bodily harm threatened, the defendant had not initiated the incident, he only used the force necessary to end the perceived threat, and in many jurisdictions that he attempted to flee. The defense doesn’t have to prove self-defense; the prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it doesn’t apply.
If prosecutors charged Rittenhouse before seeing these videos, they rushed to judgment. If they charged Rittenhouse after seeing these videos, then some other motive than justice is in play here, especially in the second shootings where Rittenhouse was in the middle of an aggravated assault after attempting to retreat. And how they expect a jury to convict after watching these videos is beyond comprehension.
In fact, one has to wonder whether these charges will ever see a courtroom. Rittenhouse may have exercised poor judgment in entering a riot zone with a firearm, but that’s not the same thing as initiating a confrontation, nor is attempting to extinguish a fire started by arsonists. At some point, prosecutors are going to have to explain their charging decisions in light of this video evidence, and that will not be a comfortable experience, either in court or among their constituents.
The full footage from Fight Back, is here. Be warned that it is graphic in places, and might be disturbing to some viewers. And keep in mind that we’re not sure yet whether this is all of the video or context in this case yet, as compelling as this might be.


hotair--2020-09-23--Biden gets the McCain endorsement after all

Cindy McCain all but endorsed him at the Democratic convention when she agreed to narrate a video about Biden ’ s friendship with John McCain , but she never quite pulled the trigger and said she ’ d be supporting Biden this fall .
Presumably she and the campaign agreed that she should hold back for the time being and make an official endorsement closer to Election Day , for greater impact .
Or maybe McCain told the campaign that she wanted to wait a bit and see how the polls in Arizona looked .
If the state began shifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have calculated that her endorsement would do her and her family more harm than it would do Biden good .
As it turned out , Arizona surprisingly remained one of Biden ’ s stronger states in battleground polling — right up until this morning , ironically just hours after McCain ’ s endorsement , when ABC/WaPo shocked the world with a poll showing Trump suddenly ahead by one .
Which makes me think maybe I ’ ve got this all wrong .
Possibly McCain told the Biden campaign that she ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ *tightened* and it seemed like her support might be necessary .
Sleepy Joe ’ s internal numbers may be showing that Arizona is more of a fight than the public polling would suggest .
In any event , it ’ s official now : Did anything happen between the convention and yesterday that might have pushed McCain into a full-fledged endorsement ?
Yep , she told the Times .
“ The most important thing that moved me a great deal was talking about troops ’ being ‘ losers , ’ ” Ms. McCain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Atlantic .
“ You know we have children in the military , as did the Bidens.
” She added , “ I want my president to have my back , and I don ’ t believe that ’ s the case right now.
” … Ms. McCain said she was planning to actively help Mr. Biden and would participate in virtual campaign events and join him when he appears in Arizona , which is seen as a swing state this year .
Trump heard the news and responded with restraint .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCain ’ s widow but he was smart enough to hold back on that , realizing how it might play in Arizona : Coincidentally , Jim Kolbe , who served Arizona in the House for 22 years , is out today with an op-ed making the conservative case for voting Biden .
Clearly the campaign is orchestrating a “ Republicans for Joe ” PR push as the state creeps closer to the start of early voting on October 7 .
Is Cindy ’ s famous daughter set to join the endorsement parade too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week ?
We ’ ll see .
The McCains are running two risks here , as I noted in the post about Cindy ’ s narration for Biden ’ s convention video .
One is simply that Trump will win the state after all and demonstrate that the McCain family has less influence over Arizona politics than the conventional wisdom believed .
The other is the damage this will do to the McCain children within the Arizona GOP in case any of them has dreams of running for office in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as has been rumored .
As I said in August , it ’ s possible that the kids will follow the Jeb Bush/George P. Bush model , in which the parent criticize Trump while the child shows fealty and thus remains in the good graces of Republican voters .
But certainly Meghan wouldn ’ t do that ; go back and watch her famous eulogy for her dad .
And it ’ s hard to imagine McCain ’ s sons doing it given how gratuitously nasty Trump has been to their father , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know what happens here .
Presumably Cindy consulted with her kids before doing this , knowing that it will affect their political futures .
Maybe they don ’ t want to run for office .
Or maybe they ’ re all taking a calculated gamble that as Arizona turns bluer and Republicans there get desperate for victories , they ’ ll be willing to forgive the McCains any heresy in the name of putting someone on the ballot with the name recognition needed to win .
Oh , and as for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is ice cold : The McCain family was reportedly “ deeply irritated ” with McSally after she kept her distance from John ’ s legacy in 2018 , as he was dying of brain cancer .
McSally was afraid that showing too much affection for Maverick publicly might piss off McCain-hating populist Republican voters in the primary , spoiling her chance at the Senate nomination .
So now the McCains pointedly aren ’ t showing much affection for her .
One last point about Cindy McCain ’ s media tour this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bones about her role in the Biden campaign and to whom her endorsement is supposed to appeal .
“ I ’ m hoping that I can convince suburban women who are kind of on the fence about things to come with me on this and step out of their comfort zone and join Team Biden , ” she told “ Good Morning , America.
” She made the same point in the CBS interview below .
This is all about tightening Biden ’ s grip on suburbanites , in particular running up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll help .
We ’ ll see .

Cindy McCain all but endorsed him at the Democratic convention when she agreed to narrate a video about Biden’s friendship with John McCain, but she never quite pulled the trigger and said she’d be supporting Biden this fall. Presumably she and the campaign agreed that she should hold back for the time being and make an official endorsement closer to Election Day, for greater impact.
Or maybe McCain told the campaign that she wanted to wait a bit and see how the polls in Arizona looked. If the state began shifting to Trump over the summer, she may have calculated that her endorsement would do her and her family more harm than it would do Biden good. As it turned out, Arizona surprisingly remained one of Biden’s stronger states in battleground polling — right up until this morning, ironically just hours after McCain’s endorsement, when ABC/WaPo shocked the world with a poll showing Trump suddenly ahead by one.
Which makes me think maybe I’ve got this all wrong. Possibly McCain told the Biden campaign that she’d prefer not to endorse unless the polls *tightened* and it seemed like her support might be necessary. Sleepy Joe’s internal numbers may be showing that Arizona is more of a fight than the public polling would suggest. In any event, it’s official now:
My husband John lived by a code: country first. We are Republicans, yes, but Americans foremost. There's only one candidate in this race who stands up for our values as a nation, and that is @JoeBiden. — Cindy McCain (@cindymccain) September 22, 2020
Did anything happen between the convention and yesterday that might have pushed McCain into a full-fledged endorsement? Yep, she told the Times.
“The most important thing that moved me a great deal was talking about troops’ being ‘losers,’” Ms. McCain said, referring to an article in The Atlantic. “You know we have children in the military, as did the Bidens.” She added, “I want my president to have my back, and I don’t believe that’s the case right now.”… Ms. McCain said she was planning to actively help Mr. Biden and would participate in virtual campaign events and join him when he appears in Arizona, which is seen as a swing state this year.
Trump heard the news and responded with restraint. No doubt his instinct was to attack John McCain’s widow but he was smart enough to hold back on that, realizing how it might play in Arizona:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1308728561382105089
Coincidentally, Jim Kolbe, who served Arizona in the House for 22 years, is out today with an op-ed making the conservative case for voting Biden. Clearly the campaign is orchestrating a “Republicans for Joe” PR push as the state creeps closer to the start of early voting on October 7. Is Cindy’s famous daughter set to join the endorsement parade too on “The View” today or this week? We’ll see.
The McCains are running two risks here, as I noted in the post about Cindy’s narration for Biden’s convention video. One is simply that Trump will win the state after all and demonstrate that the McCain family has less influence over Arizona politics than the conventional wisdom believed. The other is the damage this will do to the McCain children within the Arizona GOP in case any of them has dreams of running for office in the future (at least as Republicans), as has been rumored. As I said in August, it’s possible that the kids will follow the Jeb Bush/George P. Bush model, in which the parent criticize Trump while the child shows fealty and thus remains in the good graces of Republican voters. But certainly Meghan wouldn’t do that; go back and watch her famous eulogy for her dad. And it’s hard to imagine McCain’s sons doing it given how gratuitously nasty Trump has been to their father, even after death.
So I don’t know what happens here. Presumably Cindy consulted with her kids before doing this, knowing that it will affect their political futures. Maybe they don’t want to run for office. Or maybe they’re all taking a calculated gamble that as Arizona turns bluer and Republicans there get desperate for victories, they’ll be willing to forgive the McCains any heresy in the name of putting someone on the ballot with the name recognition needed to win.
Oh, and as for the downballot races in Arizona this year, this is ice cold:
Ms. McCain, asked whether she would support Ms. McSally, who has consistently trailed in the polls behind Mark Kelly, the Democratic challenger, flatly said no. “I have no interest in it,” she said.
The McCain family was reportedly “deeply irritated” with McSally after she kept her distance from John’s legacy in 2018, as he was dying of brain cancer. McSally was afraid that showing too much affection for Maverick publicly might piss off McCain-hating populist Republican voters in the primary, spoiling her chance at the Senate nomination. So now the McCains pointedly aren’t showing much affection for her.
One last point about Cindy McCain’s media tour this morning: She’s making no bones about her role in the Biden campaign and to whom her endorsement is supposed to appeal. “I’m hoping that I can convince suburban women who are kind of on the fence about things to come with me on this and step out of their comfort zone and join Team Biden,” she told “Good Morning, America.” She made the same point in the CBS interview below. This is all about tightening Biden’s grip on suburbanites, in particular running up the margins with suburban women. Maybe she’ll help. We’ll see.


hotair--2020-09-23--Seattle city council votes to override mayor's veto of police funding cuts

The defund the police movement forges on in Seattle , assisted by the city council .
Tuesday evening Seattle City Council voted 7-2 to override Mayor Jenny Durkan ’ s veto of a bill that would cut police funding by around $ 3 million .
Seattle City Council President Lorena Gonzalez justifies the council ’ s latest move by saying , “ We can not look away from this and we can no longer accept the status quo if we truly believe that Black lives matter.
” Before the vote , she said divestment from a “ broken ” policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removes as many as 100 officers from various police units and limits staff pay to $ 150,000 .
The city council looks upon this as a down payment to the ultimate goal of defunding the police department by 50 % .
If successful , this will happen next year .
Cutting the police budget by half and eliminating 100 police officers sure doesn ’ t sound like a winning strategy for a city that frequently sees violence in the streets .
When the city council approved the cuts in August , the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of service because of the lack of support from the council .
At that time , the vote to defund the police was 7-1 .
Somewhere along the line , another city council member came to his or her senses .
That is likely due to the outrage from residents of Seattle concerned about their safety , for themselves , their families , and their businesses .
Mayor Jenny Durkan ’ s Summer of Love hasn ’ t gone so well for the city .
Votes on three bills were taken during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unanimously overrode Durkan ’ s veto on two measures .
The third bill , the one that cut the police department ’ s funding , is the one that resulted in a 7-2 vote .
In order to override the mayor ’ s veto , the council needed seven votes in favor .
This vote will allow the legislation to go into effect .
The votes keep intact cuts to the city ’ s Navigation Team , senior staff , and up to 100 layoffs by attrition .
Mayor Jenny released a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the end of the day , after previous promises of a 50 percent cut to SPD , the reductions to the SPD budget are almost exactly those proposed by the Mayor and former Chief Best , but none of the other issues Council admitted are problems have been addressed .
For weeks , the Mayor has worked with Council and offered solutions in an attempt to find common ground .
The Mayor thought they had built that consensus on many issues in the compromise legislation introduced yesterday .
While councilmembers have publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Durkan to address issues in the 2020 budget , they chose a different path .
“ Votes do have consequences .
Because of Council ’ s actions today , the Navigation team will be eliminated , severely restricting the City ’ s ability to move people out of homelessness and deal with encampments for the rest of this year .
The City will move forward with layoffs for the City staff who are coordinating and helping individuals experiencing homelessness at encampments across the City .
“ The Mayor remains committed to making changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even with the City ’ s significant budget shortfall in 2021 , Mayor Durkan will continue to engage Seattle in reimagining policing , will continue to work with Chief Diaz to restructure SPD and its budget and will propose a budget that makes a $ 100 million investment in BIPOC communities.
” The groups Decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity Now released a joint statement .
In part , it says : Mayor Jenny has her hands full .
There ’ s little sympathy for her , though , as a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She refused to speak out against the chaos and violence in the city ’ s streets for months , instead she sided with BLM protesters against the city ’ s police department .
She uttered the idiotic phrase “ Summer of Love ” which rightly earned her scorn from reasonable people .
One action Mayor Jenny has taken is to hire a former pimp to be Seattle ’ s “ Street Czar ” .
Andrè Taylor now runs a non-profit called Not This Time .
He ’ s been awarded a one-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of $ 150,000 .
Taylor signed a $ 12,500 a month deal with the city on July 27 to work as its community liaison .
He says he can talk to ‘ gang members , pimps and prostitutes who won ’ t sit down with anybody else ’ .
His non-profit will provide recommendations to the city on de-escalation , community engagement and alternatives to policing .
“ Somebody can ’ t put a price tag on going into community meetings and having sitdowns with gang members , where they won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
As you can imagine , this decision has brought criticism .
Taylor , however , says he didn ’ t receive this kind of criticism when his group was paid $ 100,000 in 2019 for a series of speeches .
Seattle previously worked with Taylor in 2019 , paying his group $ 100,000 for a series of speeches called “ Conversations with the Streets.
” “ No one raised any questions about the $ 100,000 that the city gave us for ‘ Conversations with the Streets , ’ ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bewildered that people are now raising an issue about $ 150,000 for our de-escalation efforts that we ’ ve been doing since my brother , Che Taylor , was killed .
It ’ s amazing to me .
It ’ s a nonstarter and a nonissue.
” “ Black people are not normally paid for positions , nor their organizations , but white people with the same positions are paid , and this is an ongoing problem not only here but all over this country , ” Taylor said .
“ White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same stuff , and nobody has ever said anything about it .
But the moment a black man demands respect and you value the work and you want to use my credibility , that should have some value to it.
” Taylor has previously talked about being in CHOP after the fatal shooting of Horace Anderson this summer to de-escalate the violence .
Hiring him to go in and mediate between the city and the street thugs almost sounds like a pay-off for his brother ’ s death , but maybe it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the mayor ’ s part .
Either way , Mayor Jenny has a lot of work to do and she should remember she isn ’ t only the mayor of BLM protesters , she ’ s the mayor of the whole city .
Regular peaceful residents deserve to be safe in their city .

The defund the police movement forges on in Seattle, assisted by the city council. Tuesday evening Seattle City Council voted 7-2 to override Mayor Jenny Durkan’s veto of a bill that would cut police funding by around $3 million.
Seattle City Council President Lorena Gonzalez justifies the council’s latest move by saying, “We cannot look away from this and we can no longer accept the status quo if we truly believe that Black lives matter.” Before the vote, she said divestment from a “broken” policing model is necessary.
The bill also removes as many as 100 officers from various police units and limits staff pay to $150,000. The city council looks upon this as a down payment to the ultimate goal of defunding the police department by 50%. If successful, this will happen next year. Cutting the police budget by half and eliminating 100 police officers sure doesn’t sound like a winning strategy for a city that frequently sees violence in the streets. When the city council approved the cuts in August, the police chief tendered her resignation after almost 30 years of service because of the lack of support from the council. At that time, the vote to defund the police was 7-1. Somewhere along the line, another city council member came to his or her senses. That is likely due to the outrage from residents of Seattle concerned about their safety, for themselves, their families, and their businesses.
Mayor Jenny Durkan’s Summer of Love hasn’t gone so well for the city. Votes on three bills were taken during a special meeting Tuesday. The council unanimously overrode Durkan’s veto on two measures. The third bill, the one that cut the police department’s funding, is the one that resulted in a 7-2 vote. In order to override the mayor’s veto, the council needed seven votes in favor. This vote will allow the legislation to go into effect. The votes keep intact cuts to the city’s Navigation Team, senior staff, and up to 100 layoffs by attrition.
Mayor Jenny released a statement after the votes were taken.
“At the end of the day, after previous promises of a 50 percent cut to SPD, the reductions to the SPD budget are almost exactly those proposed by the Mayor and former Chief Best, but none of the other issues Council admitted are problems have been addressed. For weeks, the Mayor has worked with Council and offered solutions in an attempt to find common ground. The Mayor thought they had built that consensus on many issues in the compromise legislation introduced yesterday. While councilmembers have publicly stated they wanted to work with Mayor Durkan to address issues in the 2020 budget, they chose a different path. “Votes do have consequences. Because of Council’s actions today, the Navigation team will be eliminated, severely restricting the City’s ability to move people out of homelessness and deal with encampments for the rest of this year. The City will move forward with layoffs for the City staff who are coordinating and helping individuals experiencing homelessness at encampments across the City. “The Mayor remains committed to making changes in policing and investing in community. Even with the City’s significant budget shortfall in 2021, Mayor Durkan will continue to engage Seattle in reimagining policing, will continue to work with Chief Diaz to restructure SPD and its budget and will propose a budget that makes a $100 million investment in BIPOC communities.”
City Council President Gonzalez released a statement, too.
Seattle City Council President M. Lorena González released a statement after voting to override Durkan’s veto. The statement said, in part, “Despite differences in spending priorities, the Council’s relationship with the Mayor’s office is functional and focused on making sure City Hall is working for our constituents. I have had productive conversations over the past several weeks, and I feel hopeful about continued collaboration going into the fall budget deliberations, and our ability to meet the community’s needs. I remain committed to my relationship with my colleagues, with the Mayor, and with the public to work together to address our city’s most pressing challenges.”
The groups Decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity Now released a joint statement. In part, it says:
“Today, we are encouraged to see the City Council—emboldened by the support of tens of thousands of BIPOC community members—resist Mayor Durkan’s bullying tactics and anti-Black obstructionism. Specifically, City Council upheld their decision to divest from the Seattle Police Department (SPD) by 3 million dollars—less than 1% of SPD’s annual budget—and invest modestly in Black communities.”
Mayor Jenny has her hands full. There’s little sympathy for her, though, as a lot of her problems are of her own making. She refused to speak out against the chaos and violence in the city’s streets for months, instead she sided with BLM protesters against the city’s police department. She uttered the idiotic phrase “Summer of Love” which rightly earned her scorn from reasonable people.
One action Mayor Jenny has taken is to hire a former pimp to be Seattle’s “Street Czar”. Andrè Taylor now runs a non-profit called Not This Time. He’s been awarded a one-year contract by the mayor to the tune of $150,000. Taylor signed a $12,500 a month deal with the city on July 27 to work as its community liaison. He says he can talk to ‘gang members, pimps and prostitutes who won’t sit down with anybody else’. His non-profit will provide recommendations to the city on de-escalation, community engagement and alternatives to policing. “Somebody can’t put a price tag on going into community meetings and having sitdowns with gang members, where they won’t sit down with anybody else,” he said.
As you can imagine, this decision has brought criticism. Taylor, however, says he didn’t receive this kind of criticism when his group was paid $100,000 in 2019 for a series of speeches.
Seattle previously worked with Taylor in 2019, paying his group $100,000 for a series of speeches called “Conversations with the Streets.” “No one raised any questions about the $100,000 that the city gave us for ‘Conversations with the Streets,’” he said. “And we are kind of bewildered that people are now raising an issue about $150,000 for our de-escalation efforts that we’ve been doing since my brother, Che Taylor, was killed. It’s amazing to me. It’s a nonstarter and a nonissue.” “Black people are not normally paid for positions, nor their organizations, but white people with the same positions are paid, and this is an ongoing problem not only here but all over this country,” Taylor said. “White people have been paid for some of the same stuff, and nobody has ever said anything about it. But the moment a black man demands respect and you value the work and you want to use my credibility, that should have some value to it.”
Taylor has previously talked about being in CHOP after the fatal shooting of Horace Anderson this summer to de-escalate the violence. Hiring him to go in and mediate between the city and the street thugs almost sounds like a pay-off for his brother’s death, but maybe it’s just thinking outside the box on the mayor’s part. Either way, Mayor Jenny has a lot of work to do and she should remember she isn’t only the mayor of BLM protesters, she’s the mayor of the whole city. Regular peaceful residents deserve to be safe in their city.


hotair--2020-09-23--Robbing Columbus to pay BLM

Robbing Columbus to pay BLM

Out on the edge of Herring Run Park in Baltimore , Maryland stands a very old monument in the shape of an Egyptian obelisk .
It ’ s known as the Columbus Obelisk and it has stood in commemoration of the explorer Christopher Columbus since 1792 .
( For all of you trivia fans , it ’ s the oldest memorial to Columbus in the United States . )
It sustained a small amount of damage to the plaques at the base dedicated to Columbus during the riots , but it ’ s otherwise in fairly good shape .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baltimore this month goes into effect , it will no longer stand as a tribute to Columbus .
Activists want it to be repurposed as a monument to people killed during lethal force encounters with the police .
The fact that it stands only a short distance from another monument dedicated to law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty makes this a particularly disturbing prospect for first responders , their families and their supporters .
( Baltimore Sun ) Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison said Monday he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a monument for victims of police violence that would be near a monument to fallen officers .
The council is expected to consider the bill Monday night , though it still would need another vote and the mayor ’ s signature before going into effect .
City Councilman Ryan Dorsey introduced legislation that would rename the Columbus Obelisk monument in Herring Run Park to the “ Victims of Police Violence Monument.
” The bill passed the City Council on a 10-4 vote on Monday evening .
It still requires a second reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ session on October 5th and would then require the signature of the Mayor if it passes again .
Neither of those steps currently look like a major hurdle for the proposed law .
The three aspects of this proposal currently causing contention are all valid reasons for concern and such a plan likely would never have made it this far in more “ normal ” times .
But since this is 2020 and everything is turning to garbage , their odds of success look pretty good .
The first question involves erasing ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country .
Unfortunately , it wouldn ’ t be hard to do because of the design of the monument as I noted above .
The plaques honoring Columbus could be fairly readily replaced with new ones honoring “ Victims of Police Violence ” and the rest of the obelisk could be left as is .
But when you consider that not only is Christopher Columbus a historic figure as an explorer , but he never set foot in North America , to say nothing of enslaving the Indigenous People who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on him are sketchy at best .
And even if you consider him a “ complex ” figure when looked at in 21st-century terms , he ’ s part of our history and our ancestry .
I would also challenge the need for a separate monument generically honoring the “ victims of police violence.
” The vast , vast majority of suspects who wind up dying after lethal-force encounters with law enforcement officers are criminals who are in the process of threatening the lives of police officers or nearby civilians .
Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most other cases wind up being terrible and regrettable accidents .
The exceedingly rare cases of rogue , racist cops killing minority suspects don ’ t add up to any sort of legion .
If you wanted a memorial to a specific victim who died under such circumstances , such as Walter Scott , that would be fine .
But at least make it specific .
And finally , even if you agree that such a monument is needed , it ’ s a major slap in the face to put it within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers who have fallen in the line of duty .
They are almost always the ones who might have wound up being accused by the woke brigade after a lethal-force encounter , but the bad guys got to them first .
This disrespect on display in the City Council should cause them all shame .
And if the Baltimore Police aren ’ t already tired of being treated in this fashion , they certainly should be after this .

Out on the edge of Herring Run Park in Baltimore, Maryland stands a very old monument in the shape of an Egyptian obelisk. It’s known as the Columbus Obelisk and it has stood in commemoration of the explorer Christopher Columbus since 1792. (For all of you trivia fans, it’s the oldest memorial to Columbus in the United States.) It sustained a small amount of damage to the plaques at the base dedicated to Columbus during the riots, but it’s otherwise in fairly good shape.
But if a new measure being considered in Baltimore this month goes into effect, it will no longer stand as a tribute to Columbus. Activists want it to be repurposed as a monument to people killed during lethal force encounters with the police. The fact that it stands only a short distance from another monument dedicated to law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty makes this a particularly disturbing prospect for first responders, their families and their supporters. (Baltimore Sun)
Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison said Monday he’s concerned about a City Council bill to create a monument for victims of police violence that would be near a monument to fallen officers. The council is expected to consider the bill Monday night, though it still would need another vote and the mayor’s signature before going into effect. City Councilman Ryan Dorsey introduced legislation that would rename the Columbus Obelisk monument in Herring Run Park to the “Victims of Police Violence Monument.”
The bill passed the City Council on a 10-4 vote on Monday evening. It still requires a second reading before the Council during their next full session on October 5th and would then require the signature of the Mayor if it passes again. Neither of those steps currently look like a major hurdle for the proposed law.
The three aspects of this proposal currently causing contention are all valid reasons for concern and such a plan likely would never have made it this far in more “normal” times. But since this is 2020 and everything is turning to garbage, their odds of success look pretty good.
The first question involves erasing (canceling) the oldest memorial to Columbus in the country. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be hard to do because of the design of the monument as I noted above. The plaques honoring Columbus could be fairly readily replaced with new ones honoring “Victims of Police Violence” and the rest of the obelisk could be left as is. But when you consider that not only is Christopher Columbus a historic figure as an explorer, but he never set foot in North America, to say nothing of enslaving the Indigenous People who were living here, social justice warrior attacks on him are sketchy at best. And even if you consider him a “complex” figure when looked at in 21st-century terms, he’s part of our history and our ancestry.
I would also challenge the need for a separate monument generically honoring the “victims of police violence.” The vast, vast majority of suspects who wind up dying after lethal-force encounters with law enforcement officers are criminals who are in the process of threatening the lives of police officers or nearby civilians. Do you really believe they deserve a memorial? Most other cases wind up being terrible and regrettable accidents. The exceedingly rare cases of rogue, racist cops killing minority suspects don’t add up to any sort of legion. If you wanted a memorial to a specific victim who died under such circumstances, such as Walter Scott, that would be fine. But at least make it specific.
And finally, even if you agree that such a monument is needed, it’s a major slap in the face to put it within spitting distance of a monument dedicated to officers who have fallen in the line of duty. They are almost always the ones who might have wound up being accused by the woke brigade after a lethal-force encounter, but the bad guys got to them first. This disrespect on display in the City Council should cause them all shame. And if the Baltimore Police aren’t already tired of being treated in this fashion, they certainly should be after this.


hotair--2020-09-23--Alexei Navalny is out of the hospital and pretty upset

A couple of weeks ago , we learned that Russian dissident Alexei Navalny had been brought out of the medical coma he ’ d been placed in as he recovered from being poisoned at a Siberian airport .
At that time he was showing improvements , but doctors warned that his prognosis was still far from clear and there could be lasting damage to his nervous system .
But now , after more than a month in a German hospital , Navalny has been released .
He ’ s walking under his own power , posting selfies on Instagram and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s ready to get back to his usual role of being a thorn in Vladimir Putin ’ s side .
( Associated Press ) The German hospital treating Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny for poisoning said Wednesday that his condition improved enough for him to be released , and suggested a “ complete recovery ” from the nerve agent was possible .
Navalny , 44 , spent 32 days in treatment in Berlin ’ s Charite hospital , 24 of which were in intensive care , before doctors deemed his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be discharged from acute inpatient care.
” The hospital said that based on Navalny ’ s progress , treating physicians believe that “ complete recovery is possible , ” but added that it ” remains too early to gauge the potential long-term effects of his severe poisoning.
” So a complete recovery is possible but still not a sure thing .
That ’ s still a massive improvement over his condition when the German doctors weren ’ t entirely sure that he would ever emerge from the coma or be able to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labs have now finished their testing and concluded that Navalny was attacked with the Soviet-era nerve agent Novichok .
It ’ s the same poison that was used against former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England a couple of years ago .
Given the type of poison and the place where he was struck down , the list of suspects in this case is relatively short , to say the least .
This is all good news for Navalny , but it leaves us with the same nagging questions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the poisoning first broke .
Will the people who did this be held accountable , as multiple world leaders have demanded ?
The Russians are still insisting that no further investigation is required because their own doctors in Siberia found no indication of poisoning during the 48 hours that Alexei spent under their “ care ” before being transferred to Germany .
That ’ s a laughable claim at this point and the Russians have clearly been exposed in an attempt to cover up the attack .
But that still doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case .
If Putin doesn ’ t want an investigation , there probably won ’ t be one .
And I somehow doubt that additional sanctions on Russia will be forthcoming even if they continue trying to sweep all of this under the rug .
That ’ s a different tactic than I ’ d been expecting .
If it became obvious that Navalny had been poisoned in Siberia , I ’ d assumed that Putin would have his goon squad round up some other inconvenient and disposable person , “ convict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to keep everything quiet .
Instead , it appears that the Russian President may intend to just stand there like the toddler who is found with chocolate frosting all over his face , insisting to his parents that he has no idea what could have happened to the cake .
It ’ s a pretty bold and obvious move on Putin ’ s part , but I also get the impression that Vlad is confident that he ’ s untouchable at this point and will live out the rest of his life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For bonus reading material , check out the estimates showing that Putin has soaked so much money out of the Russian economy for himself that he ’ s very likely already a trillionaire . )

A couple of weeks ago, we learned that Russian dissident Alexei Navalny had been brought out of the medical coma he’d been placed in as he recovered from being poisoned at a Siberian airport. At that time he was showing improvements, but doctors warned that his prognosis was still far from clear and there could be lasting damage to his nervous system. But now, after more than a month in a German hospital, Navalny has been released. He’s walking under his own power, posting selfies on Instagram and looking for all the world as if he’s ready to get back to his usual role of being a thorn in Vladimir Putin’s side. (Associated Press)
The German hospital treating Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny for poisoning said Wednesday that his condition improved enough for him to be released, and suggested a “complete recovery” from the nerve agent was possible. Navalny, 44, spent 32 days in treatment in Berlin’s Charite hospital, 24 of which were in intensive care, before doctors deemed his “condition had improved sufficiently for him to be discharged from acute inpatient care.” The hospital said that based on Navalny’s progress, treating physicians believe that “complete recovery is possible,” but added that it ”remains too early to gauge the potential long-term effects of his severe poisoning.”
So a complete recovery is possible but still not a sure thing. That’s still a massive improvement over his condition when the German doctors weren’t entirely sure that he would ever emerge from the coma or be able to move on his own.
Three different medical labs have now finished their testing and concluded that Navalny was attacked with the Soviet-era nerve agent Novichok. It’s the same poison that was used against former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England a couple of years ago. Given the type of poison and the place where he was struck down, the list of suspects in this case is relatively short, to say the least.
This is all good news for Navalny, but it leaves us with the same nagging questions that have come up since the news of the poisoning first broke. Will the people who did this be held accountable, as multiple world leaders have demanded? The Russians are still insisting that no further investigation is required because their own doctors in Siberia found no indication of poisoning during the 48 hours that Alexei spent under their “care” before being transferred to Germany.
That’s a laughable claim at this point and the Russians have clearly been exposed in an attempt to cover up the attack. But that still doesn’t mean that progress will be made in the case. If Putin doesn’t want an investigation, there probably won’t be one. And I somehow doubt that additional sanctions on Russia will be forthcoming even if they continue trying to sweep all of this under the rug. That’s a different tactic than I’d been expecting. If it became obvious that Navalny had been poisoned in Siberia, I’d assumed that Putin would have his goon squad round up some other inconvenient and disposable person, “convict” them of the crime and execute them to keep everything quiet.
Instead, it appears that the Russian President may intend to just stand there like the toddler who is found with chocolate frosting all over his face, insisting to his parents that he has no idea what could have happened to the cake. It’s a pretty bold and obvious move on Putin’s part, but I also get the impression that Vlad is confident that he’s untouchable at this point and will live out the rest of his life as a fabulously wealthy dictator. (For bonus reading material, check out the estimates showing that Putin has soaked so much money out of the Russian economy for himself that he’s very likely already a trillionaire.)


hotair--2020-09-23--Retreat? Senate Dems balk at progressives' demands to pack SCOTUS -- and kill filibuster

Roll over Dick Durbin , and tell Chuck Schumer the news .
Senate Democrats have begun blanching at demands to burn down both the Senate — what ’ s left of it , anyway — and the Supreme Court if Donald Trump and Senate Republicans fill the seat left empty by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , The Hill reports .
It turns out that there actually is an end to the craziness Democrats will vent … at least this close to an election : Senate Democrats are tamping down talk of expanding the Supreme Court if Republicans fill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Progressive activists and some lawmakers have raised the idea since Ginsburg ’ s death was announced on Friday night , arguing the party needs to be ready to take bold steps if they have the Senate majority and the White House next year while facing a 6-3 conservative court .
The effort would tie together two controversial ideas : nixing the 60-vote legislative filibuster and then passing legislation to add seats to the Supreme Court , which has been set at nine justices since 1869 .
But several Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus , are shooting down the idea altogether or warning that debating it now is a distraction from the fight over Ginsburg ’ s seat .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) , who would chair the Senate Judiciary Committee if Democrats win back the majority , is against nixing the legislative filibuster , which would be a necessary first step to adding seats to the court .
The first step has to be killing the legislative filibuster .
Democrats might be optimistic about their chances in the Senate this election , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 60 seats .
It would require legislation to add seats to the Supreme Court , whose current configuration is set in statute .
There wouldn ’ t be a single Republican in the Senate that would go along with a court-packing exercise , so as long as the filibuster lives , court-packing dies .
Feinstein told reporters that it ’ s not just the first step to which she objects .
She claims that no one in the caucus is actually talking about packing the court , even though Schumer warned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Trump and Mitch McConnell wen ahead with confirming a SCOTUS nominee .
Dick Durbin complained yesterday that McConnell had turned the tables on Democrats with that argument , and that Democrats should focus on the nominee first : “ You ’ ll notice it ’ s the arguments being used by Sen. McConnell on the floor now .
We have all these threats of changes in the future if we go ahead with this filling this vacancy .
I think we ought to focus on the nominee , that nominee ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to do on the court in the context of the Affordable Care Act , ” Durbin said .
There are a couple of translations for that .
First , it ’ s an acknowledgment that Democrats overplayed their hand with their shrieking hysteria over what is a normal constitutional process .
They ’ d hoped to bully Republicans into agreeing to keep Ginsburg ’ s seat in the hands of progressives .
That backfired , especially when Democrats from Joe Biden on down couldn ’ t come up with a better reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetorical hypocrisy .
Senate Republicans called that bluff — and McConnell made them eat it on the Senate floor — which ended any leverage they might have had .
That doesn ’ t mean they ’ re out of moves .
Durbin ’ s comment also signals open season on the eventual nominee .
Consider it the Kavanaugh Signal — an alert that Senate Democrats are looking for anything they can use to beat up Trump ’ s choice .
They flopped at trying to make the process look illegitimate .
Their next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegitimate .
Perhaps that beats making themselves look illegitimate , which was the effect from the last few days .
But that Plan B has its risks too , in turning off women and moderates ( and maybe Catholics if Amy Coney Barrett gets the nod ) right before the election with vicious personal attacks on Trump ’ s nominee.By raising expectations of a war , though , they may turn off their radical-progressive wing by failing to stop Trump .
Such are the wages of shrieking hysteria .

Roll over Dick Durbin, and tell Chuck Schumer the news. Senate Democrats have begun blanching at demands to burn down both the Senate — what’s left of it, anyway — and the Supreme Court if Donald Trump and Senate Republicans fill the seat left empty by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Hill reports. It turns out that there actually is an end to the craziness Democrats will vent … at least this close to an election:
Senate Democrats are tamping down talk of expanding the Supreme Court if Republicans fill the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Progressive activists and some lawmakers have raised the idea since Ginsburg’s death was announced on Friday night, arguing the party needs to be ready to take bold steps if they have the Senate majority and the White House next year while facing a 6-3 conservative court. The effort would tie together two controversial ideas: nixing the 60-vote legislative filibuster and then passing legislation to add seats to the Supreme Court, which has been set at nine justices since 1869. But several Democratic senators, including senior members of the caucus, are shooting down the idea altogether or warning that debating it now is a distraction from the fight over Ginsburg’s seat. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who would chair the Senate Judiciary Committee if Democrats win back the majority, is against nixing the legislative filibuster, which would be a necessary first step to adding seats to the court.
The first step has to be killing the legislative filibuster. Democrats might be optimistic about their chances in the Senate this election, but they’re not going to get to 60 seats. It would require legislation to add seats to the Supreme Court, whose current configuration is set in statute. There wouldn’t be a single Republican in the Senate that would go along with a court-packing exercise, so as long as the filibuster lives, court-packing dies.
Feinstein told reporters that it’s not just the first step to which she objects. She claims that no one in the caucus is actually talking about packing the court, even though Schumer warned that “nothing was off the table” if Trump and Mitch McConnell wen ahead with confirming a SCOTUS nominee. Dick Durbin complained yesterday that McConnell had turned the tables on Democrats with that argument, and that Democrats should focus on the nominee first:
“You’ll notice it’s the arguments being used by Sen. McConnell on the floor now. We have all these threats of changes in the future if we go ahead with this filling this vacancy. I think we ought to focus on the nominee, that nominee’s beliefs, and what they’re likely to do on the court in the context of the Affordable Care Act,” Durbin said.
There are a couple of translations for that. First, it’s an acknowledgment that Democrats overplayed their hand with their shrieking hysteria over what is a normal constitutional process. They’d hoped to bully Republicans into agreeing to keep Ginsburg’s seat in the hands of progressives. That backfired, especially when Democrats from Joe Biden on down couldn’t come up with a better reason for the illegitimacy of the process except rhetorical hypocrisy. Senate Republicans called that bluff — and McConnell made them eat it on the Senate floor — which ended any leverage they might have had.
That doesn’t mean they’re out of moves. Durbin’s comment also signals open season on the eventual nominee. Consider it the Kavanaugh Signal — an alert that Senate Democrats are looking for anything they can use to beat up Trump’s choice. They flopped at trying to make the process look illegitimate. Their next step is to make the nominee look illegitimate.
Perhaps that beats making themselves look illegitimate, which was the effect from the last few days. But that Plan B has its risks too, in turning off women and moderates (and maybe Catholics if Amy Coney Barrett gets the nod) right before the election with vicious personal attacks on Trump’s nominee.By raising expectations of a war, though, they may turn off their radical-progressive wing by failing to stop Trump. Such are the wages of shrieking hysteria.


hotair--2020-09-24--Ted Cruz blocks Senate resolution honoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The Senate was ready to pass a ceremonial resolution to honor Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg but Senator Ted Cruz blocked the resolution .
The wording added by Senate Democrats is unacceptable to Senator Cruz .
He accuses them of politicizing the resolution .
He ’ s not wrong .
The Senate Democrats put the alleged last wish of Ginsburg , as told by her granddaughter , into the resolution .
She allegedly told her granddaughter that she wanted the next president to choose her successor .
The implication from that remark is clear – she expected Joe Biden to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put another liberal Democrat on the court , not a conservative as President Trump will do .
Cruz rightly spoke up against Democrats including the words “ purportedly based on a comment Justice Ginsburg made to family members shortly before she passed.
” The resolution is supposed to be a bipartisan gesture .
During his days as Solicitor General in Texas , Cruz argued cases nine times before the Supreme Court , including Justice Ginsburg .
So , he tried to add her quote about stacking the Supreme Court .
She was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now promise to attempt if President Trump moves forward with his choice of a Supreme Court nominee to replace Ginsburg .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer balked and turned surly against Cruz .
Note that Schumer is gaslighting Cruz there .
Cruz was acting in response to Schumer and the Democrats using Ginsburg ’ s alleged dying words against President Trump and Senate Republicans .
This should not have come as a surprise to Schumer .
Cruz is no shrinking violet and is known for speaking up against Democrat overreaches .
This was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they know that nothing unites Republicans quicker than a Supreme Court opening .
Remember how the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings brought out the fighting spirit in Republican politicians and voters .
Senate Republicans held their ground and got the nominee confirmed despite all of the dirty tactics used by Democrats .
This coming confirmation battle will be just a ugly , if not worse .
Mitch McConnell has the votes to confirm whomever President Trump chooses to replace Ginsburg and that person will be confirmed quickly .
It ’ s a done deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to get the job done .
This is why many Republican voters voted for Trump in 2016 – the judicial appointments and especially the Supreme Court .
Trump and McConnell have been champions in getting nominations moved through the Senate for confirmation .
The icing on the cake is that this Supreme Court nominee will be President Trump ’ s third nominee .
The Supreme Court will be 6-3 in favor of conservative justices .
The Democrats feel entitled to Ginsburg ’ s seat on the bench .
The problem with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a seat on the bench .
When a vacancy occurs , the president has the constitutional authority to fill them with the “ advice and consent ” of the Senate .
It ’ s the Senate ’ s constitutional prerogative to determine whether or not to move forward with a judicial confirmation .
That decision falls under the advice and consent part of the process .
Does anyone think the Democrats , if they held the White House and the majority in the Senate , would do anything differently ?
No , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the battle coming to replace Ginsburg .
Senator Cruz was right to insist that a traditional resolution honoring the life and work of a Supreme Court justice be one that reflects both sides of the aisle , not a resolution that favored one party over the other .

The Senate was ready to pass a ceremonial resolution to honor Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg but Senator Ted Cruz blocked the resolution. The wording added by Senate Democrats is unacceptable to Senator Cruz. He accuses them of politicizing the resolution.
He’s not wrong. The Senate Democrats put the alleged last wish of Ginsburg, as told by her granddaughter, into the resolution. She allegedly told her granddaughter that she wanted the next president to choose her successor. The implication from that remark is clear – she expected Joe Biden to win the presidential election and she wanted Biden to put another liberal Democrat on the court, not a conservative as President Trump will do. Cruz rightly spoke up against Democrats including the words “purportedly based on a comment Justice Ginsburg made to family members shortly before she passed.” The resolution is supposed to be a bipartisan gesture.
“This endeavor started with a resolution that the majority put forward that was intended to be a bipartisan resolution commemorating the life and service of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Cruz said as he objected to an attempt by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to pass the resolution. “Unfortunately the Democratic leader has put forth an amendment to turn that bipartisan resolution into a partisan resolution.”
During his days as Solicitor General in Texas, Cruz argued cases nine times before the Supreme Court, including Justice Ginsburg. So, he tried to add her quote about stacking the Supreme Court. She was opposed to that idea which the Democrats now promise to attempt if President Trump moves forward with his choice of a Supreme Court nominee to replace Ginsburg. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer balked and turned surly against Cruz.
Schumer got the last word: “I believe Justice Ginsburg would easily see through the legal sophistry of the argument of the junior senator from Texas,” Schumer said. “To turn Justice Ginsburg’s dying words against her is so, so beneath the dignity of this body.”
Note that Schumer is gaslighting Cruz there. Cruz was acting in response to Schumer and the Democrats using Ginsburg’s alleged dying words against President Trump and Senate Republicans. This should not have come as a surprise to Schumer. Cruz is no shrinking violet and is known for speaking up against Democrat overreaches. This was one of those.
Democrats are frustrated because they know that nothing unites Republicans quicker than a Supreme Court opening. Remember how the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings brought out the fighting spirit in Republican politicians and voters. Senate Republicans held their ground and got the nominee confirmed despite all of the dirty tactics used by Democrats. This coming confirmation battle will be just a ugly, if not worse. Mitch McConnell has the votes to confirm whomever President Trump chooses to replace Ginsburg and that person will be confirmed quickly. It’s a done deal.
Senate Republicans know that they are expected to get the job done. This is why many Republican voters voted for Trump in 2016 – the judicial appointments and especially the Supreme Court. Trump and McConnell have been champions in getting nominations moved through the Senate for confirmation. The icing on the cake is that this Supreme Court nominee will be President Trump’s third nominee. The Supreme Court will be 6-3 in favor of conservative justices.
The Democrats feel entitled to Ginsburg’s seat on the bench. The problem with that is that neither party is entitled to a seat on the bench. When a vacancy occurs, the president has the constitutional authority to fill them with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. It’s the Senate’s constitutional prerogative to determine whether or not to move forward with a judicial confirmation. That decision falls under the advice and consent part of the process. Does anyone think the Democrats, if they held the White House and the majority in the Senate, would do anything differently? No, of course not.
Tensions are high over the battle coming to replace Ginsburg. Senator Cruz was right to insist that a traditional resolution honoring the life and work of a Supreme Court justice be one that reflects both sides of the aisle, not a resolution that favored one party over the other.