hotair--2020-08-31--Mail-in ballot fraud: A how-to guide

Mail-in ballot fraud: A how-to guide

The debate over mail-in voting is still raging , with Democrats and their media allies insisting it ’ s virtually fool-proof and conservatives reminding everyone that fools have an unlimited capacity for cleverness .
But how do we separate hard facts from the hype ?
The New York Post has taken the unusual step of going straight to the horse ’ s mouth this weekend by interviewing someone who is well aware of the reality of vote-by-mail fraud because he ’ s been engaged in the illegal practice for years .
The subject in question is being described as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever level of validity to this that you like .
But the Post also specifically states that they know his identity and have checked out his “ identity , rap sheet and long history working as a consultant to various campaigns.
” He ’ s further described as a “ top Democratic operative ” who has been engaged in voter fraud in New York , New Jersey and Pennsylvania “ for decades.
” And he ’ s done time for it .
That could possibly help us narrow down his identity , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we have , shall we ?
He has “ not only changed ballots himself over the years , but led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives ” who have done the same .
So how does this work ?
The easiest way is to generate your own phony ballots .
The ballot has no specific security features — like a stamp or a watermark — so the insider said he would just make his own ballots .
“ I just put [ the ballot ] through the copy machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the insider said .
But the return envelopes are “ more secure than the ballot .
You could never recreate the envelope , ” he said .
So they had to be collected from real voters .
He would have his operatives fan out , going house-to-house , convincing voters to let them mail completed ballots on their behalf as a public service .
The fraudster and his minions would then take the sealed envelopes home and hold them over boiling water .
“ You have to steam it to loosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Open the envelopes , replace the real ballot with the fake one and mail it in .
Easy as pie .
But how many of these phony ballots could one team actually submit and would it really impact an election ?
As the witness said , that depends on how big the race is and how careful you were in submitting the ballots .
In one city council race in Patterson , New Jersey this year , a sloppy fraudster was caught after 900 ballots were found in three individual mailboxes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together with a rubber band .
How do you suppose 300 ballots from 300 different voters wind up in one person ’ s outgoing mailbox with a rubber band around them ?
There are other methods described by the fraudster .
He talks about “ inside jobs ” where postal workers who strongly favored one party over the other were convinced to simply toss out all the ballots from a neighborhood known to be a stronghold for the opposite party .
In other instances , postal workers were recruited to sift through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return ballot envelopes and turn them over to the crew harvesting the ballots .
And , of course , the Post ’ s interview subject was experienced in ballot harvesting at nursing homes where his team posed as volunteers and “ helped ” the senior citizens vote .
But that tactic has been repeatedly exposed all over the country .
Finally , they would research the voter rolls and find the names of people who consistently failed to vote in local elections ( in places that don ’ t require voter ID ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their names .
Even if a poll worker became suspicious , the team members could almost always claim to be confused about the polling station they were supposed to be at and be able to leave .
In some ways , it ’ s rather worrisome that the newspaper would publish what amounts to a “ how-to guide ” on committing voter fraud .
But I think most of these methods were already pretty well known .
It ’ s just a bit different when you hear it firsthand from someone who ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
The states who have been doing 100 % mail-in voting for years are obviously better at defeating these schemes , but the big states who are just dipping a toe in the pool for the first time this year will probably be ripe for the picking .

The debate over mail-in voting is still raging, with Democrats and their media allies insisting it’s virtually fool-proof and conservatives reminding everyone that fools have an unlimited capacity for cleverness. But how do we separate hard facts from the hype? The New York Post has taken the unusual step of going straight to the horse’s mouth this weekend by interviewing someone who is well aware of the reality of vote-by-mail fraud because he’s been engaged in the illegal practice for years. The subject in question is being described as an anonymous source, so you can assign whatever level of validity to this that you like. But the Post also specifically states that they know his identity and have checked out his “identity, rap sheet and long history working as a consultant to various campaigns.”
He’s further described as a “top Democratic operative” who has been engaged in voter fraud in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania “for decades.” And he’s done time for it. That could possibly help us narrow down his identity, but let’s just push forward with what we have, shall we? He has “not only changed ballots himself over the years, but led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives” who have done the same. So how does this work? The easiest way is to generate your own phony ballots.
The ballot has no specific security features — like a stamp or a watermark — so the insider said he would just make his own ballots. “I just put [the ballot] through the copy machine and it comes out the same way,” the insider said. But the return envelopes are “more secure than the ballot. You could never recreate the envelope,” he said. So they had to be collected from real voters. He would have his operatives fan out, going house-to-house, convincing voters to let them mail completed ballots on their behalf as a public service. The fraudster and his minions would then take the sealed envelopes home and hold them over boiling water. “You have to steam it to loosen the glue,” said the insider.
Open the envelopes, replace the real ballot with the fake one and mail it in. Easy as pie. But how many of these phony ballots could one team actually submit and would it really impact an election? As the witness said, that depends on how big the race is and how careful you were in submitting the ballots. In one city council race in Patterson, New Jersey this year, a sloppy fraudster was caught after 900 ballots were found in three individual mailboxes, including one packet of 300 ballots bound together with a rubber band.
Nearly 900 ballots that appear to have been mailed in bulk from three individual mailboxes, including more than 300 rubber-banded together from a mailbox in neighboring Haledon.
How do you suppose 300 ballots from 300 different voters wind up in one person’s outgoing mailbox with a rubber band around them?
There are other methods described by the fraudster. He talks about “inside jobs” where postal workers who strongly favored one party over the other were convinced to simply toss out all the ballots from a neighborhood known to be a stronghold for the opposite party. In other instances, postal workers were recruited to sift through the mail, pick out all of the return ballot envelopes and turn them over to the crew harvesting the ballots.
And, of course, the Post’s interview subject was experienced in ballot harvesting at nursing homes where his team posed as volunteers and “helped” the senior citizens vote. But that tactic has been repeatedly exposed all over the country. Finally, they would research the voter rolls and find the names of people who consistently failed to vote in local elections (in places that don’t require voter ID) and send people out to vote in their names. Even if a poll worker became suspicious, the team members could almost always claim to be confused about the polling station they were supposed to be at and be able to leave.
In some ways, it’s rather worrisome that the newspaper would publish what amounts to a “how-to guide” on committing voter fraud. But I think most of these methods were already pretty well known. It’s just a bit different when you hear it firsthand from someone who (mostly) got away with it for years. The states who have been doing 100% mail-in voting for years are obviously better at defeating these schemes, but the big states who are just dipping a toe in the pool for the first time this year will probably be ripe for the picking.


hotair--2020-08-31--Place your bets: RCP graph of wager markets shows Trump comeback

Is this grasping at straws , or an early indicator of a major shift in the 2020 presidential election ?
I ’ m inclined to dismiss betting markets as a prognostication device , but my good friend , former radio partner , and expert economist King Banaian has defended their use as leading indicators .
If that ’ s the case , then the latest aggregation from RealClearPolitics should have Democrats hitting the panic button … although maybe not entirely for the same reason that journalist Tim Pool suggests ( via Twitchy ) : All but one of the wager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( the other is a tie ) , but the margins are all now very small .
The difference is dramatic , and it ’ s natural to assume it has to do with the riots coming out of the “ peaceful protests ” Pool cites .
However , the data suggests that the protests had the opposite effect until just this past week .
Note when the line crossed over to a Biden advantage .
For most of this year , bettors leaned toward an incumbent re-election , which is historically the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents not to win re-election in the past 50 years are Jimmy Carter and George H.W Bush . )
Even the COVID-19 crisis didn ’ t rattle the wage markets .
They changed dramatically at the end of May , however , when the protests over the death of George Floyd erupted — as did riots and wanton destruction .
Donald Trump ’ s fortunes fell lower and lower on these markets for the next three months despite the urban meltdowns , or more likely because of them , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status .
People yearning for normality and quiet may not naturally see Donald Trump as the best bet to deliver it , after all .
So what has changed ?
Bettor perceptions , certainly , but why ?
I ’ d guess that it ’ s a combination of absorbing the COVID-19 crisis and adjusting to its long-term implications , plus the fact that Democrats didn ’ t even address the riots in the cities at their convention .
The RNC/Trump theme of law and order may well be resonating too — at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention as a whole , which was much more in depth on policy than the DNC ’ s , at least in the first couple of days .
This whole election comes down to a bet , as I mentioned in my earlier post , on what one thinks of America .
Do you bet on America , or do you bet against America ?
Perhaps the people participating in these wager markets have begun to grasp the actual stakes involved — or think voters have .
On that note , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national polls are not exactly leading the way on that prediction .

Is this grasping at straws, or an early indicator of a major shift in the 2020 presidential election? I’m inclined to dismiss betting markets as a prognostication device, but my good friend, former radio partner, and expert economist King Banaian has defended their use as leading indicators. If that’s the case, then the latest aggregation from RealClearPolitics should have Democrats hitting the panic button … although maybe not entirely for the same reason that journalist Tim Pool suggests (via Twitchy):
That sound you hear from Democrats? Thats them realizing they done fucked up by supporting the riots, I mean "peaceful protests" pic.twitter.com/65LjGZAJPt — Tim Pool (@Timcast) August 31, 2020
All but one of the wager markets has Joe Biden in the lead (the other is a tie), but the margins are all now very small. The difference is dramatic, and it’s natural to assume it has to do with the riots coming out of the “peaceful protests” Pool cites. However, the data suggests that the protests had the opposite effect until just this past week.
Note when the line crossed over to a Biden advantage. For most of this year, bettors leaned toward an incumbent re-election, which is historically the safe bet. (The only elected presidents not to win re-election in the past 50 years are Jimmy Carter and George H.W Bush.) Even the COVID-19 crisis didn’t rattle the wage markets. They changed dramatically at the end of May, however, when the protests over the death of George Floyd erupted — as did riots and wanton destruction. Donald Trump’s fortunes fell lower and lower on these markets for the next three months despite the urban meltdowns, or more likely because of them, as well as the COVID-19 crisis and its passage into chronic status. People yearning for normality and quiet may not naturally see Donald Trump as the best bet to deliver it, after all.
So what has changed? Bettor perceptions, certainly, but why? I’d guess that it’s a combination of absorbing the COVID-19 crisis and adjusting to its long-term implications, plus the fact that Democrats didn’t even address the riots in the cities at their convention. The RNC/Trump theme of law and order may well be resonating too — at least with bettors — and perhaps the convention as a whole, which was much more in depth on policy than the DNC’s, at least in the first couple of days.
This whole election comes down to a bet, as I mentioned in my earlier post, on what one thinks of America. Do you bet on America, or do you bet against America? Perhaps the people participating in these wager markets have begun to grasp the actual stakes involved — or think voters have. On that note, however, let’s just point out that national polls are not exactly leading the way on that prediction.


hotair--2020-08-31--NY Times: Our coronavirus tests are far too sensitive to be helpful

The NY Times published a story Saturday which looked at the accuracy of the most popular coronavirus tests currently in use .
What if found is that the tests are being run in such a way that they are far too sensitive .
The Times estimates that up to 90 percent of the people who receive a positive test are carrying so little virus that they probably aren ’ t contagious .
Only about 10 percent would need to consider isolating themselves .
To understand the story , you need to understand how the PCR test works .
Basically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that amplifies any DNA particles found in it .
Each time you run the sample through the machine you amplify the DNA a bit more .
And eventually , at some limit that is pre-determined , currently that is often 37 or 40 cycles , you stop .
The result of that test , either positive or negative , is what gets sent out to people .
If there ’ s no positive after 40 cycles , you don ’ t have the virus .
But at 40 cycles , even if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the virus that are no longer active .
And that ’ s the problem .
People who aren ’ t a threat for spreading the virus are getting positive results simply because the samples are being run through the machine so many times .
This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus , called the cycle threshold , is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients , although it could tell them how infectious the patients are .
In three sets of testing data that include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massachusetts , New York and Nevada , up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus , a review by The Times found .
On Thursday , the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases , according to a database maintained by The Times .
If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide , then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing… Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive , agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of California , Riverside .
“ I ’ m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive , ” she said… The C.D.C.
’ s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles .
Epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina from the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health told the Times that a proper cutoff would be somewhere between 30-35 cycles .
That would mean the amount of viral DNA in the sample would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to generate a positive result .
In other words , you ’ d limit the positives to people who are really ill and who likely need to isolate themselves .
Instead , we ’ re sending positive test results to thousands of people who probably feel fine because they are fine and are no threat to anyone .
The counterargument is that when people are first infected they may have a lower amount of virus in their symptoms .
So the high cycle testing may detect some people who are just on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cycle test would miss them .
Still that sensitivity is creating a lot of error for people on the other end who are largely healthy .
The best solution , according to Dr. Mina , would be to use quicker , cheaper and less sensitive tests .
They may miss some people but if there are enough of them available , people could get re-tested a few days later .
The Trump administration announced last week that it would be purchasing 150 million of the rapid tests : So this sounds like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video clip explains three types of coronavirus testing .
The first part explains the PCR testing described above :

The NY Times published a story Saturday which looked at the accuracy of the most popular coronavirus tests currently in use. What if found is that the tests are being run in such a way that they are far too sensitive. The Times estimates that up to 90 percent of the people who receive a positive test are carrying so little virus that they probably aren’t contagious. Only about 10 percent would need to consider isolating themselves.
To understand the story, you need to understand how the PCR test works. Basically, a sample is run through a machine that amplifies any DNA particles found in it. Each time you run the sample through the machine you amplify the DNA a bit more. And eventually, at some limit that is pre-determined, currently that is often 37 or 40 cycles, you stop. The result of that test, either positive or negative, is what gets sent out to people. If there’s no positive after 40 cycles, you don’t have the virus. But at 40 cycles, even if you test positive you may only have remnants of the virus that are no longer active.
And that’s the problem. People who aren’t a threat for spreading the virus are getting positive results simply because the samples are being run through the machine so many times.
This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are. In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found. On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing… Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said… The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.
Epidemiologist Dr. Michael Mina from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told the Times that a proper cutoff would be somewhere between 30-35 cycles. That would mean the amount of viral DNA in the sample would have to be 100 to 1,000 times higher to generate a positive result. In other words, you’d limit the positives to people who are really ill and who likely need to isolate themselves. Instead, we’re sending positive test results to thousands of people who probably feel fine because they are fine and are no threat to anyone.
The counterargument is that when people are first infected they may have a lower amount of virus in their symptoms. So the high cycle testing may detect some people who are just on the cusp of getting it where a low cycle test would miss them. Still that sensitivity is creating a lot of error for people on the other end who are largely healthy.
The best solution, according to Dr. Mina, would be to use quicker, cheaper and less sensitive tests. They may miss some people but if there are enough of them available, people could get re-tested a few days later. The Trump administration announced last week that it would be purchasing 150 million of the rapid tests:
Today, as part of an historic initiative led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of and Defense (DOD), the Administration awarded a contract for $760 million to Abbott for delivery of 150 million rapid, Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card Point of Care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests to expand strategic, evidence-based testing in the United States. Testing will be potentially deployed to schools and to assist with serving other special needs populations.
So this sounds like a move in the right direction. This video clip explains three types of coronavirus testing. The first part explains the PCR testing described above:


hotair--2020-08-31--Democrats blame Republican President for violence in Democrat-run cities

One of the alleged ironies ( at least in some circles ) of seeing Donald Trump run on a law and order platform to end the violence seen in many American cities is that the violence is taking place on his watch , right ?
And that ’ s a theme that was being picked up on by many Democrats over the weekend .
Clearly in a panic over Joe Biden ’ s tanking poll numbers and the declining support for the Black Lives Matter movement in general , Biden ’ s surrogates hit the Sunday shows to point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and order , he shouldn ’ t have let it happen in the first place .
Or something .
No , it really doesn ’ t make much sense if you stop and think about it for more than three seconds .
But it ’ s out there on the campaign table now and the Free Beacon offered a roundup of the people pushing this new line of attack on the President .
Good luck sorting this mess out .
Multiple Democrats on Sunday said President Donald Trump was responsible for inciting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said Trump has “ been trying to incite violence this entire summer.
” “ He has at every opportunity tried to fan the flames here and that is the reason we ’ re living in Donald Trump ’ s America , ” Bedingfield said on Fox News Sunday .
Looting and violent protests have plagued major American cities in recent months following the death of George Floyd .
In response , Trump has repeatedly called for “ law and order ” and offered federal support to cities that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a planned narrative that Biden ’ s people have decided to launch , with the same confused message showing up in Biden ’ s upcoming speech on the subject .
“ He may believe mouthing the words law and order makes him strong , but his failure to call on his own supporters to stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows you how weak he is .
Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is reelected ?
” I suppose that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say in response to their poll numbers dropping as both their candidates and most of their media enablers ignored all of the violence .
But was this really the best response they could manage ?
Yes , in general terms at least , anything that happens on the President ’ s watch lands in his lap .
But that ’ s largely understood to apply to national matters .
COVID happened on Donald Trump ’ s watch , along with the associated economic crisis caused by shutting society down in response .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , but the President will still be judged on his overall response to and handling of the crisis .
These riots are not a national phenomenon .
They aren ’ t even a statewide phenomenon anywhere .
They are a municipal problem .
The further away you get from the epicenter in terms of governmental responsibility , the less control there is .
The Mayors of the cities being burned and looted are on the front lines .
They can work in cooperation with the Governor to get more state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional resources , but the Governor doesn ’ t micromanage the direct response on the streets .
By the time you get to the federal level , about all the President can do is work to authorize the National Guard .
Yes , he can send in federal law enforcement to guard federal buildings , but we all saw what happened when it was suggested they do more than that .
And what have some of these municipal and state officials done when President Trump reached out to offer more help ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played out in the city that ’ s arguably suffered some of the most damage .
Ted Wheeler of Portland turned down Trump ’ s offer of federal support on Friday .
The mayor previously said that he plans to let the violence “ burn itself out.
” Rather than asking if reelecting Donald Trump will somehow magically stop the violence in Portland , Seattle , Chicago , Minneapolis , Kenosha , Philadelphia and elsewhere , perhaps we should be asking Joe Biden a different question .
How will the violence end if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ?
And what does Biden think that he would be somehow able to do that Trump couldn ’ t if the cities continue to bite the hand that feeds them if he replaces Trump ?

One of the alleged ironies (at least in some circles) of seeing Donald Trump run on a law and order platform to end the violence seen in many American cities is that the violence is taking place on his watch, right? And that’s a theme that was being picked up on by many Democrats over the weekend. Clearly in a panic over Joe Biden’s tanking poll numbers and the declining support for the Black Lives Matter movement in general, Biden’s surrogates hit the Sunday shows to point out that if Trump was really serious about law and order, he shouldn’t have let it happen in the first place. Or something.
No, it really doesn’t make much sense if you stop and think about it for more than three seconds. But it’s out there on the campaign table now and the Free Beacon offered a roundup of the people pushing this new line of attack on the President. Good luck sorting this mess out.
Multiple Democrats on Sunday said President Donald Trump was responsible for inciting violence in Democrat-run cities. Biden deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield said Trump has “been trying to incite violence this entire summer.” “He has at every opportunity tried to fan the flames here and that is the reason we’re living in Donald Trump’s America,” Bedingfield said on Fox News Sunday. Looting and violent protests have plagued major American cities in recent months following the death of George Floyd. In response, Trump has repeatedly called for “law and order” and offered federal support to cities that are struggling with riots.
This was all part of a planned narrative that Biden’s people have decided to launch, with the same confused message showing up in Biden’s upcoming speech on the subject.
“He may believe mouthing the words law and order makes him strong, but his failure to call on his own supporters to stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows you how weak he is. Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is reelected?”
I suppose that the Democrats had to come up with something to say in response to their poll numbers dropping as both their candidates and most of their media enablers ignored all of the violence. But was this really the best response they could manage? Yes, in general terms at least, anything that happens on the President’s watch lands in his lap. But that’s largely understood to apply to national matters. COVID happened on Donald Trump’s watch, along with the associated economic crisis caused by shutting society down in response. Those responses varied from state to state, of course, but the President will still be judged on his overall response to and handling of the crisis.
These riots are not a national phenomenon. They aren’t even a statewide phenomenon anywhere. They are a municipal problem. The further away you get from the epicenter in terms of governmental responsibility, the less control there is. The Mayors of the cities being burned and looted are on the front lines. They can work in cooperation with the Governor to get more state police on the job and call in additional resources, but the Governor doesn’t micromanage the direct response on the streets.
By the time you get to the federal level, about all the President can do is work to authorize the National Guard. Yes, he can send in federal law enforcement to guard federal buildings, but we all saw what happened when it was suggested they do more than that. And what have some of these municipal and state officials done when President Trump reached out to offer more help? The Free Beacon reminds us of how things played out in the city that’s arguably suffered some of the most damage.
Ted Wheeler of Portland turned down Trump’s offer of federal support on Friday. The mayor previously said that he plans to let the violence “burn itself out.”
Rather than asking if reelecting Donald Trump will somehow magically stop the violence in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kenosha, Philadelphia and elsewhere, perhaps we should be asking Joe Biden a different question. How will the violence end if the residents of those cities keep electing Democrats? And what does Biden think that he would be somehow able to do that Trump couldn’t if the cities continue to bite the hand that feeds them if he replaces Trump?


hotair--2020-08-31--CNN's Chris Cillizza: Here's why Trump is calling the protests 'riots' (hint: because they're riots)

CNN ’ s Chris Cillizza wrote a pretty amazing piece yesterday in which he accused President Trump of using the work “ riot ” to mislabel ongoing black lives matter protests as a way of creating a political comeback .
It ’ s hard to overstate the stupidity of this argument since the evidence clearly shows that what has been happening in many cities around the country , but especially Portland , are in fact riots .
And yet , when I look , it appears that CNN has forbidden the use of this word ( riot ) in it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in a moment .
First , let ’ s look at what Cillizza wrote : To hear Trump and his allies tell it , the situations unfolding in Portland , Oregon , and Kenosha , Wisconsin , in response to several high-profile shootings by the police of Black men is rioting , plain and simple .
“ In the strongest possible terms the Republican Party condemns the rioting , looting , arson and violence we have seen in Democrat-run cities all , like Kenosha , Minneapolis , Portland , Chicago and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump said in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last week .
“ There ’ s violence and danger in the streets of many Democrat-run cities throughout America.
” At a rally in New Hampshire Friday night , Trump went even further .
“ You know what I say about protesters ?
Protesters , your ass , ” he said .
“ I don ’ t talk about my ass .
They ’ re not protesters , those are anarchists , they ’ re agitators , they ’ re rioters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s efforts to label what is happening in major cities as “ riots ” speaks at least somewhat to his desperation , politically speaking , at the moment .
Okay , let ’ s look at why Chris Cillizza is utterly clueless .
First , let ’ s just look at Portland .
You may recall this graphic which shows every declared riot in the past 3 months : I know that ’ s hard to read so feel free to click here for full size .
What it shows is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been 21 riots declared by the police .
But that graphic only goes through August 23 .
Since then a riot was declared on the 24th , the 25th , and the 28th .
That makes 24 riots in all and 14 declared this month .
Basically , that ’ s every other day in August .
And that still leaves out a number of unlawful assembly declarations ( 2 in the past week ) that didn ’ t quite become riots but could have .
So my question for Chris Cillizza is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call the riots in Portland riots ?
It turns out some of CNN ’ s own coverage seems to be intentiionally downplaying the rioting .
For instance , here ’ s how the Portland Police described the riot that was declared in the city Friday night [ emphasis added ] : Marchers arrived at about 12:10a.m .
to the PPA building… About 10 minutes later , individuals wheeled multiple dumpsters into the road and lit at least one on fire .
The fire was in the road and not threatening any structures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Portland Police Bureau ( PPB ) officers remained out of sight .
However , arsonists put some debris , including a large mattress , against the front door of the building , appeared to spray accelerant on it , and lit it on fire .
The flames appeared to engulf the front door area of the building and nearly reach the roofline .
Due to the extreme life safety concerns , the Incident Commander declared the incident a riot .
A warning was broadcast by loudspeaker that the incident was declared a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately to the north .
Officers responded and moved the rioters away from the building so the fire could be extinguished .
As officers approached , rioters threw objects at them , including rocks .
Multiple officers suffered minor injuries after being struck by rocks .
During the response , officers used crowd control munitions .
However , no CS ( tear ) gas was deployed .
CNN has a story about the same events which says ( repeatedly ) that information was taken from the Portland Police press release about the incident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set at Portland police union building as protests continue.
” Notice that ’ s “ protests continue ” not riots continue .
Here ’ s CNN ’ s description of what happened [ emphasis added ] : Multiple dumpsters were wheeled into the road and at least one was lit on fire , the statement said .
Demonstrators then put debris “ against the front door of the building , appeared to spray accelerant on it , and lit it on fire.
” Protesters were ordered to disperse so that police could extinguish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they approached , protesters threw objects , including rocks , at officers , police said .
Some officers suffered “ minor injuries.
” Police used “ crowd control munitions ” but did not use tear gas , according to the PPB statement .
The word riot never appears in the story .
Anyone reading it would not know that a riot was declared that night .
In one case , CNN has literally replaced the phrase “ rioters threw objects ” with “ protesters threw objects.
” To be fair , not all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this bad .
Earlier this month they published a story headlined , “ Portland Police declare a riot after people tried to start a fire at police office.
” They also published this overview of the situation in Portland ten days ago which notes “ During the period between May 29 and August 19 , at least 17 riots have been declared , according to information released by Portland police.
” That ’ s Portland but you could say nearly the same about other cities .
In fact , here ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four days ago : Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey announced a citywide curfew will go into effect on Thursday following a night of unrest and looting in the city… “ We recognize that none of this happens in a vacuum , ” Frey said during a news conference on Thursday .
“ And it is righteous to vent that pain and anguish in the form of peaceful protest .
But what happened last night was neither peaceful nor was it a form of protest that moves us forward.
” Approximately 50 people were arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is literally saying it was not a peaceful protest and 50 people were arrested including many for rioting .
What should we call this , Chris Cillizza ?
Finally , as for what is happening in Kenosha , here ’ s how the Washington Post described it : “ The streets of Kenosha have been filled with peaceful mass demonstrations in recent days , but also damaging riots by night in which businesses have been looted and burned.
” And here ’ s Politico ’ s take : Even the Kenosha News is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Cillizza getting the idea that President Trump is displaying “ desperation ” by labeling what is happening in these cities riots ?
There ’ s no denying Trump is running on a law & order message right now but that doesn ’ t mean he invented the riots out of whole cloth .
The riots are happening and even ( some of ) CNN ’ s reporting reflects that .
The only “ desperation ” I see here is Cillizza ’ s apparent desperation to avoid the obvious .

CNN’s Chris Cillizza wrote a pretty amazing piece yesterday in which he accused President Trump of using the work “riot” to mislabel ongoing black lives matter protests as a way of creating a political comeback. It’s hard to overstate the stupidity of this argument since the evidence clearly shows that what has been happening in many cities around the country, but especially Portland, are in fact riots. And yet, when I look, it appears that CNN has forbidden the use of this word (riot) in it’s news coverage. More on that in a moment. First, let’s look at what Cillizza wrote:
To hear Trump and his allies tell it, the situations unfolding in Portland, Oregon, and Kenosha, Wisconsin, in response to several high-profile shootings by the police of Black men is rioting, plain and simple. “In the strongest possible terms the Republican Party condemns the rioting, looting, arson and violence we have seen in Democrat-run cities all, like Kenosha, Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago and New York, many others, Democrat-run,” Trump said in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last week. “There’s violence and danger in the streets of many Democrat-run cities throughout America.” At a rally in New Hampshire Friday night, Trump went even further. “You know what I say about protesters? Protesters, your ass,” he said. “I don’t talk about my ass. They’re not protesters, those are anarchists, they’re agitators, they’re rioters, they’re looters.” Trump’s efforts to label what is happening in major cities as “riots” speaks at least somewhat to his desperation, politically speaking, at the moment.
Okay, let’s look at why Chris Cillizza is utterly clueless. First, let’s just look at Portland. You may recall this graphic which shows every declared riot in the past 3 months:
I know that’s hard to read so feel free to click here for full size. What it shows is that from the end of May there have been 21 riots declared by the police. But that graphic only goes through August 23. Since then a riot was declared on the 24th, the 25th, and the 28th. That makes 24 riots in all and 14 declared this month. Basically, that’s every other day in August. And that still leaves out a number of unlawful assembly declarations (2 in the past week) that didn’t quite become riots but could have.
So my question for Chris Cillizza is simple: Why shouldn’t we call the riots in Portland riots?
It turns out some of CNN’s own coverage seems to be intentiionally downplaying the rioting. For instance, here’s how the Portland Police described the riot that was declared in the city Friday night [emphasis added]:
Marchers arrived at about 12:10a.m. to the PPA building… About 10 minutes later, individuals wheeled multiple dumpsters into the road and lit at least one on fire. The fire was in the road and not threatening any structures. In the interest of deescalating the situation, Portland Police Bureau (PPB) officers remained out of sight. However, arsonists put some debris, including a large mattress, against the front door of the building, appeared to spray accelerant on it, and lit it on fire. The flames appeared to engulf the front door area of the building and nearly reach the roofline. Due to the extreme life safety concerns, the Incident Commander declared the incident a riot. A warning was broadcast by loudspeaker that the incident was declared a riot and all persons were to disperse immediately to the north. Officers responded and moved the rioters away from the building so the fire could be extinguished. As officers approached, rioters threw objects at them, including rocks. Multiple officers suffered minor injuries after being struck by rocks. During the response, officers used crowd control munitions. However, no CS (tear) gas was deployed.
CNN has a story about the same events which says (repeatedly) that information was taken from the Portland Police press release about the incident. It’s headlined “Fires set at Portland police union building as protests continue.” Notice that’s “protests continue” not riots continue. Here’s CNN’s description of what happened [emphasis added]:
Multiple dumpsters were wheeled into the road and at least one was lit on fire, the statement said. Demonstrators then put debris “against the front door of the building, appeared to spray accelerant on it, and lit it on fire.” Protesters were ordered to disperse so that police could extinguish the fire, PPB said. As they approached, protesters threw objects, including rocks, at officers, police said. Some officers suffered “minor injuries.” Police used “crowd control munitions” but did not use tear gas, according to the PPB statement.
The word riot never appears in the story. Anyone reading it would not know that a riot was declared that night. In one case, CNN has literally replaced the phrase “rioters threw objects” with “protesters threw objects.”
To be fair, not all of CNN’s coverage has been this bad. Earlier this month they published a story headlined, “Portland Police declare a riot after people tried to start a fire at police office.” They also published this overview of the situation in Portland ten days ago which notes “During the period between May 29 and August 19, at least 17 riots have been declared, according to information released by Portland police.”
That’s Portland but you could say nearly the same about other cities. In fact, here’s how CNN reported on the situation in Minneapolis four days ago:
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey announced a citywide curfew will go into effect on Thursday following a night of unrest and looting in the city… “We recognize that none of this happens in a vacuum,” Frey said during a news conference on Thursday. “And it is righteous to vent that pain and anguish in the form of peaceful protest. But what happened last night was neither peaceful nor was it a form of protest that moves us forward.” Approximately 50 people were arrested for rioting and burglary…
So the mayor is literally saying it was not a peaceful protest and 50 people were arrested including many for rioting. What should we call this, Chris Cillizza?
Finally, as for what is happening in Kenosha, here’s how the Washington Post described it: “The streets of Kenosha have been filled with peaceful mass demonstrations in recent days, but also damaging riots by night in which businesses have been looted and burned.” And here’s Politico’s take:
The unrest in Kenosha — a city roughly equidistant between Chicago and Milwaukee — erupted this week into a violent standoff between anti-racism protesters, rioters, armed militias and police. Rioters in Kenosha set multiple fires overnight earlier this week and three people were shot — two fatally — in confrontations Tuesday night.
Even the Kenosha News is calling these riots. So where is Chris Cillizza getting the idea that President Trump is displaying “desperation” by labeling what is happening in these cities riots?
There’s no denying Trump is running on a law & order message right now but that doesn’t mean he invented the riots out of whole cloth. The riots are happening and even (some of) CNN’s reporting reflects that. The only “desperation” I see here is Cillizza’s apparent desperation to avoid the obvious.


hotair--2020-08-31--More Biden: Trump's lying when he claims I'll ban fracking

Is Donald Trump lying about Joe Biden ’ s position on fracking and energy production — or just exhibiting better recall ?
John has already discussed Biden ’ s attack on Trump over rioting in cities and his claim to be able to heal the nation .
Any credibility Biden has on that claim ( and there ’ s not much , considering Democrats ignored the rioting during the entirety of their convention ) should evaporate with this whopper : Is Trump lying ?
In May , Americans for Tax Reform put together this video after Biden clinched the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Bernie Sanders and the far-left Green New Deal crowd .
ATR anticipated that Biden would try to protect his Pennsylvania flank by flip-flopping on fracking and energy production at that point : Two months later , Biden began his retreat : Lest we get caught up in a discussion over new fracking , we should recall that Biden ’ s energy plan in the primaries didn ’ t end at fracking restrictions .
In a debate just this past March , Biden pledged to end all drilling in the US , whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for oil and gas : Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said Sunday he would prevent oil companies from drilling as part of his effort to combat climate change .
“ No more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry , ” he said at the CNN debate .
“ No more drilling on federal lands .
No more drilling , including offshore .
No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill , period .
Ends.
” Biden hasn ’ t called for an all-out ban on oil drilling before , which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. energy industry .
That ’ s a ban on all domestic production of “ fossil fuel , ” not just fracking and not just oil .
That came from Biden ’ s own lips less than six months ago on national television .
Someone ’ s certainly lying , but it ’ s not Trump .
This is not just evidence that it ’ s Biden who ’ s lying about his energy policy — at least at some point — but also that it ’ s flat-out insane .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever to help rebuild the American economy after the devastation of the COVID-19 shutdowns .
Shutting down all domestic drilling would send those prices through the roof .
Biden would once again put US economic recovery in the hands of foreign producers , to an even greater extent than we have experienced before .
That ’ s not the only US interest involved either .
Biden ’ s plan has disastrous foreign-policy consequences as well .
It would give a tremendous boost in international power to other producers .
Russia , Iran , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentions here ) could not possibly be happier with an American energy policy that shut down all domestic production .
Perhaps the media might take an interest in this point and ask Biden to explain his entirely contradictory public statements on energy production .
And perhaps that ’ s why Biden is making sure they don ’ t get an opportunity : Oh , I don ’ t think that ’ s the only headline for today ’ s speech .
One could also say , “ Biden Micturates on PA Voters ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

Is Donald Trump lying about Joe Biden’s position on fracking and energy production — or just exhibiting better recall? John has already discussed Biden’s attack on Trump over rioting in cities and his claim to be able to heal the nation. Any credibility Biden has on that claim (and there’s not much, considering Democrats ignored the rioting during the entirety of their convention) should evaporate with this whopper:
Biden discusses his energy plan: "I am not banning fracking. Let me say that again: I am not banning fracking. No matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me." https://t.co/LBywpukq9G pic.twitter.com/B5QXkBoQbt — CBS News (@CBSNews) August 31, 2020
Is Trump lying? In May, Americans for Tax Reform put together this video after Biden clinched the Democratic nomination, in part by throwing in with Bernie Sanders and the far-left Green New Deal crowd. ATR anticipated that Biden would try to protect his Pennsylvania flank by flip-flopping on fracking and energy production at that point:
Two months later, Biden began his retreat:
Huge flip-flop from Biden today on fracking — he made major waves in the primary when he said he would eliminate it. Now he’s backing off that? Would be good to get more color because he was very definitive before. Great vid from @FrancisBrennan https://t.co/McsCTOuDGo — Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) July 10, 2020
Lest we get caught up in a discussion over new fracking, we should recall that Biden’s energy plan in the primaries didn’t end at fracking restrictions. In a debate just this past March, Biden pledged to end all drilling in the US, whether it was through fracking or traditional drilling for oil and gas:
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said Sunday he would prevent oil companies from drilling as part of his effort to combat climate change. “No more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry,” he said at the CNN debate. “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. Ends.” Biden hasn’t called for an all-out ban on oil drilling before, which would have a radical, negative effect on the U.S. energy industry.
That’s a ban on all domestic production of “fossil fuel,” not just fracking and not just oil. That came from Biden’s own lips less than six months ago on national television. Someone’s certainly lying, but it’s not Trump.
This is not just evidence that it’s Biden who’s lying about his energy policy — at least at some point — but also that it’s flat-out insane. The US needs low-cost energy now more than ever to help rebuild the American economy after the devastation of the COVID-19 shutdowns. Shutting down all domestic drilling would send those prices through the roof. Biden would once again put US economic recovery in the hands of foreign producers, to an even greater extent than we have experienced before.
That’s not the only US interest involved either. Biden’s plan has disastrous foreign-policy consequences as well. It would give a tremendous boost in international power to other producers. Russia, Iran, and China (coal, as Biden mentions here) could not possibly be happier with an American energy policy that shut down all domestic production.
Perhaps the media might take an interest in this point and ask Biden to explain his entirely contradictory public statements on energy production. And perhaps that’s why Biden is making sure they don’t get an opportunity:
Joe Biden takes 0.0 questions again. Have never seen a candidate/campaign have so little confidence in a presidential nominee’s ability to defend his policies/proposals in facing almost zero accountability. Only headline today: Biden again ducks reporter questions after PA speech — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) August 31, 2020
Oh, I don’t think that’s the only headline for today’s speech. One could also say, “Biden Micturates on PA Voters’ Heads, Claims It’s Raining.”


hotair--2020-08-31--Joe Biden in Pittsburgh: President Trump 'is stroking violence in our cities'

Yes , I know what he meant , but no he didn ’ t say the president was stoking violence , he said he was “ stroking violence.
” “ He doesn ’ t want to shed light .
He wants to generate heat and he ’ s stroking violence in our cities , ” Biden said .
I guess stroking something is one way to generate heat .
Here ’ s Biden ’ s next sentence as delivered : “ You know this is a tragic fact of the matter that—about his perilous hour , that how he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our nation.
” It seemed Biden was finally going to hit his stride and then technical difficulties struck .
He was talking about “ violence of extremists and opportunists , right wing militias—militias—militias.
” The feed glitched on the word “ militias ” about 10 times ( both the Washington Post and CBS News show the same glitch ) .
Just watch the first 20 seconds of this : As Ed said , he sounds a lot like Max Headroom .
After that Biden did directly condemn violence and looting .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction of property , I want to make it absolutely clear so I can be clear about all of this , ” he said .
He continued , “ Rioting is not protesting .
Looting is not protesting .
Setting fires is not protesting .
None of this is protesting .
It ’ s lawlessness , plain and simple and those who do it should be prosecuted .
“ Violence will not bring change .
It will only bring destruction .
It ’ s wrong in every way .
It divides instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the working families that serve the community.
” Biden said “ Fires are burning and we have a president that fans the flames.
” Later he added , “ Donald Trump looks at this violence and he sees a political lifeline.
” Biden then cited Kellyanne Conway ’ s comments as proof that Trump was rooting for violence .
“ These are not images of some imagined Joe Biden America in the future .
These are images of Donald Trump ’ s America today , ” Biden said .
You get the gist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to spend a lot of time on this .
Yes , Donald Trump is president but no the violence , riots , arson and looting Joe Biden is denouncing aren ’ t being stoked ( or stroked ) by Trump or the right .
On the contrary , all of the people engaged in the behavior Biden is denouncing are on the far left .
They are the ones rioting in Portland and Kenosha and Minneapolis and Chicago and New York , etc .
And it ’ s the progressives mayors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and states who have looked the other way until tragedy struck .
That ’ s what happened in Seattle , in Atlanta and this weekend in Portland .
Aaron “ Jay ” Danielson was just shot and killed allegedly by a man who wrote that he was “ 100 % Antifa ” and whose feelings about President Trump were clear : “ F**k Donald Trump # blacklivesmatter.
” It ’ s not Trump ’ s fault that a fringe of Biden ’ s party who hates the president ( as much as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting fires and killing people .
Look , maybe there is a calming voice that could come into this situation and say that both sides are getting too heated , but Joe Biden is not that guy .
He ’ s literally blaming Trump for violence carried out by the far left .
It ’ s not going to work .
It ’ s clear to most people which side of the aisle is talking about defunding the police and which side is backing the police .
It ’ s clear who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the riots ( progressive DAs in Portland , Seattle , Chicago , etc ) .
It ’ s clear which networks have been defending Antifa for months .
In short , it ’ s clear which party has a sizable contingent that is winking at the extremists in their ranks .
It ’ s Joe ’ s own party that has been doing that .
If he wants to tell someone that “ rioting is not protesting ” he should tell the people on his left and several of the hosts at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop blaming the president .
I don ’ t know if President Trump can actually stop the violence at this late date but I sure don ’ t see any reason to think Joe Biden can do it .
He hasn ’ t even aimed his criticism at the right target yet .
He ’ s still blaming the right for violence carried out by the left .
That ’ s not going to fix anything .
Even Mayor Ted Wheeler speech denouncing the violence last week was more honest than this hot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to say something about the COVID death toll and just sort of gave up .

Yes, I know what he meant, but no he didn’t say the president was stoking violence, he said he was “stroking violence.” “He doesn’t want to shed light. He wants to generate heat and he’s stroking violence in our cities,” Biden said. I guess stroking something is one way to generate heat.
Here’s Biden’s next sentence as delivered: “You know this is a tragic fact of the matter that—about his perilous hour, that how he’s dealing with this perilous hour in our nation.”
Say what?
It seemed Biden was finally going to hit his stride and then technical difficulties struck. He was talking about “violence of extremists and opportunists, right wing militias—militias—militias.” The feed glitched on the word “militias” about 10 times (both the Washington Post and CBS News show the same glitch). Just watch the first 20 seconds of this:
As Ed said, he sounds a lot like Max Headroom.
After that Biden did directly condemn violence and looting. “The senseless violence of looting and burning and destruction of property, I want to make it absolutely clear so I can be clear about all of this,” he said. He continued, “Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It’s lawlessness, plain and simple and those who do it should be prosecuted.
“Violence will not bring change. It will only bring destruction. It’s wrong in every way. It divides instead of unites. Destroys businesses. Only hurts the working families that serve the community.”
Biden said “Fires are burning and we have a president that fans the flames.” Later he added, “Donald Trump looks at this violence and he sees a political lifeline.” Biden then cited Kellyanne Conway’s comments as proof that Trump was rooting for violence.
“These are not images of some imagined Joe Biden America in the future. These are images of Donald Trump’s America today,” Biden said.
You get the gist of it. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this. Yes, Donald Trump is president but no the violence, riots, arson and looting Joe Biden is denouncing aren’t being stoked (or stroked) by Trump or the right. On the contrary, all of the people engaged in the behavior Biden is denouncing are on the far left. They are the ones rioting in Portland and Kenosha and Minneapolis and Chicago and New York, etc. And it’s the progressives mayors, city councils and governors in these cities and states who have looked the other way until tragedy struck. That’s what happened in Seattle, in Atlanta and this weekend in Portland.
Aaron “Jay” Danielson was just shot and killed allegedly by a man who wrote that he was “100% Antifa” and whose feelings about President Trump were clear: “F**k Donald Trump #blacklivesmatter.” It’s not Trump’s fault that a fringe of Biden’s party who hates the president (as much as they hate the police) is rioting and setting fires and killing people.
Look, maybe there is a calming voice that could come into this situation and say that both sides are getting too heated, but Joe Biden is not that guy. He’s literally blaming Trump for violence carried out by the far left. It’s not going to work.
It’s clear to most people which side of the aisle is talking about defunding the police and which side is backing the police. It’s clear who has been promising not to prosecute people arrested during the riots (progressive DAs in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, etc). It’s clear which networks have been defending Antifa for months. In short, it’s clear which party has a sizable contingent that is winking at the extremists in their ranks. It’s Joe’s own party that has been doing that. If he wants to tell someone that “rioting is not protesting” he should tell the people on his left and several of the hosts at CNN who need to hear it and stop blaming the president.
I don’t know if President Trump can actually stop the violence at this late date but I sure don’t see any reason to think Joe Biden can do it. He hasn’t even aimed his criticism at the right target yet. He’s still blaming the right for violence carried out by the left. That’s not going to fix anything. Even Mayor Ted Wheeler speech denouncing the violence last week was more honest than this hot mess.
Bonus befuddlement: Biden was trying to say something about the COVID death toll and just sort of gave up.


hotair--2020-08-31--Louisville police memo complicates Breonna Taylor story

From the very beginning of the saga of Breonna Taylor ’ s death during a Louisville , Kentucky police raid more than six months ago , it ’ s been unclear precisely what happened on the night she died .
The investigation has been slow and grinding , but more details have begun to emerge in recent weeks .
Last week , Karen dove into some of those details , specifically identifying who the original target of the raid was and some of the events that led up to the night of the raid .
Much of the information centers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the raid .
But he wasn ’ t even in the apartment when the cops arrived , making the entire operation look like a complete debacle .
But now there ’ s been a leak of a police department memo containing more details .
While more information was clearly welcome to those interested in finding the truth , local officials and activists are crying foul , claiming that the memo is some sort of coverup to get the police off the hook .
After we finish going through it , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that for yourselves .
( NBC News ) A leaked Louisville Metro Police Department memo shows investigators had more evidence than previously made public showing a connection between Breonna Taylor and the main target of the narcotics probe that led officers to barge into her home the night she was shot dead by police .
But the memo was written several weeks after Taylor ’ s death and includes details that weren ’ t provided to the judge in the search warrant application as well as evidence that came to light after her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effort to smear Taylor and justify the deadly police raid .
The leaked memo , obtained by NBC News , addresses why the officers sought a warrant to enter Taylor ’ s apartment but says nothing about the use of force or other possible violations of Louisville police department policy , such as the blind firing of bullets into neighboring apartments .
The contents of the memo have little or nothing to do with the actual raid on Taylor ’ s apartment and the subsequent gunfire but instead focuses on findings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The primary target of the investigation was , as mentioned above , Jamarcus Glover .
He lived on the other side of town and was raided on the same night .
The original depiction of the story presented by Taylor ’ s family was that she was only a tangential figure in all of this and shouldn ’ t have been the target of a no-knock raid to begin with .
The leaked memo tells a somewhat different story .
Taylor had known Glover since at least 2016 and not just casually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was arrested in 2017 .
After being arrested again this year , he called Taylor ’ s number three times from jail .
In a separate encounter with the police in February , Glover listed Taylor ’ s number as his point of contact .
Further , in a phone call made by Glover at one point , he indicates that Taylor was holding money for him ( presumably drug money ) in excess of ten thousand dollars .
No money or drugs were found at Taylor ’ s apartment , however .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ implies that Taylor was involved in any of Glover ’ s many illegal activities beyond possibly allowing him to sometimes stash things at her apartment , but it does make her a “ person of interest ” if the two of them were interacting on that level .
Failing to find evidence at Glover ’ s house may have suggested that additional evidence might be had at Taylor ’ s apartment , or at least that ’ s the way I read it .
Does that justify a no-knock warrant and breaking in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know .
Moving to the scene of Taylor ’ s death , when the police arrived they broke in the door .
This is where everything went south quickly .
The first thing to note is that the cops didn ’ t just go in guns blazing .
Taylor ’ s boyfriend fired a shot at the doorway , striking one of the officers in the leg .
Needless to say , once you start firing a weapon at the police , particularly when you shoot one of them , the entire formula @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real question from the moment of entry was whether or not the police yelled “ Police !
Warrant !
” as they are supposed to before taking the door out .
If they did , that deflates Kenneth Walker ’ s claim that he fired because he feared a home invasion by criminals was taking place .
But unfortunately , the police entering Taylor ’ s apartment were either not wearing body cameras or had them switched off .
( That part seems unclear . )
I ’ m unsure how far this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward getting to the truth of these events , if at all .
It seems clear that even if Taylor was involved with Glover to the extent that she may have had some minor role in his drug dealing , she wasn ’ t enough of a high-profile target to wind up being shot , nor did any of her actions as described on the night of the raid make her a valid target .
But it also seems equally clear that the police probably weren ’ t shooting at Brionna Taylor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In either case , Breonna Taylor ’ s death looks like a tragic accident rather than a targeted killing by the cops .
The only question is if they followed proper protocols and if it could have been avoided .
The entire thing is a hot mess and absent some mysteriously appearing footage of the raid , I ’ m not sure how we ’ re supposed to arrive at a definitive conclusion .

From the very beginning of the saga of Breonna Taylor’s death during a Louisville, Kentucky police raid more than six months ago, it’s been unclear precisely what happened on the night she died. The investigation has been slow and grinding, but more details have begun to emerge in recent weeks. Last week, Karen dove into some of those details, specifically identifying who the original target of the raid was and some of the events that led up to the night of the raid. Much of the information centers on Jamarcus Glover, the actual target of the raid. But he wasn’t even in the apartment when the cops arrived, making the entire operation look like a complete debacle.
But now there’s been a leak of a police department memo containing more details. While more information was clearly welcome to those interested in finding the truth, local officials and activists are crying foul, claiming that the memo is some sort of coverup to get the police off the hook. After we finish going through it, you’ll have to be the judge of that for yourselves. (NBC News)
A leaked Louisville Metro Police Department memo shows investigators had more evidence than previously made public showing a connection between Breonna Taylor and the main target of the narcotics probe that led officers to barge into her home the night she was shot dead by police. But the memo was written several weeks after Taylor’s death and includes details that weren’t provided to the judge in the search warrant application as well as evidence that came to light after her death —prompting critics to slam it as an effort to smear Taylor and justify the deadly police raid. The leaked memo, obtained by NBC News, addresses why the officers sought a warrant to enter Taylor’s apartment but says nothing about the use of force or other possible violations of Louisville police department policy, such as the blind firing of bullets into neighboring apartments.
The contents of the memo have little or nothing to do with the actual raid on Taylor’s apartment and the subsequent gunfire but instead focuses on findings of the investigation that led to that point. The primary target of the investigation was, as mentioned above, Jamarcus Glover. He lived on the other side of town and was raided on the same night. The original depiction of the story presented by Taylor’s family was that she was only a tangential figure in all of this and shouldn’t have been the target of a no-knock raid to begin with.
The leaked memo tells a somewhat different story. Taylor had known Glover since at least 2016 and not just casually. She posted his bail when he was arrested in 2017. After being arrested again this year, he called Taylor’s number three times from jail. In a separate encounter with the police in February, Glover listed Taylor’s number as his point of contact. Further, in a phone call made by Glover at one point, he indicates that Taylor was holding money for him (presumably drug money) in excess of ten thousand dollars. No money or drugs were found at Taylor’s apartment, however.
None of this information so much as implies that Taylor was involved in any of Glover’s many illegal activities beyond possibly allowing him to sometimes stash things at her apartment, but it does make her a “person of interest” if the two of them were interacting on that level. Failing to find evidence at Glover’s house may have suggested that additional evidence might be had at Taylor’s apartment, or at least that’s the way I read it. Does that justify a no-knock warrant and breaking in the door? I don’t know.
Moving to the scene of Taylor’s death, when the police arrived they broke in the door. This is where everything went south quickly. The first thing to note is that the cops didn’t just go in guns blazing. Taylor’s boyfriend fired a shot at the doorway, striking one of the officers in the leg. Needless to say, once you start firing a weapon at the police, particularly when you shoot one of them, the entire formula shifts in a literal heartbeat.
The real question from the moment of entry was whether or not the police yelled “Police! Warrant!” as they are supposed to before taking the door out. If they did, that deflates Kenneth Walker’s claim that he fired because he feared a home invasion by criminals was taking place. But unfortunately, the police entering Taylor’s apartment were either not wearing body cameras or had them switched off. (That part seems unclear.)
I’m unsure how far this memo moves the ball down the field toward getting to the truth of these events, if at all. It seems clear that even if Taylor was involved with Glover to the extent that she may have had some minor role in his drug dealing, she wasn’t enough of a high-profile target to wind up being shot, nor did any of her actions as described on the night of the raid make her a valid target. But it also seems equally clear that the police probably weren’t shooting at Brionna Taylor. They were responding to being fired upon. In either case, Breonna Taylor’s death looks like a tragic accident rather than a targeted killing by the cops. The only question is if they followed proper protocols and if it could have been avoided. The entire thing is a hot mess and absent some mysteriously appearing footage of the raid, I’m not sure how we’re supposed to arrive at a definitive conclusion.


hotair--2020-08-31--Massive Super PAC poised to 'swift-boat' Biden in key states

Remember the 2004 presidential campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry ?
That campaign produced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in support of President Bush .
The PAC exposed John Kerry ’ s record as a Vietnam veteran .
It was very effective , too .
There is a new version of this kind of Super PAC coming on the scene now and President Trump will be the beneficiary .
Just in time to begin making up for some lost time , Preserve America will be overseen by Chris LaCivita , a veteran Republican strategist and the mastermind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Politico is reporting the PAC ’ s first campaign ads will begin Tuesday in key states .
Preserve America ’ s first commercials will begin airing Tuesday in Florida , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , Arizona , Iowa , and Georgia .
Roughly $ 25 million of the total buy will be invested on TV , a figure that nearly matches what America First Action and Priorities USA have spent on the airwaves over the course of the entire election cycle .
The remaining $ 5 million will appear on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s initial ads will focus on the theme of law and order , which Trump has turned into the centerpiece of his reelection bid .
The emotionally charged commercials aim to tear down Biden by contending that he ’ s refused to take on the “ defund the police ” movement that ’ s emerged amid a summer of racial unrest .
Trump ’ s law and order campaign is catching on because the violence and destruction continue in cities across the country .
Voters do not feel safe in their own homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show the angry rioters expanding outside downtown areas in some places and moving into residential areas , especially if a prominent local official lives there .
The security of living in a gated community is being breached in cities like St. Louis , where destructive protesters tore down the neighborhood ’ s entrance gate to march to the mayor ’ s house .
Preserve America is using ‘ real ’ Americans and they are telling some compelling personal stories .
Two ad spots can be previewed today .
The first is with Alyssa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer killed in the line of duty in Arizona .
She questions what kind of leader Joe Biden is since he isn ’ t standing up for police .
She points to a memorial monument that was defaced with anti-police graffiti , labeling the police as murderers .
Alyssa points out that her husband was murdered .
The second ad is done with John Gillis , a retired Los Angeles police lieutenant .
He tells the story of losing his daughter because he was a police officer .
He said she was killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a personal and powerful ad .
Gillis questions Biden ’ s character by saying Biden won ’ t do tough things because he is too concerned about public opinion .
Clearly , this is a point that LaCivita is bringing home for voters – Biden is too weak to do the tough stuff .
He has sat silent throughout the Summer of Love and the Democrat convention ignored the violence and destruction in city streets for four days .
Democrats often pump up support for protesters by saying they are exercising their First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the First Amendment ends when professional agitators and others initiate violence .
Democrats continue to call the protests as peaceful which is easily contradicted by the evening news every night .
The Preserve America PAC is launching at a critical time .
We are almost to Labor Day when campaigns really ramp up , or at least that is how campaigns were done before the coronavirus pandemic .
Biden has been trouncing Trump on the airwaves and that will stop now .
Even in Texas , I see just as many Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some major Trump donors in 2016 have hesitated to jump in with big money up until now .
The same sort of thing happened in 2016 if you remember , and in the race ’ s last weeks , tens of millions of dollars were put into a Trump Super PAC and it really made a difference in the race .
Since he ’ s been in office , Trump and the RNC have been very successful in fundraising efforts .
America First Action is the current Trump-allied outside group .
Big donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this cycle .
They have voiced concerns about how the PAC is performing .
So who are these megadonors ?
Two familiar names are mentioned – Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus .
Biden is trying to play defense on the subject of law and order .
He spoke to the National Guard Association conference over the weekend .
He promised attendees that he won ’ t use the military as a prop , a frequent line of criticism from Democrats of Trump .
He also said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a private militia to violate rights of fellow citizens ” , which is a reference to Trump ’ s walk over to St. John ’ s Church .
The emergence of Preserve America is good news for Team Trump .
It ’ s coming at the right time .
It wouldn ’ t be the first time that Trump did something that others before him weren ’ t able to do , now would it ?

Remember the 2004 presidential campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry? That campaign produced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in support of President Bush. The PAC exposed John Kerry’s record as a Vietnam veteran. It was very effective, too. There is a new version of this kind of Super PAC coming on the scene now and President Trump will be the beneficiary.
Just in time to begin making up for some lost time, Preserve America will be overseen by Chris LaCivita, a veteran Republican strategist and the mastermind behind the Swift Boat veterans ad campaign. Politico is reporting the PAC’s first campaign ads will begin Tuesday in key states.
Preserve America’s first commercials will begin airing Tuesday in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Iowa, and Georgia. Roughly $25 million of the total buy will be invested on TV, a figure that nearly matches what America First Action and Priorities USA have spent on the airwaves over the course of the entire election cycle. The remaining $5 million will appear on digital platforms. The super PAC’s initial ads will focus on the theme of law and order, which Trump has turned into the centerpiece of his reelection bid. The emotionally charged commercials aim to tear down Biden by contending that he’s refused to take on the “defund the police” movement that’s emerged amid a summer of racial unrest.
Trump’s law and order campaign is catching on because the violence and destruction continue in cities across the country. Voters do not feel safe in their own homes as they are seeing news reports that show the angry rioters expanding outside downtown areas in some places and moving into residential areas, especially if a prominent local official lives there. The security of living in a gated community is being breached in cities like St. Louis, where destructive protesters tore down the neighborhood’s entrance gate to march to the mayor’s house. Preserve America is using ‘real’ Americans and they are telling some compelling personal stories. Two ad spots can be previewed today.
The first is with Alyssa Cordova. Her husband was a police officer killed in the line of duty in Arizona. She questions what kind of leader Joe Biden is since he isn’t standing up for police. She points to a memorial monument that was defaced with anti-police graffiti, labeling the police as murderers. Alyssa points out that her husband was murdered.
The second ad is done with John Gillis, a retired Los Angeles police lieutenant. He tells the story of losing his daughter because he was a police officer. He said she was killed execution-style. It, too, is a personal and powerful ad. Gillis questions Biden’s character by saying Biden won’t do tough things because he is too concerned about public opinion.
Clearly, this is a point that LaCivita is bringing home for voters – Biden is too weak to do the tough stuff. He has sat silent throughout the Summer of Love and the Democrat convention ignored the violence and destruction in city streets for four days. Democrats often pump up support for protesters by saying they are exercising their First Amendment rights, which is true, but the First Amendment ends when professional agitators and others initiate violence. Democrats continue to call the protests as peaceful which is easily contradicted by the evening news every night.
The Preserve America PAC is launching at a critical time. We are almost to Labor Day when campaigns really ramp up, or at least that is how campaigns were done before the coronavirus pandemic. Biden has been trouncing Trump on the airwaves and that will stop now. Even in Texas, I see just as many Biden ads as I do Trump ads. Some major Trump donors in 2016 have hesitated to jump in with big money up until now. The same sort of thing happened in 2016 if you remember, and in the race’s last weeks, tens of millions of dollars were put into a Trump Super PAC and it really made a difference in the race. Since he’s been in office, Trump and the RNC have been very successful in fundraising efforts. America First Action is the current Trump-allied outside group. Big donors have not donated to it so far this cycle. They have voiced concerns about how the PAC is performing.
The move comes as Republicans express mounting concern over the drubbing Trump has been taking on TV. The president in August went dark in several battleground states and in Wisconsin was outspent more than eight to one, according to the media tracking firm Advertising Analytics. In Florida, Trump was outpaced by Biden more than three to one.
So who are these megadonors? Two familiar names are mentioned – Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus.
Biden is trying to play defense on the subject of law and order. He spoke to the National Guard Association conference over the weekend. He promised attendees that he won’t use the military as a prop, a frequent line of criticism from Democrats of Trump. He also said he would not use the military as “a private militia to violate rights of fellow citizens”, which is a reference to Trump’s walk over to St. John’s Church.
The emergence of Preserve America is good news for Team Trump. It’s coming at the right time.
The investment comes two months before the election as Trump continues to trail former Vice President Joe Biden in the polls, and to win Trump would have to be the first incumbent in over 70 years to come from behind after trailing following the major party conventions.
It wouldn’t be the first time that Trump did something that others before him weren’t able to do, now would it?


hotair--2020-08-31--Appeals court to Flynn, DoJ: Not so fast

Looks like Judge Emmet Sullivan will get his hearing after all .
An 8-2 en banc ruling today from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Naomi Rao ’ s writ of mandamus ordering Sullivan to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn .
Unless Flynn and the Department of Justice appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court , Sullivan will get to probe the DoJ ’ s decision to move for dismissal on a case they had already won : A federal appeals court won ’ t order the dismissal of the Michael Flynn prosecution , ruling Monday that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department ’ s request to dismiss its case against the former Trump administration national security adviser .
The decision keeps the case at least temporarily alive .
In May , the Justice Department moved to dismiss the prosecution even though Flynn himself had pleaded guilty and admitted lying to the FBI during the Russia investigation .
After a judge refused to immediately dismiss the case , his lawyers asked a federal appeals court to step in and force him to do so .
The opinion , hosted at CNN initially , basically concludes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short-circuit a legitimate process of inquiry into the DoJ ’ s dismissal motion .
Mandamus can not take the place of an appeal , the court wrote in its majority opinion , and in this case the appellants didn ’ t even wait to see if an appeal would be necessary : This was one of the weaknesses pointed out in the original application for mandamus relief by Sullivan and other legal observers .
The dissent from Robert Wilkins to Rao ’ s writ also pointed this out .
However , Rao ruled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-equal branches in Sullivan ’ s particular brand of hearing would be too extensive to ignore .
The en banc ruling dismisses any notion of damage at all as speculative and premature : Nor did the court ’ s judges decide that the case should be removed from Sullivan ’ s supervision .
His challenges to the mandamus petition does not make him a party to the case , the court ruled , especially since the appellate panel invited his response : That part of the ruling drew a sharp retort from Judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Rao on the mandamus writ .
Yes , they invited Sullivan ’ s participation in their review of the Flynn/DoJ mandamus petition , but they most certainly did not invite Sullivan to appeal their decision to the en banc panel .
By definition , Henderson writes , that made Sullivan a party to the case , which means he should be disqualified from it : And Henderson points out that this is a statutory issue as well as a court-rules problem : Rao wrote a longer and more comprehensive dissent , essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writ of mandamus .
It ’ s worth reading in full , but there isn ’ t much new from her initial opinion on the writ .
So what happens from here ?
The DoJ and Sidney Powell could appeal the case to the Supreme Court , which probably would prefer not to get involved in this case at all .
Andy McCarthy predicted two weeks ago that Flynn and the DoJ would lose on mandamus but otherwise prevail , and the Supreme Court justices might figure that it will happen more quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given that neither Powell nor the DoJ actually sought to have Sullivan disqualified — a point brought up instead by the DC Circuit — the Supreme Court isn ’ t likely to try a split-the-baby compromise by rejecting the writ but disqualifying Sullivan .
Basically , the stage is set for Sullivan ’ s circus … and then his eventual submission to the DoJ , with parting shots at Flynn and William Barr .
This is still a prosecution without a prosecutor , and a guilty plea without a crime .
The tenor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else from Sullivan is likely to get shot down no matter which three jurists end up hearing the appeal , a subtext that Sullivan can ’ t possibly miss in all of the talk about speculative harms rather than actual damage done by Sullivan ’ s proposed process .
The quickest path out of this quagmire for everyone is to bite lips and proceed full speed ahead through it .

Looks like Judge Emmet Sullivan will get his hearing after all. An 8-2 en banc ruling today from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Naomi Rao’s writ of mandamus ordering Sullivan to dismiss charges against Michael Flynn. Unless Flynn and the Department of Justice appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, Sullivan will get to probe the DoJ’s decision to move for dismissal on a case they had already won:
A federal appeals court won’t order the dismissal of the Michael Flynn prosecution, ruling Monday that a judge is entitled to scrutinize the Justice Department’s request to dismiss its case against the former Trump administration national security adviser. The decision keeps the case at least temporarily alive. In May, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the prosecution even though Flynn himself had pleaded guilty and admitted lying to the FBI during the Russia investigation. After a judge refused to immediately dismiss the case, his lawyers asked a federal appeals court to step in and force him to do so.
The opinion, hosted at CNN initially, basically concludes that Flynn and the DoJ attempted to short-circuit a legitimate process of inquiry into the DoJ’s dismissal motion. Mandamus cannot take the place of an appeal, the court wrote in its majority opinion, and in this case the appellants didn’t even wait to see if an appeal would be necessary:
This was one of the weaknesses pointed out in the original application for mandamus relief by Sullivan and other legal observers. The dissent from Robert Wilkins to Rao’s writ also pointed this out. However, Rao ruled that the damage to the independence of co-equal branches in Sullivan’s particular brand of hearing would be too extensive to ignore. The en banc ruling dismisses any notion of damage at all as speculative and premature:
Nor did the court’s judges decide that the case should be removed from Sullivan’s supervision. His challenges to the mandamus petition does not make him a party to the case, the court ruled, especially since the appellate panel invited his response:
That part of the ruling drew a sharp retort from Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who initially joined with Rao on the mandamus writ. Yes, they invited Sullivan’s participation in their review of the Flynn/DoJ mandamus petition, but they most certainly did not invite Sullivan to appeal their decision to the en banc panel. By definition, Henderson writes, that made Sullivan a party to the case, which means he should be disqualified from it:
And Henderson points out that this is a statutory issue as well as a court-rules problem:
Rao wrote a longer and more comprehensive dissent, essentially recapping her initial decision to issue the writ of mandamus. It’s worth reading in full, but there isn’t much new from her initial opinion on the writ.
So what happens from here? The DoJ and Sidney Powell could appeal the case to the Supreme Court, which probably would prefer not to get involved in this case at all. Andy McCarthy predicted two weeks ago that Flynn and the DoJ would lose on mandamus but otherwise prevail, and the Supreme Court justices might figure that it will happen more quickly without them than with their intervention. Given that neither Powell nor the DoJ actually sought to have Sullivan disqualified — a point brought up instead by the DC Circuit — the Supreme Court isn’t likely to try a split-the-baby compromise by rejecting the writ but disqualifying Sullivan.
Basically, the stage is set for Sullivan’s circus … and then his eventual submission to the DoJ, with parting shots at Flynn and William Barr. This is still a prosecution without a prosecutor, and a guilty plea without a crime. The tenor of this opinion is such that anything else from Sullivan is likely to get shot down no matter which three jurists end up hearing the appeal, a subtext that Sullivan can’t possibly miss in all of the talk about speculative harms rather than actual damage done by Sullivan’s proposed process. The quickest path out of this quagmire for everyone is to bite lips and proceed full speed ahead through it.