hotair--2020-08-13--<span class='red'>Breaking: Trump brokers deal for UAE recognition of Israel; Update: UAE says "road

Breaking: Trump brokers deal for UAE recognition of Israel; Update: UAE says "roadmap"

The Associated Press calls this “ a rare diplomatic win ” for Donald Trump , but the Abraham Agreement is huge .
The deal brokered by the Trump administration breaks the Gulf Arab bloc against Israel , a massive diplomatic coup for the White House .
The terms of the deal also shows other Arab states that Trump can exert a moderating influence on Israel to boot : This is a win all around , except maybe for Iran : President Donald Trump said on Thursday that the United Arab Emirates and Israel have agreed to establish full diplomatic ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the annexation of occupied land sought by the Palestinians for their future state .
The announcement makes the UAE the first Gulf Arab state to do so and only the third Arab nation to have active diplomatic ties to Israel .
… For Israel , the announcement comes after years of boasting by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that his government enjoys closer ties to Arab nations than publicly acknowledged .
Netanyahu has sought to build settlements on lands sought by the Palestinians and embraced a Trump proposal that would allow him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bank while granting Palestinians limited autonomy in other areas .
For the UAE , home to skyscraper-studded Dubai and the rolling , oil-rich sand dunes of Abu Dhabi , it further burnishes its international campaign to be seen as a beacon of tolerance in the Middle East despite being governed by autocratic rulers .
It also puts the UAE out first in a regional recognition race among neighboring Gulf Arab states .
The deal stops Israel from annexing the parts of Judea and Samaria that it claimed it wouldn ’ t cede in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reversal for Trump too , who outlined those areas as part of the Israeli territory in his Vision for Peace plan , which was roundly rejected by the Palestinians and the other Arab states .
Trump and Netanyahu apparently used that plan as leverage to finally pull at least one Gulf Arab state over the line and into the US coalition .
That is bad news for Tehran .
One does have to wonder how Trump got Netanyahu to reverse that annexation plan , which was a key part of Netanyahu ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it that the plan was intended for leverage all along ?
Or did Netanyahu decide that Trump needed a boost to avoid dealing with a Biden/Harris administration that threatens a return to appeasement of Iran ?
This might be a message from the Arab states over the Palestinians ’ alliance with Iran , which cuts to the heart of their security concerns .
As Tehran has grown increasingly aggressive at expanding the reach of their hegemony , the traditional Shi ’ a/Sunni conflict has become more acute along with the usual temporal power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinians never saw this as a problem before now is anyone ’ s guess , but the UAE ’ s recognition of Israel makes it crystal clear now .
They do have some breathing room on negotiations now , but this move by a Gulf Arab state clearly indicates that the region is growing tired of the Palestinians and their stubborn insistence on an all-or-nothing outcome .
Now that the UAE has made this move , one has to wonder who ’ s next .
Saudi Arabia might be the most significant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam would make a reversal on recognizing Israel the most difficult .
The smaller states in the Gulf might have to move first before the Saudis could sell it to the hardliners in the royal family and clerics in the kingdom .
If this starts a chain reaction of recognition for Israel in the region , not only will that bolster Netanyahu ’ s standing at home but it will make the Palestinians start thinking that a smaller sovereign state beats nothing at all .
“ This is Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the advisors at the presser .
That ’ s not just true of the Iranians , either .
Update : Jeff Dunetz has more thoughts on this breaking story .
Update : The UAE says the agreement provides a “ roadmap ” to recognition , not an immediate status change : We ’ ll see what the text of the actual agreement lays out .
Just entering into a diplomatic agreement with Israel is a de facto recognition , however .
Update : Former ambassador Dennis Ross is not clinging to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although he gives UAE credit for backing Israel down from annexation :

The Associated Press calls this “a rare diplomatic win” for Donald Trump, but the Abraham Agreement is huge. The deal brokered by the Trump administration breaks the Gulf Arab bloc against Israel, a massive diplomatic coup for the White House. The terms of the deal also shows other Arab states that Trump can exert a moderating influence on Israel to boot:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1293922803419353088
This is a win all around, except maybe for Iran:
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that the United Arab Emirates and Israel have agreed to establish full diplomatic ties as part of a deal to halt the annexation of occupied land sought by the Palestinians for their future state. The announcement makes the UAE the first Gulf Arab state to do so and only the third Arab nation to have active diplomatic ties to Israel. … For Israel, the announcement comes after years of boasting by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that his government enjoys closer ties to Arab nations than publicly acknowledged. Netanyahu has sought to build settlements on lands sought by the Palestinians and embraced a Trump proposal that would allow him to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank while granting Palestinians limited autonomy in other areas. For the UAE, home to skyscraper-studded Dubai and the rolling, oil-rich sand dunes of Abu Dhabi, it further burnishes its international campaign to be seen as a beacon of tolerance in the Middle East despite being governed by autocratic rulers. It also puts the UAE out first in a regional recognition race among neighboring Gulf Arab states.
The deal stops Israel from annexing the parts of Judea and Samaria that it claimed it wouldn’t cede in settlements with the Palestinians. That is a reversal for Trump too, who outlined those areas as part of the Israeli territory in his Vision for Peace plan, which was roundly rejected by the Palestinians and the other Arab states. Trump and Netanyahu apparently used that plan as leverage to finally pull at least one Gulf Arab state over the line and into the US coalition. That is bad news for Tehran.
One does have to wonder how Trump got Netanyahu to reverse that annexation plan, which was a key part of Netanyahu’s hardliner support in Israel. Was it that the plan was intended for leverage all along? Or did Netanyahu decide that Trump needed a boost to avoid dealing with a Biden/Harris administration that threatens a return to appeasement of Iran?
It’s a mixed bag for Palestinians, the AP notes:
And for the Palestinians, who long have relied on Arab backing in their struggle for independence, the announcement marked both a win and setback. While Thursday’s deal halts Israeli annexation plans, the Palestinians have repeatedly urged Arab governments not to normalize relations with Israel until a peace agreement establishing an independent Palestinian state is reached.
This might be a message from the Arab states over the Palestinians’ alliance with Iran, which cuts to the heart of their security concerns. As Tehran has grown increasingly aggressive at expanding the reach of their hegemony, the traditional Shi’a/Sunni conflict has become more acute along with the usual temporal power struggles in the region. Why the Palestinians never saw this as a problem before now is anyone’s guess, but the UAE’s recognition of Israel makes it crystal clear now. They do have some breathing room on negotiations now, but this move by a Gulf Arab state clearly indicates that the region is growing tired of the Palestinians and their stubborn insistence on an all-or-nothing outcome.
Now that the UAE has made this move, one has to wonder who’s next. Saudi Arabia might be the most significant, but its insistence on proselytizing the extreme Wahhabi strain of Sunni Islam would make a reversal on recognizing Israel the most difficult. The smaller states in the Gulf might have to move first before the Saudis could sell it to the hardliners in the royal family and clerics in the kingdom. If this starts a chain reaction of recognition for Israel in the region, not only will that bolster Netanyahu’s standing at home but it will make the Palestinians start thinking that a smaller sovereign state beats nothing at all.
“This is Iran’s worst nightmare,” said one of the advisors at the presser. That’s not just true of the Iranians, either.
Update: Jeff Dunetz has more thoughts on this breaking story.
Update: The UAE says the agreement provides a “roadmap” to recognition, not an immediate status change:
A bit different of an interpretation here https://t.co/wm6nIegoAV — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) August 13, 2020
We’ll see what the text of the actual agreement lays out. Just entering into a diplomatic agreement with Israel is a de facto recognition, however.
Update: Former ambassador Dennis Ross is not clinging to the “roadmap” explanation either, although he gives UAE credit for backing Israel down from annexation:


hotair--2020-08-13--GovTrack.US: Kamala Harris is the most liberal politician in the U.S. Senate

The press is campaigning hard for the Biden-Harris ticket .
Press coverage of the two candidates after Biden introduced his running mate at a small , controlled event in Delaware went just as Team Biden hoped .
The reporters and liberal news anchors waxed poetically about the pair and the push is on to convince voters that Kamala Harris is a moderate Democrat .
Here is the thing , though – Kamala Harris has a voting record in the U.S. Senate and it ’ s not the voting record of a moderate Democrat .
As a matter of fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal in the Senate .
Think of the Democrats in the Senate and then wrap your head around the fact that Kamala Harris is more liberal than Bernie Sanders or any of the far-left members of the Senate .
GovTrack.us is a government watchdog website .
It ranks all 100 U.S .
Senators with an “ ideology score ” from 1.0 ( most conservative ) to 0.0 ( most liberal ) .
The score is based on each senator ’ s legislative behavior .
Senators are ranked by how similar the pattern of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other congress members .
Not only is Kamala the most liberal but her record also shows that she joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats .
Watch out , Joe , she ’ s not a team player .
“ Members of Congress with similar political views will tend to cosponsor the same set of bills , or bills by the same set of authors , and inversely Members of Congress with different political views will tend to cosponsor different bills , ” the website explains .
GovTrack.us gave Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a score of 0.00. together , they ranked as the most liberal members of the Senate .
The website said Harris joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats .
“ Of the 471 bills that Harris cosponsored , 15 percent were introduced by a legislator who was not a Democrat , ” the website stated .
Kamala is known as a politician who can change positions on policy as quickly as she can change her shoes .
For example , Harris co-sponsored Sanders ’ 2017 “ Medicare for All ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as she ran her own presidential campaign until she got pushback on it .
Then she tried to pander to a less radical policy by flip-flopping on the Sanders plan all the way to the end of her campaign .
In other words , she has no real policy stances of her own .
She tells her audience what she thinks they want to hear from her .
This is no longer Joe Biden ’ s campaign for president .
This is Kamala ’ s campaign .
Biden may be the name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala is the person running the show .
Just as he would be should he be elected president in November , Biden is a figurehead .
He proves that as he willingly allows himself to be pushed to the far-left in his policy positions .
He has not come out for Medicare for All but says he wants to tweak Obamacare but that is not where his party is right now .
If elected , he ’ ll bow to pressure to go down the slippery slope of universal health care .
Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance completely .
She could take credit and use the issue to run in 2024 for the presidency .
On taxes , she also modeled her policy on Bernie ’ s .
That ’ s what she does .
She “ models ” her policy from that of others .
As I said , she has no real policy positions or ideas of her own .
Sleepy Joe needs an aggressive running mate who is willing to distort history in order to win over an audience .
That ’ s why his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the Kavanaugh hearings ?
She was the ugliest of the Democrats who sat on the Senate Judicial Committee during Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation hearings .
She went so far as to threaten him by implying she had nefarious information against him from other law partners that , in reality did not exist .
Yesterday she went into some ugly riffs about President Trump ’ s leadership during the coronavirus pandemic and we can expect this to be a prominent theme during campaign appearances .
This election revolves around how Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crash that followed is seen by voters .
Kamala conflated the Ebola pandemic with the coronavirus pandemic , though , in order to pump up Biden and his time in the Obama administration .
It was a lazy and cheap form of attack .
There is no comparison between the two .
This is how she thinks she scores points .
She won ’ t convince Independent voters with illogical arguments .
Team Joe and Kamala will try to pin the economic collapse on Trump ’ s incompetence but Americans are not stupid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an economic shutdown .
Team Trump has to continue to blame the Communist Chinese for the pandemic and the economic collapse that followed .
While Sleepy Joe was busy describing Trump as a xenophobe , Trump was shutting down air travel from China to stop the spread of the virus through travel .
The press will be Kamala ’ s biggest cheerleaders .
Taking marching orders from Biden ’ s campaign and activists , they are performing as told .
Team Biden isn ’ t even denying that the mask has dropped – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside the campaign for Joe .
“ We did it , guys.
” Biden ’ s deputy campaign manager and communication director gave the press “ virtual high fives ” .
This is a Harris-Biden ticket .
Joe Biden won ’ t be challenged as to why he chose her , given her past accusations against him .
The press will have amnesia about a lot of things .
Harris called him racist over his past votes and association with segregationists in the Senate and she said she believed Biden ’ s accusers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inappropriate behavior .
More than anything , this shows that Joe is not in charge .
His minders are calling the shots .
The press is going along and lending a hand to the campaign .
If it takes describing the most liberal person in the U.S. Senate as a moderate , so be it .
Despite the fact that the only people in the audience at the event Wednesday were members of the press , there were no questions taken .
Kamala even got in a shot at Fox News .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played from now through November .
Biden will be sheltered from the press and there will not be a peep from them about it .

The press is campaigning hard for the Biden-Harris ticket. Press coverage of the two candidates after Biden introduced his running mate at a small, controlled event in Delaware went just as Team Biden hoped. The reporters and liberal news anchors waxed poetically about the pair and the push is on to convince voters that Kamala Harris is a moderate Democrat.
Here is the thing, though – Kamala Harris has a voting record in the U.S. Senate and it’s not the voting record of a moderate Democrat. As a matter of fact, GovTrack.us ranks Senator Harris as the most liberal in the Senate. Think of the Democrats in the Senate and then wrap your head around the fact that Kamala Harris is more liberal than Bernie Sanders or any of the far-left members of the Senate.
GovTrack.us is a government watchdog website. It ranks all 100 U.S. Senators with an “ideology score” from 1.0 (most conservative) to 0.0 (most liberal). The score is based on each senator’s legislative behavior. Senators are ranked by how similar the pattern of bills and resolutions they co-sponsor are to other congress members. Not only is Kamala the most liberal but her record also shows that she joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats. Watch out, Joe, she’s not a team player.
“Members of Congress with similar political views will tend to cosponsor the same set of bills, or bills by the same set of authors, and inversely Members of Congress with different political views will tend to cosponsor different bills,” the website explains. GovTrack.us gave Sanders an ideology score of 0.02 and Harris a score of 0.00. together, they ranked as the most liberal members of the Senate. The website said Harris joined bipartisan bills the least often compared to Senate Democrats. “Of the 471 bills that Harris cosponsored, 15 percent were introduced by a legislator who was not a Democrat,” the website stated.
Kamala is known as a politician who can change positions on policy as quickly as she can change her shoes. For example, Harris co-sponsored Sanders’ 2017 “Medicare for All” plan, and she continued to support it as she ran her own presidential campaign until she got pushback on it. Then she tried to pander to a less radical policy by flip-flopping on the Sanders plan all the way to the end of her campaign. In other words, she has no real policy stances of her own. She tells her audience what she thinks they want to hear from her.
This is no longer Joe Biden’s campaign for president. This is Kamala’s campaign. Biden may be the name at the top of the ticket but Kamala is the person running the show. Just as he would be should he be elected president in November, Biden is a figurehead. He proves that as he willingly allows himself to be pushed to the far-left in his policy positions. He has not come out for Medicare for All but says he wants to tweak Obamacare but that is not where his party is right now. If elected, he’ll bow to pressure to go down the slippery slope of universal health care. Kamala wants to get rid of private health insurance completely. She could take credit and use the issue to run in 2024 for the presidency.
On taxes, she also modeled her policy on Bernie’s. That’s what she does. She “models” her policy from that of others. As I said, she has no real policy positions or ideas of her own.
During her time as a Democratic presidential candidate, Harris’ tax plan was modeled after Sanders’ tax plan. Also, Harris and Sanders both recently supported giving all U.S. citizens $2,000 a month during the ongoing coronavirus epidemic.
Sleepy Joe needs an aggressive running mate who is willing to distort history in order to win over an audience. That’s why his campaign team chose Kamala. Remember her performance during the Kavanaugh hearings? She was the ugliest of the Democrats who sat on the Senate Judicial Committee during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. She went so far as to threaten him by implying she had nefarious information against him from other law partners that, in reality did not exist.
Yesterday she went into some ugly riffs about President Trump’s leadership during the coronavirus pandemic and we can expect this to be a prominent theme during campaign appearances. This election revolves around how Trump’s leadership during the plague and the economic crash that followed is seen by voters. Kamala conflated the Ebola pandemic with the coronavirus pandemic, though, in order to pump up Biden and his time in the Obama administration. It was a lazy and cheap form of attack. There is no comparison between the two. This is how she thinks she scores points. She won’t convince Independent voters with illogical arguments. Team Joe and Kamala will try to pin the economic collapse on Trump’s incompetence but Americans are not stupid. They know that the virus caused an economic shutdown. Team Trump has to continue to blame the Communist Chinese for the pandemic and the economic collapse that followed. While Sleepy Joe was busy describing Trump as a xenophobe, Trump was shutting down air travel from China to stop the spread of the virus through travel.
The press will be Kamala’s biggest cheerleaders. Taking marching orders from Biden’s campaign and activists, they are performing as told. Team Biden isn’t even denying that the mask has dropped – the press is following orders and working alongside the campaign for Joe. “We did it, guys.” Biden’s deputy campaign manager and communication director gave the press “virtual high fives”.
Shoutout to all of our beat reporters for surviving some of the most painful news cycles of any presidential campaign. Virtual high five to all of you. We did it, guys. 🎉 — Kate Bedingfield (@KBeds) August 12, 2020
This is a Harris-Biden ticket. Joe Biden won’t be challenged as to why he chose her, given her past accusations against him. The press will have amnesia about a lot of things. Harris called him racist over his past votes and association with segregationists in the Senate and she said she believed Biden’s accusers who came forward about sexual assault and inappropriate behavior. More than anything, this shows that Joe is not in charge. His minders are calling the shots. The press is going along and lending a hand to the campaign. If it takes describing the most liberal person in the U.S. Senate as a moderate, so be it.
Despite the fact that the only people in the audience at the event Wednesday were members of the press, there were no questions taken. Kamala even got in a shot at Fox News. That’s how this game will be played from now through November. Biden will be sheltered from the press and there will not be a peep from them about it.


hotair--2020-08-13--Somebody new is cracking down on "unauthorized parties" and it's not the government

As we ’ ve recently seen , California is cracking down on people throwing house parties in defiance of state-ordered bans on large gatherings of people , particularly when they fail to practice social distancing .
They ’ re going so far as to cut off water and electrical services to residents engaging in such behavior .
Or at least they would like to crack down on them , assuming they can get the police to enforce the rules .
But it ’ s not just the Governor and Mayor Garcetti who are throwing down the gauntlet and reining in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new sheriff in town and it ’ s Airbnb .
The company has “ taken action against ” one guest on their platform who rented out a house for a large party that wound up including a gunfight where multiple people were shot .
( Associated Press ) For the first time , Airbnb is taking legal action against a guest for violating its ban on unauthorized parties .
The San Francisco-based home sharing company said Wednesday it is initiating legal proceedings against a guest who held an unauthorized party at a home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend .
Three people were shot and wounded at the party .
Airbnb wouldn ’ t release the guest ’ s name but said it has removed the guest from its platform .
The problem with this report is that Airbnb is being quite stingy with the details .
They ’ ve either suspended the guest ’ s account or deleted it , removing them from the platform .
Since they have a clearly stated policy about not renting lodgings from hosts to use for large parties , that ’ s clearly within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be “ taking legal action ” against the guest .
What does that mean in this context ?
Further on in the article , we ’ re informed that the company is seeking “ monetary damages ” from the guest and they will move to arbitration if a figure can ’ t be agreed upon .
I suppose that might qualify as “ legal action ” in a sense , but it really sounds more like charging someone a fee for violating the terms of service .
But in terms of significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear how Airbnb is even involved in the issues encountered as a result of the house party .
If they ’ re talking about the fact that three people wound up being shot , that ’ s not Airbnb ’ s responsibility and it ’ s really not even the fault of the people who own the home and were renting it out to the guest .
The Airbnb user is the one who invited everyone over in defiance of the rules , so they might bear some responsibility , but as always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns and started firing are the ones ultimately responsible for their own actions .
If they ’ re worried about the State ’ s executive orders regarding large gatherings , now we might be talking about a case of the guest being responsible .
Each person violating the prohibition is responsible to a certain degree , but the one who invited everyone over and provided a venue for the party surely carries the most blame .
As the AP points out , Airbnb has already been taking steps to cut down on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been screening for “ high risk ” bookings , such as guests renting an entire house for a single night .
They ’ ve also taken the legally dubious step of barring users under the age of 25 from renting entire homes as opposed to single rooms .
That sounds like more than enough to me .
As we ’ ve discussed here in the past , Airbnb ’ s liability in all of these scenarios seems to be minimal at best .
They ’ re simply providing a platform for people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book those rentals .
What the people on each end of the transaction wind up doing with those arrangements is their business and their responsibility .

As we’ve recently seen, California is cracking down on people throwing house parties in defiance of state-ordered bans on large gatherings of people, particularly when they fail to practice social distancing. They’re going so far as to cut off water and electrical services to residents engaging in such behavior. Or at least they would like to crack down on them, assuming they can get the police to enforce the rules. But it’s not just the Governor and Mayor Garcetti who are throwing down the gauntlet and reining in these scofflaws. There’s a new sheriff in town and it’s Airbnb. The company has “taken action against” one guest on their platform who rented out a house for a large party that wound up including a gunfight where multiple people were shot. (Associated Press)
For the first time, Airbnb is taking legal action against a guest for violating its ban on unauthorized parties. The San Francisco-based home sharing company said Wednesday it is initiating legal proceedings against a guest who held an unauthorized party at a home in Sacramento County, California, last weekend. Three people were shot and wounded at the party. Airbnb wouldn’t release the guest’s name but said it has removed the guest from its platform.
The problem with this report is that Airbnb is being quite stingy with the details. They’ve either suspended the guest’s account or deleted it, removing them from the platform. Since they have a clearly stated policy about not renting lodgings from hosts to use for large parties, that’s clearly within their rights. But they also claim to be “taking legal action” against the guest.
What does that mean in this context? Further on in the article, we’re informed that the company is seeking “monetary damages” from the guest and they will move to arbitration if a figure can’t be agreed upon. I suppose that might qualify as “legal action” in a sense, but it really sounds more like charging someone a fee for violating the terms of service. But in terms of significant court action, it’s not clear how Airbnb is even involved in the issues encountered as a result of the house party.
If they’re talking about the fact that three people wound up being shot, that’s not Airbnb’s responsibility and it’s really not even the fault of the people who own the home and were renting it out to the guest. The Airbnb user is the one who invited everyone over in defiance of the rules, so they might bear some responsibility, but as always, the people who broke out the guns and started firing are the ones ultimately responsible for their own actions.
If they’re worried about the State’s executive orders regarding large gatherings, now we might be talking about a case of the guest being responsible. Each person violating the prohibition is responsible to a certain degree, but the one who invited everyone over and provided a venue for the party surely carries the most blame.
As the AP points out, Airbnb has already been taking steps to cut down on this form of behavior. They’ve been screening for “high risk” bookings, such as guests renting an entire house for a single night. They’ve also taken the legally dubious step of barring users under the age of 25 from renting entire homes as opposed to single rooms. That sounds like more than enough to me. As we’ve discussed here in the past, Airbnb’s liability in all of these scenarios seems to be minimal at best. They’re simply providing a platform for people to advertise rental units and for others to book those rentals. What the people on each end of the transaction wind up doing with those arrangements is their business and their responsibility.


hotair--2020-08-13--Minnesota Twins' logo needs to go, obviously

In our current era of wokeness , it ’ s clearly time for all of these racist professional sports logos to go .
No , we ’ re not talking about the Redskins , er… I mean the “ Washington Football Team.
” Nor are we discussing the Atlanta Braves .
This week ’ s story focuses on the obviously racially insensitive logo of the Major League Baseball Minnesota Twins .
The push for a more “ inclusive ” logo is coming from inside the team ’ s own clubhouse .
Not from one of the players or coaches or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposal comes from Dr. Charles Crutchfield , the team ’ s consulting dermatologist .
Let ’ s see what his complaint is .
( CBS Minnesota ) A Twin Cities doctor is urging the Twins to change the team ’ s classic “ Minnie and Paul ” logo to reflect the diversity of the team ’ s players and fans .
Dr. Charles Crutchfield , the Twins ’ consulting dermatologist , is asking the Pohlad family , which owns the Twins , to update the iconic logo , which was made in 1961 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barton ’ s original ‘ Minnie and Paul ’ logo design , ” Crutchfield said , in a statement .
“ But the time is now to create a respectful and subtle yet very significant update that honors and reflects the team ’ s players and its fans from different backgrounds .
It ’ s an easy fix but it ’ s an important one – and it ’ s long overdue.
” There are two major questions over Crutchfield ’ s proposal , but I ’ ll save the most bizarre one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start with the specific complaint about the logo he ’ s referencing .
The traditional depiction ( which you can see here ) shows a caricature of the twins named “ Minnie and Paul.
” They are two men in baseball jerseys ( two White men , I should add ) shaking hands across the Mississippi River .
The initials of both Minneapolis and St. Paul are seen on the uniforms .
So how does Crutchfield propose to “ fix ” the logo ?
He proposed a new version as part of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view the revised cartoon here .
As you will see , “ Paul ” has had his skin modified and colored in with a somewhat darker brown or tan hue .
So there ’ s your diversity angle .
Fair enough , I suppose .
If you ’ d like one of the “ twins ” to represent minority players , suit yourself .
( Though somebody might want to check with the parents and see if one of their twin children was actually adopted . )
But as I mentioned above , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point in Crutchfield ’ s complaint .
You see , the logo he ’ s talking about hasn ’ t been used as the official logo of the Minnesota Twins baseball franchise in nearly 35 years .
This sports logo history site tracks the evolution of the team ’ s logo since its inception .
The old logo was created by Illustrator Ray Barton ( 1930 – 2010 ) in 1960 , a task for which he was paid the handsome sum of fifteen dollars .
But the last time “ Minnie and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since then they ’ ve gone on to adopt two different ( and far more generic ) logos showing a baseball emblazoned with the words “ Minnesota Twins Baseball Club.
” Granted , the baseball is also white , but the balls used by the league all look like that .
So where is the older version of the logo that has Crutchfield so upset ?
I went through some Google image searches of the player ’ s uniforms and the team ’ s facilities and didn ’ t see Minnie and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their team store and all of the jerseys they sell didn ’ t offer any with the old logo that I could find either .
( To be fair , I didn ’ t have time to search the entire site , so perhaps it ’ s buried in there somewhere . )
The one place I found the logo was on a rather beat-up looking sign perched up on top of the wall of Target Field near center field .
Is that one sign in center field the only place the logo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppose some activists could take some chains out there and drag it down .
Or perhaps somebody with some brown paint could do what Crutchfield suggests and just go paint Paul ’ s hands and face brown .
But is this really the biggest fish we have left to fry in our ongoing wokeness parade ?

In our current era of wokeness, it’s clearly time for all of these racist professional sports logos to go. No, we’re not talking about the Redskins, er… I mean the “Washington Football Team.” Nor are we discussing the Atlanta Braves. This week’s story focuses on the obviously racially insensitive logo of the Major League Baseball Minnesota Twins. The push for a more “inclusive” logo is coming from inside the team’s own clubhouse. Not from one of the players or coaches or even the owners, however. The proposal comes from Dr. Charles Crutchfield, the team’s consulting dermatologist. Let’s see what his complaint is. (CBS Minnesota)
A Twin Cities doctor is urging the Twins to change the team’s classic “Minnie and Paul” logo to reflect the diversity of the team’s players and fans. Dr. Charles Crutchfield, the Twins’ consulting dermatologist, is asking the Pohlad family, which owns the Twins, to update the iconic logo, which was made in 1961. “I have always loved Ray Barton’s original ‘Minnie and Paul’ logo design,” Crutchfield said, in a statement. “But the time is now to create a respectful and subtle yet very significant update that honors and reflects the team’s players and its fans from different backgrounds. It’s an easy fix but it’s an important one – and it’s long overdue.”
There are two major questions over Crutchfield’s proposal, but I’ll save the most bizarre one for last. Let’s instead start with the specific complaint about the logo he’s referencing. The traditional depiction (which you can see here) shows a caricature of the twins named “Minnie and Paul.” They are two men in baseball jerseys (two White men, I should add) shaking hands across the Mississippi River. The initials of both Minneapolis and St. Paul are seen on the uniforms.
So how does Crutchfield propose to “fix” the logo? He proposed a new version as part of a Facebook poll he conducted. You can view the revised cartoon here. As you will see, “Paul” has had his skin modified and colored in with a somewhat darker brown or tan hue. So there’s your diversity angle. Fair enough, I suppose. If you’d like one of the “twins” to represent minority players, suit yourself. (Though somebody might want to check with the parents and see if one of their twin children was actually adopted.)
But as I mentioned above, that’s not the real sticking point in Crutchfield’s complaint. You see, the logo he’s talking about hasn’t been used as the official logo of the Minnesota Twins baseball franchise in nearly 35 years. This sports logo history site tracks the evolution of the team’s logo since its inception. The old logo was created by Illustrator Ray Barton (1930 – 2010) in 1960, a task for which he was paid the handsome sum of fifteen dollars. But the last time “Minnie and Paul” were used was in 1986.
Since then they’ve gone on to adopt two different (and far more generic) logos showing a baseball emblazoned with the words “Minnesota Twins Baseball Club.” Granted, the baseball is also white, but the balls used by the league all look like that.
So where is the older version of the logo that has Crutchfield so upset? I went through some Google image searches of the player’s uniforms and the team’s facilities and didn’t see Minnie and Paul in use. A search of their team store and all of the jerseys they sell didn’t offer any with the old logo that I could find either. (To be fair, I didn’t have time to search the entire site, so perhaps it’s buried in there somewhere.) The one place I found the logo was on a rather beat-up looking sign perched up on top of the wall of Target Field near center field.
Is that one sign in center field the only place the logo is left? If so, I suppose some activists could take some chains out there and drag it down. Or perhaps somebody with some brown paint could do what Crutchfield suggests and just go paint Paul’s hands and face brown. But is this really the biggest fish we have left to fry in our ongoing wokeness parade?


hotair--2020-08-13--Boom: Voters give Fulton County DA the boot after corruption allegations, charges against police

Looks like the strategy of charging two police officers for shooting a suspect that had assaulted them and then tried firing a Taser at them has backfired on Paul Howard .
Voters in Fulton County booted the longtime DA from office in Tuesday ’ s primary , with challenger Fani Willis leading by forty-five points .
Willis becomes the first female Fulton County DA , and the first new DA since 1997 .
Howard ’ s not going to be done in court , however .
In fact , he might be making more personal appearances at the bench than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire after the FOX 5 I-Team uncovered the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was looking into allegations that Howard used grant money from the City of Atlanta to nonprofits under his control .
One of those non-profits paid Howard at least $ 140,000 in city grant money .
He agreed to pay a $ 6,500 state ethics fine for failing to disclose his role as a CEO for two non-profits .
The GBI was investigating the way grand jury subpoenas were issued by Howard ’ s office in the Rayshard Brooks murder case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ female employees have filed lawsuits alleging harassment or discrimination .
Howard dismissed the harassment and discrimination allegations , saying they ’ re baseless and politically motivated .
He also said there was no wrongdoing involving the salary supplement or the subpoenas .
The Brooks shooting is still under investigation by the GBI , but Howard decided to charge the two Atlanta PD officers anyway .
The GBI publicly blasted that decision , insisting that Howard should have allowed the investigation to finish before making a charging decision .
When Howard short-circuited the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the job , neighboring police departments refused to help out unless an officer was in danger , and crime skyrocketed .
The shooting death of an eight-year-old girl at the hands of rioters finally snapped Atlanta ’ s leadership into some sort of action , but police are still feeling the need to protect themselves before protecting the city .
It seems as though Fulton County voters were a just a wee bit unhappy with that chain of events , set in motion by Howard .
They are likely equally unhappy about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the usual monetary variety and of the charging process .
The GBI is still investigating Howard for potential felony violations in the latter .
Last week , Howard paid the state $ 6500 in fines for the $ 140,000 kickback he engineered , as Fox 5 notes above .
That was just for the campaign-finance part of that issue , however ; Howard still might get prosecuted on criminal charges , a decision that will have to get made by the GBI and Willis at some point .
That means we haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Howard hasn ’ t seen the last of courtrooms , although perhaps so as an attorney .
The state bar will likely have something to say about Howard ’ s future career , given all of the corruption allegations around him .
In the meantime , perhaps Willis will start off by undoing the chicanery surrounding the charges related to the Brooks shooting and let the GBI do their job .

Looks like the strategy of charging two police officers for shooting a suspect that had assaulted them and then tried firing a Taser at them has backfired on Paul Howard. Voters in Fulton County booted the longtime DA from office in Tuesday’s primary, with challenger Fani Willis leading by forty-five points. Willis becomes the first female Fulton County DA, and the first new DA since 1997.
Howard’s not going to be done in court, however. In fact, he might be making more personal appearances at the bench than ever before:
Howard recently came under fire after the FOX 5 I-Team uncovered the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was looking into allegations that Howard used grant money from the City of Atlanta to nonprofits under his control. One of those non-profits paid Howard at least $140,000 in city grant money. He agreed to pay a $6,500 state ethics fine for failing to disclose his role as a CEO for two non-profits. The GBI was investigating the way grand jury subpoenas were issued by Howard’s office in the Rayshard Brooks murder case. In addition, three past or present female employees have filed lawsuits alleging harassment or discrimination. Howard dismissed the harassment and discrimination allegations, saying they’re baseless and politically motivated. He also said there was no wrongdoing involving the salary supplement or the subpoenas.
The Brooks shooting is still under investigation by the GBI, but Howard decided to charge the two Atlanta PD officers anyway. The GBI publicly blasted that decision, insisting that Howard should have allowed the investigation to finish before making a charging decision. When Howard short-circuited the process, Atlanta police officers started walking off the job, neighboring police departments refused to help out unless an officer was in danger, and crime skyrocketed. The shooting death of an eight-year-old girl at the hands of rioters finally snapped Atlanta’s leadership into some sort of action, but police are still feeling the need to protect themselves before protecting the city.
It seems as though Fulton County voters were a just a wee bit unhappy with that chain of events, set in motion by Howard. They are likely equally unhappy about the allegations of corruption by Howard, both of the usual monetary variety and of the charging process. The GBI is still investigating Howard for potential felony violations in the latter. Last week, Howard paid the state $6500 in fines for the $140,000 kickback he engineered, as Fox 5 notes above. That was just for the campaign-finance part of that issue, however; Howard still might get prosecuted on criminal charges, a decision that will have to get made by the GBI and Willis at some point.
That means we haven’t seen the last of Howard, and Howard hasn’t seen the last of courtrooms, although perhaps so as an attorney. The state bar will likely have something to say about Howard’s future career, given all of the corruption allegations around him. In the meantime, perhaps Willis will start off by undoing the chicanery surrounding the charges related to the Brooks shooting and let the GBI do their job.


hotair--2020-08-14--CNN reveals Pentagon launching <i>another</i> UFO/UAP program in coming days?

For quite some time , while some of us were shouting from the rooftops , trying to draw attention to the Pentagon ’ s UFO/UAP programs , you never heard a peep out of CNN about it .
This month , however , you can barely get them to shut up about it .
( I mean that in a good way , of course , and encourage them to continue . )
Two weeks ago both Jake Tapper and Michael Smerconish ran segments dealing with the topic .
But last night , the cable news staple released some breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in unidentified flying objects ( or unidentified aerial phenomena , as they prefer to say it these days ) .
According to CNN ’ s sources , the Pentagon is forming “ a new task force ” to study UFOs and it will be announced in the next few days .
But wait a minute… didn ’ t we already have one of those ?
Let ’ s see what they ’ ve got to offer .
The Pentagon is forming a new task force to investigate UFOs that have been observed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense officials .
Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist will help oversee the task force , which is expected to be officially unveiled in the next few days , according to the officials .
Previous efforts to look into what the Pentagon dubs unidentified aerial phenomena were led by the US Navy as many of the documented encounters involved their aircraft .
The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
Members of Congress and Pentagon officials have long expressed concerns about the appearance of the unidentified aircraft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , posing a risk to military jets .
There is no consensus on their origin with some believing they may be drones potentially operated by earthly adversaries seeking to gather intelligence rather than extraterrestrials .
Could the Pentagon really be preparing to announce a brand new task force to study UFOs ?
As regular readers will recall , we ’ ve known about the existence of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force ( UAPTF ) literally for months now , ever since Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough dropped that bombshell on us .
Later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ task force by name when announcing some new legislation from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence .
Did CNN not hear about that or is this really something different ?
Okay… there ’ s one of three things happening here and I ’ ll briefly examine them in order , along with providing some information from a journalist who is deep on the inside of this story .
The possibilities would seem to be as follows : 1 .
The network ran with a couple of anonymous DoD officials and misinterpreted the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UAPTF .
2 .
There is an official announcement forthcoming , but it ’ s more of an “ official ” launch ( or perhaps “ rebranding ” ) of the existing program .
3 .
There actually is a brand new task force taking over the former duties of AATIP and then the UAPTF .
In reverse order , number 3 just seems unlikely in the extreme .
The government remains very gunshy about discussing this topic until somebody drags them kicking and screaming up to a microphone .
Why generate even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would basically just replace a system that you already have in place ?
The only way I could see that happening was if Rubio ’ s rather stinging indictment of the disorganized way the Pentagon handles information on this subject spurred them to action .
The language in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 definitely made it sound as if the right hand doesn ’ t know what the left hand is doing over there .
Perhaps they ’ re seeking to rectify that situation by reorganizing the entire operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t imagine a behemoth the size of the Pentagon getting anything that sweeping done in only seven weeks .
Returning to my list of options , items 1 and 2 can basically be combined together .
It ’ s entirely possible that we ’ re still talking about the existing UAPTF and there was just some misinterpretation going on by either the DoD officials speaking on background or CNN ’ s reporters .
Stranger things have happened .
But that ’ s not the only possibility .
What this may turn out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement of the existence of the UAPTF .
So what do I mean by that ?
You probably recall some of the momentary excitement that was boiling up in the news cycle back in April when the Pentagon announced that they were releasing three UFO videos .
But then we clicked on the link and found that they were the exact same videos we ’ d known about and been watching on a loop since late 2017 and early 2018 .
What they were doing , however , was “ officially ” releasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rounds and taking ownership of them .
There was never any sort of official announcement of the formation of the UAPTF as the follow-on program taking the baton from AATIP .
Yes , the existence of the task force became known ( and confirmed for all intents and purposes ) when Susan Gaugh made reference to it .
And when Marco Rubio ’ s committee put the name in the IAA in June that pretty much sealed the deal .
But the Pentagon had never actually offered an official acknowledgment that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s never been a definite declaration of what the name is .
( Does the P in UAPTF stand for “ phenomenon ” or “ phenomena ?
” They ’ ve used both , though the singular “ phenomenon ” wouldn ’ t make much sense in this context . )
I ’ m leaning toward that last explanation and I have additional reason to believe that ’ s the case .
Last night , some of us were batting around this news on # UFOtwitter and a rather definitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who we have spoken with here before on a couple of occasions .
When Jason McClellan ( another UFO researcher ) suggested this was the literal “ launch ” of the task force , Tim made a pretty definitive declaration that it wasn ’ t .
After I suggested that he might be right , but this sounded like some sort of a “ rebranding ” effort on the part of the Pentagon , Tim tossed the following meme at me .
While nothing relating to this topic is ever a 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ( and even then things can get dodgy ) , Tim has been talking to everyone involved with this story for a few years now .
He has impeccable contacts in the government , the military , TTSA , and among fellow journalists who follow this subject closely .
If he ’ s willing to say that the announcement is specifically dealing with the existing Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ( or Phenomenon ) Task Force rather than the something entirely new or a revelation that the task force didn ’ t actually exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much willing to take that to the bank .
In any event , assuming CNN didn ’ t miss the train entirely on this story , we should know in the coming days .
Hang in there , folks .
This story is far from over and I still maintain that it could eventually wind up being one of the biggest revelations to take place in our lifetimes .

For quite some time, while some of us were shouting from the rooftops, trying to draw attention to the Pentagon’s UFO/UAP programs, you never heard a peep out of CNN about it. This month, however, you can barely get them to shut up about it. (I mean that in a good way, of course, and encourage them to continue.) Two weeks ago both Jake Tapper and Michael Smerconish ran segments dealing with the topic. But last night, the cable news staple released some breaking news about the military and their interest in unidentified flying objects (or unidentified aerial phenomena, as they prefer to say it these days). According to CNN’s sources, the Pentagon is forming “a new task force” to study UFOs and it will be announced in the next few days. But wait a minute… didn’t we already have one of those? Let’s see what they’ve got to offer.
The Pentagon is forming a new task force to investigate UFOs that have been observed by US military aircraft, according to two defense officials. Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist will help oversee the task force, which is expected to be officially unveiled in the next few days, according to the officials. Previous efforts to look into what the Pentagon dubs unidentified aerial phenomena were led by the US Navy as many of the documented encounters involved their aircraft. The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Members of Congress and Pentagon officials have long expressed concerns about the appearance of the unidentified aircraft that have flown over US military bases, posing a risk to military jets. There is no consensus on their origin with some believing they may be drones potentially operated by earthly adversaries seeking to gather intelligence rather than extraterrestrials.
Could the Pentagon really be preparing to announce a brand new task force to study UFOs? As regular readers will recall, we’ve known about the existence of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) literally for months now, ever since Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough dropped that bombshell on us. Later, Senator Marco Rubio called out the task force by name when announcing some new legislation from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Did CNN not hear about that or is this really something different?
Okay… there’s one of three things happening here and I’ll briefly examine them in order, along with providing some information from a journalist who is deep on the inside of this story. The possibilities would seem to be as follows:
1. The network ran with a couple of anonymous DoD officials and misinterpreted the fact that they were talking about the existing UAPTF.
2. There is an official announcement forthcoming, but it’s more of an “official” launch (or perhaps “rebranding”) of the existing program.
3. There actually is a brand new task force taking over the former duties of AATIP and then the UAPTF.
In reverse order, number 3 just seems unlikely in the extreme. The government remains very gunshy about discussing this topic until somebody drags them kicking and screaming up to a microphone. Why generate even more headlines by unveiling a new program that would basically just replace a system that you already have in place? The only way I could see that happening was if Rubio’s rather stinging indictment of the disorganized way the Pentagon handles information on this subject spurred them to action. The language in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 definitely made it sound as if the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing over there. Perhaps they’re seeking to rectify that situation by reorganizing the entire operation? Possibly, but I can’t imagine a behemoth the size of the Pentagon getting anything that sweeping done in only seven weeks.
Returning to my list of options, items 1 and 2 can basically be combined together. It’s entirely possible that we’re still talking about the existing UAPTF and there was just some misinterpretation going on by either the DoD officials speaking on background or CNN’s reporters. Stranger things have happened.
But that’s not the only possibility. What this may turn out to be is the “officially official” announcement of the existence of the UAPTF. So what do I mean by that? You probably recall some of the momentary excitement that was boiling up in the news cycle back in April when the Pentagon announced that they were releasing three UFO videos. But then we clicked on the link and found that they were the exact same videos we’d known about and been watching on a loop since late 2017 and early 2018. What they were doing, however, was “officially” releasing the videos that had already been making the rounds and taking ownership of them.
There was never any sort of official announcement of the formation of the UAPTF as the follow-on program taking the baton from AATIP. Yes, the existence of the task force became known (and confirmed for all intents and purposes) when Susan Gough made reference to it. And when Marco Rubio’s committee put the name in the IAA in June that pretty much sealed the deal. But the Pentagon had never actually offered an official acknowledgment that the program existed. And for that matter, there’s never been a definite declaration of what the name is. (Does the P in UAPTF stand for “phenomenon” or “phenomena?” They’ve used both, though the singular “phenomenon” wouldn’t make much sense in this context.)
I’m leaning toward that last explanation and I have an additional reason to believe that’s the case. Last night, some of us were batting around this news on #UFOtwitter and a rather definitive statement was offered by Lt. Tim McMillan, who we have spoken with here before on a couple of occasions. When Jason McClellan (another UFO researcher) suggested this was the literal “launch” of the task force, Tim made a pretty definitive declaration that it wasn’t.
Write it down in your journal and circle the date. In the coming days the DoD will put out an official press statement acknowledging the ONGOING Task Force (which is not newly established) and state for the record the Navy is the branch heading the effort. — Lt. Tim McMillan (Ret.) (@LtTimMcMillan) August 13, 2020
After I suggested that he might be right, but this sounded like some sort of a “rebranding” effort on the part of the Pentagon, Tim tossed the following meme at me.
While nothing relating to this topic is ever a 100% sure bet until the government confirms it (and even then things can get dodgy), Tim has been talking to everyone involved with this story for a few years now. He has impeccable contacts in the government, the military, TTSA, and among fellow journalists who follow this subject closely. If he’s willing to say that the announcement is specifically dealing with the existing Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (or Phenomenon) Task Force rather than something entirely new or a revelation that the task force didn’t actually exist until now, I’m pretty much willing to take that to the bank. In any event, assuming CNN didn’t miss the train entirely on this story, we should know in the coming days. Hang in there, folks. This story is far from over and I still maintain that it could eventually wind up being one of the biggest revelations to take place in our lifetimes.
(Corrected Susan Gough’s name in original article.)


hotair--2020-08-13--Heads roll: Sweeping staff changes made at VOA after pro-Biden ad released, hiring foreign workers

There is a new man in charge of the US Agency for Global Media ( USAGM ) .
Confirmed by the Senate in June , Michael Pack oversees government global communications organizations such as the Voice of America , as well as regional networks .
Previously , Pack was President of Manifold Productions , Inc. , an independent film and television production company that he founded in 1977 .
Pack fired a group of broadcasting chiefs in June .
His mission is one of redirecting the global news agency that was founded during the Cold War .
The Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has lost its way .
Voice of America does not exist just to deliver news , it a critical soft power component of American global strategy .
It is a public information agency .
It exists to support and promote American values abroad .
VOA also is supposed to counter messages seeking to harm the U.S. image and promote disinformation .
The mission does affect editorial choices .
So , Pack is cleaning house at VOA .
The latest to feel the change is Tabinda Naeem , digital managing director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Naeem was placed on leave and may face termination because of a pro-Biden video .
Four contractors involved in the video have been informed that their contracts will be terminated .
The video was released last month and set off a kerfuffle .
Critics saw the video as proof that the mission of the VOA has been breached , as it is to be a non-partisan messenger of U.S. views to the world .
The video is an outreach from the Biden campaign to Muslim voters .
Subtitles are in Urdu .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the video , some members of The Squad – the female Muslim members of The Squad – make an appearance .
There is nothing subtle about the message – it is a get-out-the-vote effort by Team Biden .
It begins with Biden saying “ I will end the Muslim ban on Day One.
” You know , the travel ban .
I told you it isn ’ t subtle .
Quoting the prophet Mohammad is an unexpected touch .
I don ’ t know that I ’ ve ever heard Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good practicing Catholic he is , quote Mohammad .
Hey , it ’ s an election year .
Let the pandering continue , right ?
The narrator says , “ Make no mistake , people .
2020 is our year.
” Whose year , now ?
He pledges to have Muslim Americans in his administration .
The video is a part of the Million Muslim Voter Campaign .
Rep. Ilhan Omar , Rep. Rashida Tlaib are in the video .
Even Linda Sansour , the anti-Semitic co-founder of the Women ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he doesn ’ t look his best .
He looks , well , sleepy and in need of a good nap .
He doesn ’ t even look like he sincerely believes what he is saying .
It is , however , definitely a campaign ad .
A campaign ad for the sitting president ’ s opponent .
That ’ s not exactly non-partisan .
Some senior leaders in USAGM have been put on leave and their security clearances suspended .
Pack separately informed seven senior leaders of the USAGM in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that their security clearances were suspended and they are on leave over concerns about the hiring of foreign workers , sources told The Post .
USAGM General Counsel David Kligerman , Chief Financial Officer Grant Turner and executive director Oanh Tran are among the seven placed on leave and stripped of their clearances , sources told The Post .
A spokesman for the USAGM told The Post : “ We took action today to restore integrity to and respect for the rule of law in our work at USAGM .
We will take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its glory days.
” Make Voice of America great again .
Voice of America has not exactly been terrific in getting the Trump administration ’ s messages out .
And , there is the matter of hiring foreign workers .
Pack says the previous VOA administration hired about 1500 foreign workers , many who were not properly vetted .
Pack and allies say the hiring was done inappropriately , and that security clearances were issued despite allegedly insufficient vetting , including of Chinese citizens .
“ Under previous USAGM leaders , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to the appropriate investigative authorities – or , in other cases , failed to take fingerprints altogether , ” a source said of the review .
“ It used aliases and fake social security numbers .
It did not require foreign travel and foreign contacts to be disclosed .
And in many cases , USAGM hired individuals who left their background and security forms blank.
” VOA has been reviewing journalist work visas that expire on a case by case basis , instilling fear among reporters and producers in Washington .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese propaganda , especially during the coronavirus pandemic .
Democrats and some Republicans criticized Trump for making the change in leadership at USAGM .
Swamp creatures don ’ t like change and it seems that even some Republicans are not particularly concerned about the messages received overseas .
This sort of change has been going on since 1943 , though , when FDR ’ s White House forced the very first VOA director to resign over an appearance of being too close to pro-Soviet messaging .
It was President Obama that took control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board of governors and put it in the control of the executive branch .
Presidents now have the ability to appoint , with Senate confirmation , a full-time CEO .
The CEO reports to the president just as cabinet secretaries do .
Thanks , Obama .
For too long , VOA played fast and loose with the rules .
Now it ’ s time for a correction .
Biden was endorsed by the Million Muslim Votes Summit in July .

There is a new man in charge of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM). Confirmed by the Senate in June, Michael Pack oversees government global communications organizations such as the Voice of America, as well as regional networks. Previously, Pack was President of Manifold Productions, Inc., an independent film and television production company that he founded in 1977.
Pack fired a group of broadcasting chiefs in June. His mission is one of redirecting the global news agency that was founded during the Cold War. The Trump administration thinks Voice of America, in particular, has lost its way. Voice of America does not exist just to deliver news, it a critical soft power component of American global strategy. It is a public information agency. It exists to support and promote American values abroad. VOA also is supposed to counter messages seeking to harm the U.S. image and promote disinformation. The mission does affect editorial choices.
So, Pack is cleaning house at VOA. The latest to feel the change is Tabinda Naeem, digital managing director of the VOA’s Urdu language service. Naeem was placed on leave and may face termination because of a pro-Biden video. Four contractors involved in the video have been informed that their contracts will be terminated. The video was released last month and set off a kerfuffle. Critics saw the video as proof that the mission of the VOA has been breached, as it is to be a non-partisan messenger of U.S. views to the world. The video is an outreach from the Biden campaign to Muslim voters. Subtitles are in Urdu. Biden is prominently featured and at the end of the video, some members of The Squad – the female Muslim members of The Squad – make an appearance. There is nothing subtle about the message – it is a get-out-the-vote effort by Team Biden. It begins with Biden saying “I will end the Muslim ban on Day One.” You know, the travel ban. I told you it isn’t subtle.
Quoting the prophet Mohammad is an unexpected touch. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard Joe Biden, who is usually telling us what a good practicing Catholic he is, quote Mohammad. Hey, it’s an election year. Let the pandering continue, right? The narrator says, “Make no mistake, people. 2020 is our year.” Whose year, now? He pledges to have Muslim Americans in his administration. The video is a part of the Million Muslim Voter Campaign. Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib are in the video. Even Linda Sansour, the anti-Semitic co-founder of the Women’s March pops up.
Poor old Joe, he doesn’t look his best. He looks, well, sleepy and in need of a good nap. He doesn’t even look like he sincerely believes what he is saying. It is, however, definitely a campaign ad. A campaign ad for the sitting president’s opponent. That’s not exactly non-partisan.
Some senior leaders in USAGM have been put on leave and their security clearances suspended.
Pack separately informed seven senior leaders of the USAGM in Washington — via courier service on Wednesday — that their security clearances were suspended and they are on leave over concerns about the hiring of foreign workers, sources told The Post. USAGM General Counsel David Kligerman, Chief Financial Officer Grant Turner and executive director Oanh Tran are among the seven placed on leave and stripped of their clearances, sources told The Post. A spokesman for the USAGM told The Post: “We took action today to restore integrity to and respect for the rule of law in our work at USAGM. We will take additional steps to help return this agency to its glory days.”
Make Voice of America great again. Voice of America has not exactly been terrific in getting the Trump administration’s messages out.
And, there is the matter of hiring foreign workers. Pack says the previous VOA administration hired about 1500 foreign workers, many who were not properly vetted.
Pack and allies say the hiring was done inappropriately, and that security clearances were issued despite allegedly insufficient vetting, including of Chinese citizens. “Under previous USAGM leaders, the agency took fingerprints but neglected to submit them to the appropriate investigative authorities – or, in other cases, failed to take fingerprints altogether,” a source said of the review. “It used aliases and fake social security numbers. It did not require foreign travel and foreign contacts to be disclosed. And in many cases, USAGM hired individuals who left their background and security forms blank.” VOA has been reviewing journalist work visas that expire on a case by case basis, instilling fear among reporters and producers in Washington.
The Trump administration has complained that VOA delivers Chinese propaganda, especially during the coronavirus pandemic. Democrats and some Republicans criticized Trump for making the change in leadership at USAGM. Swamp creatures don’t like change and it seems that even some Republicans are not particularly concerned about the messages received overseas. This sort of change has been going on since 1943, though, when FDR’s White House forced the very first VOA director to resign over an appearance of being too close to pro-Soviet messaging. It was President Obama that took control of the USAGM leadership away from its board of governors and put it in the control of the executive branch. Presidents now have the ability to appoint, with Senate confirmation, a full-time CEO. The CEO reports to the president just as cabinet secretaries do.
Thanks, Obama. For too long, VOA played fast and loose with the rules. Now it’s time for a correction.
Biden was endorsed by the Million Muslim Votes Summit in July.


hotair--2020-08-13--Trump: I heard a very talented lawyer say that maybe Kamala Harris isn't eligible to be president

Imagine being the reporter who asked him about this , chumming the waters with a Birther question in the desperate hope that he ’ d take the bait , only to watch him lunge right at it .
It ’ d be the luckiest day of your life .
After all , he had every reason to shrug off the question .
There ’ s not a man or woman alive who ’ ll enjoy the clip below and wasn ’ t voting for Trump already .
It earns him nothing .
Meanwhile , it ’ s an engraved invitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him a racist .
He ’ s now had three political enemies over the past decade whose eligibility for the presidency he ’ s questioned , and coincidentally they all happen to be racial minorities .
In 2011 , when he first made a splash in politics , he accused Obama of lying about being born in Hawaii ; in 2016 , during the Republican primary , he wondered if Ted Cruz could be lawfully elected since he was born in Canada to a mother who ’ s an American citizen ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s idly wondering if the Democrats ’ VP nominee , who ’ s of Jamaican and Indian descent , might be disqualified too .
Democrats will get much more political mileage from this than Republicans will .
But this is who Trump is and the reporter recognized so she tossed him this chum .
And he bit .
He ’ s so lazy in making these insinuations that he doesn ’ t even get the claim against Harris right .
No one , including the “ very talented ” lawyer whom he mentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t born in the U.S. Watch , then read on : The claim , by law professor John Eastman , is that Harris is ineligible because neither of her parents was an American citizen when she was born in California .
Border hawks have been pushing to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment that way for years , in order to take away the incentive of illegal aliens to cross the border , give birth on U.S. soil , then use their child ’ s natural-born citizenship to qualify for remaining here permanently as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , under the law as it stood when Harris was born , and given that her parents were then temporary visitors to the U.S. , she wasn ’ t “ subject to the jurisdiction ” of the United States at her birth and therefore wasn ’ t a natural-born citizen .
Needless to say , other legal scholars disagree and it ’ s farcical to think the Supreme Court would toss a major party ’ s VP nominee off the ballot in the home stretch of an election based on a narrow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Practically speaking the argument is a nonstarter , except as a talking point for people who want to insinuate that the black woman in the race is less American than the rest of us .
Like Trump .
Tiana Lowe is correct that the stench of desperation around this is suffocating .
Harris ’ s record is rich with targets for criticism , and instead this is the thing Trump and various social-media MAGA-bots are chattering on today .
As her spectacular flameout of the Democratic primary proved , Harris is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vicious but largely ineffective in her attacks , and the bearer of plenty of baggage .
The easiest line of attack for President Trump at the moment is to argue that the seemingly senile Biden will be a president in name only , whereas the corrupt cop Kamala will redirect law enforcement and the courts to come after your churches and your guns while rioters are given free rein to turn the rest of the nation into Portland , Oregon .
This is an argument that makes neither Harris ’ s race nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it appeals to people of color who have seen what the rage and rioting of woke whites have wrought for actual working-class communities of color .
It might also appeal to women who may dislike Trump but still care about their rights to worship and carry .
Instead , one of Trump ’ s most increasingly visible surrogates [ legal advisor Jenna Ellis ] is baiting him to revive his single most racist controversy in a move that will only re-enrage the swing voters revolted with his personality .
Bear in mind that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing voters is race relations .
Kevin Williamson isn ’ t wrong when he says that Harris was put on the ticket not so much to appeal to black voters as to appeal to educated white ones .
“ Black voters do not naturally want to join a party with a bad reputation on race , ” he writes .
“ But the more numerically significant fact is this : Neither do white voters.
” In fact , one plausible explanation for why Biden ’ s lead over Trump swelled in June and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit this month is that Trump ’ s tone-deaf reactions to the George Floyd protests irritated some white voters who are open to voting GOP but are liberal-minded on race .
Now that the protests have fallen off their radar , their irritation has eased .
So here comes Trump floating Birther theories about Kamala Harris to give the media a new reason to remind those voters that maybe they don ’ t want to vote for a guy with a “ bad reputation ” on race .
It ’ s malpractice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefings , which are supposed to be more “ focused ” on the pandemic now .
And because he ’ s gone to this well so many times before , it ’ ll be that much easier for people to dismiss the substance of the allegation against Harris out of hand .
“ What ?
He accused the black candidate of being a foreigner ?
Meh , that ’ s just sh*t Trump says .
He ’ s a racist.
” Big vote-getter .
I ’ ll leave you with another clip from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot about the “ Resistance ” that they were high-fiving on social media this afternoon over this grandstanding reporter .
He had a chance to get some information from Trump , played to the cheap seats instead , and is being rewarded for it instead of scolded for blowing the opportunity .
Very on-brand for America 2020 .

Imagine being the reporter who asked him about this, chumming the waters with a Birther question in the desperate hope that he’d take the bait, only to watch him lunge right at it.
It’d be the luckiest day of your life.
After all, he had every reason to shrug off the question. There’s not a man or woman alive who’ll enjoy the clip below and wasn’t voting for Trump already. It earns him nothing. Meanwhile, it’s an engraved invitation for Democrats and the media to call him a racist. He’s now had three political enemies over the past decade whose eligibility for the presidency he’s questioned, and coincidentally they all happen to be racial minorities. In 2011, when he first made a splash in politics, he accused Obama of lying about being born in Hawaii; in 2016, during the Republican primary, he wondered if Ted Cruz could be lawfully elected since he was born in Canada to a mother who’s an American citizen; and now, in 2020, he’s idly wondering if the Democrats’ VP nominee, who’s of Jamaican and Indian descent, might be disqualified too. Democrats will get much more political mileage from this than Republicans will.
But this is who Trump is and the reporter recognized so she tossed him this chum. And he bit.
He’s so lazy in making these insinuations that he doesn’t even get the claim against Harris right. No one, including the “very talented” lawyer whom he mentions, is alleging that she wasn’t born in the U.S. Watch, then read on:
President Trump on claims that :Kamala Harris isn't eligible to run for Vice President because she's an anchor baby: "I heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements…I have no idea if that's right. I would have assumed the Democrats would have checked that out." pic.twitter.com/H887X43GJK — CSPAN (@cspan) August 13, 2020
The claim, by law professor John Eastman, is that Harris is ineligible because neither of her parents was an American citizen when she was born in California. Border hawks have been pushing to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment that way for years, in order to take away the incentive of illegal aliens to cross the border, give birth on U.S. soil, then use their child’s natural-born citizenship to qualify for remaining here permanently as well. Eastman’s argument is that, under the law as it stood when Harris was born, and given that her parents were then temporary visitors to the U.S., she wasn’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at her birth and therefore wasn’t a natural-born citizen. Needless to say, other legal scholars disagree and it’s farcical to think the Supreme Court would toss a major party’s VP nominee off the ballot in the home stretch of an election based on a narrow, hotly contested reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. Practically speaking the argument is a nonstarter, except as a talking point for people who want to insinuate that the black woman in the race is less American than the rest of us. Like Trump.
Tiana Lowe is correct that the stench of desperation around this is suffocating. Harris’s record is rich with targets for criticism, and instead this is the thing Trump and various social-media MAGA-bots are chattering on today.
As her spectacular flameout of the Democratic primary proved, Harris is a paper tiger — telegenic but rigid, vicious but largely ineffective in her attacks, and the bearer of plenty of baggage. The easiest line of attack for President Trump at the moment is to argue that the seemingly senile Biden will be a president in name only, whereas the corrupt cop Kamala will redirect law enforcement and the courts to come after your churches and your guns while rioters are given free rein to turn the rest of the nation into Portland, Oregon. This is an argument that makes neither Harris’s race nor gender an issue. If anything, it appeals to people of color who have seen what the rage and rioting of woke whites have wrought for actual working-class communities of color. It might also appeal to women who may dislike Trump but still care about their rights to worship and carry. Instead, one of Trump’s most increasingly visible surrogates [legal advisor Jenna Ellis] is baiting him to revive his single most racist controversy in a move that will only re-enrage the swing voters revolted with his personality.
Bear in mind that one of his biggest liabilities with suburban swing voters is race relations. Kevin Williamson isn’t wrong when he says that Harris was put on the ticket not so much to appeal to black voters as to appeal to educated white ones. “Black voters do not naturally want to join a party with a bad reputation on race,” he writes. “But the more numerically significant fact is this: Neither do white voters.” In fact, one plausible explanation for why Biden’s lead over Trump swelled in June and July and then began to recede a bit this month is that Trump’s tone-deaf reactions to the George Floyd protests irritated some white voters who are open to voting GOP but are liberal-minded on race. Now that the protests have fallen off their radar, their irritation has eased. So here comes Trump floating Birther theories about Kamala Harris to give the media a new reason to remind those voters that maybe they don’t want to vote for a guy with a “bad reputation” on race.
It’s malpractice, especially coming at one of his coronavirus briefings, which are supposed to be more “focused” on the pandemic now. And because he’s gone to this well so many times before, it’ll be that much easier for people to dismiss the substance of the allegation against Harris out of hand. “What? He accused the black candidate of being a foreigner? Meh, that’s just sh*t Trump says. He’s a racist.” Big vote-getter.
I’ll leave you with another clip from the briefing. It tells you a lot about the “Resistance” that they were high-fiving on social media this afternoon over this grandstanding reporter. He had a chance to get some information from Trump, played to the cheap seats instead, and is being rewarded for it instead of scolded for blowing the opportunity. Very on-brand for America 2020.


hotair--2020-08-14--Trump will accept the GOP nomination at the White House

The decision has been made .
President Trump will accept the Republican nomination at the White House .
The RNC and the Trump campaign have scrambled to put together some version of a convention this year while the country continues to battle the coronavirus pandemic .
Now it looks like the president will remain at the White House and deliver his nomination speech at the White House .
The subject of where the best place would be for Trump to accept the nomination has been circulating since earlier this summer when it became clear that a real convention wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floated some possibilities , including Gettsyburg , along with the White House .
Critics quickly jumped in to say that the White House was a bad idea , possibly an illegal idea .
Lawmakers weighed in and others , like the former spokesman for Trump ’ s inaugural committee .
A visit to Gettysburg has been put on the back burner .
Trump says he ’ ll visit “ at a later date ” .
President Trump cites the available space for an outdoor event that would allow social distancing as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheer him on .
He ’ s comfortable there .
“ I ’ ll probably be giving my speech at the White House because it is a great place .
It ’ s a place that makes me feel good , it makes the country feel good , ” Trump told the Post , saying it would also be easiest for law enforcement and the Secret Service .
“ We ’ d do it possibly outside on one of the lawns , we have various lawns , so we could have it outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he continued , referring to social distancing guidelines amid the coronavirus pandemic .
“ We could have quite a group of people .
It ’ s very big , a very big lawn .
We could have a big group of people , ” he said when asked if he ’ d formally accept the Republican nomination for president with a crowd of supporters .
I admit that when Trump first mentioned the White House as a possible venue I rolled my eyes .
It sounded more like a stunt than humbly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its presidential candidate .
I ’ m more of a stickler for tradition .
Also , it ’ s hard to think about it without remembering that the White House is The People ’ s House – not just the sitting president ’ s residence .
But , as the idea settled in , I have come around to thinking it may be a perfect choice .
In fact , the decision may end up being a good choice for the optics of the re-election campaign .
Think about it – in normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House or not would not have to be made because we would be working with a template put into place years ago for political conventions .
A big stadium or arena or convention center would provide enough seats for all the party delegates from across the country .
All the pomp and circumstance would be on display .
It ’ s political theatre .
It also allows the presidential candidate to be seen on primetime television accepting the nomination with the background of cheering supporters .
This is 2020 , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no regular conventions .
Democrats and Republicans have to wing it .
We know that Joe Biden is going to accept his nomination at home , from his basement recording studio , probably with Dr. Jill next to him to make sure he stays focused on the teleprompter .
So , it makes sense that Trump remains at home , so to speak , and accept his party ’ s nomination there .
Biden likes to pretend that his campaign keeps him in the basement to honor the guidance by the medical professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just doing the same thing , right ?
He ’ s keeping people safe and holding a smaller event outside where social distancing will be easy and yet he still gets the optic of having a crowd .
Is this legal ?
Yes , according to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel .
Rep. Carolyn Maloney , a Democrat from New York , is the chairwoman of the House Oversight and reform Committee , requested an advisory opinion concerning the Hatch Act .
( The Hatch Act is a federal law that prohibits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) The president and the vice-president are not subject to the Hatch Act prohibitions .
The guidance from the agency came in an advisory opinion issued in response to a request from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York , the chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee , concerning the Hatch Act , a federal law that governs the political activity of executive branch employees .
The Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act and other laws concerning federal employees .
“ The president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any provisions of the Hatch Act , ” Erica Hamrick , deputy chief of the office ’ s Hatch Act Unit , told Maloney in a letter Wednesday .
“ Accordingly , the Hatch Act does not prohibit President Trump from delivering his RNC acceptance speech on White House grounds.
” There are boundaries for White House employees , though , and they will have to adhere to them .
The boundaries are already in place , however , as it is the same for any president who runs for re-election .
White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign staff and activities .
While Hamrick said Mr. Trump would be cleared to deliver his address accepting the Republican nomination from the White House , she noted the Hatch Act does cover White House employees , so there could be implications for Mr. Trump ’ s aides depending on their level of involvement with the speech and their role with the administration .
White House employees , for example , could not assist with the convention event while on duty or in a federal room or building , according to the advisory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from attending the event while on duty .
That leaves us with the contrast between the two candidates and their acceptance speeches .
Which is better for optics – Joe Biden ’ s basement or a lovely summer day or evening on the grounds of the White House with a cheering crowd ?
Conventions are all about showmanship and in this case , there is no comparison .
Let Trump be Trump .
As long as he stays on the teleprompter and sticks to the prepared speech , the decision to do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to be a good choice .

The decision has been made. President Trump will accept the Republican nomination at the White House. The RNC and the Trump campaign have scrambled to put together some version of a convention this year while the country continues to battle the coronavirus pandemic. Now it looks like the president will remain at the White House and deliver his nomination speech at the White House.
The subject of where the best place would be for Trump to accept the nomination has been circulating since earlier this summer when it became clear that a real convention wasn’t going to happen. The president floated some possibilities, including Gettsyburg, along with the White House. Critics quickly jumped in to say that the White House was a bad idea, possibly an illegal idea. Lawmakers weighed in and others, like the former spokesman for Trump’s inaugural committee. A visit to Gettysburg has been put on the back burner. Trump says he’ll visit “at a later date”.
President Trump cites the available space for an outdoor event that would allow social distancing as well as give him a crowd of supporters to cheer him on. He’s comfortable there.
“I’ll probably be giving my speech at the White House because it is a great place. It’s a place that makes me feel good, it makes the country feel good,” Trump told the Post, saying it would also be easiest for law enforcement and the Secret Service. “We’d do it possibly outside on one of the lawns, we have various lawns, so we could have it outside in terms of the China virus,” he continued, referring to social distancing guidelines amid the coronavirus pandemic. “We could have quite a group of people. It’s very big, a very big lawn. We could have a big group of people,” he said when asked if he’d formally accept the Republican nomination for president with a crowd of supporters.
I admit that when Trump first mentioned the White House as a possible venue I rolled my eyes. It sounded more like a stunt than humbly accepting the GOP’s nomination for its presidential candidate. I’m more of a stickler for tradition. Also, it’s hard to think about it without remembering that the White House is The People’s House – not just the sitting president’s residence. But, as the idea settled in, I have come around to thinking it may be a perfect choice. In fact, the decision may end up being a good choice for the optics of the re-election campaign.
Think about it – in normal times, the choice of using the White House or not would not have to be made because we would be working with a template put into place years ago for political conventions. A big stadium or arena or convention center would provide enough seats for all the party delegates from across the country. All the pomp and circumstance would be on display. It’s political theatre. It also allows the presidential candidate to be seen on primetime television accepting the nomination with the background of cheering supporters. This is 2020, though, and nothing is normal. There are no regular conventions. Democrats and Republicans have to wing it.
We know that Joe Biden is going to accept his nomination at home, from his basement recording studio, probably with Dr. Jill next to him to make sure he stays focused on the teleprompter. So, it makes sense that Trump remains at home, so to speak, and accept his party’s nomination there. Biden likes to pretend that his campaign keeps him in the basement to honor the guidance by the medical professionals about mitigating the coronavirus. Trump is just doing the same thing, right? He’s keeping people safe and holding a smaller event outside where social distancing will be easy and yet he still gets the optic of having a crowd.
Is this legal? Yes, according to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, is the chairwoman of the House Oversight and reform Committee, requested an advisory opinion concerning the Hatch Act. (The Hatch Act is a federal law that prohibits political activity by executive branch employees.) The president and the vice-president are not subject to the Hatch Act prohibitions.
The guidance from the agency came in an advisory opinion issued in response to a request from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York, the chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, concerning the Hatch Act, a federal law that governs the political activity of executive branch employees. The Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act and other laws concerning federal employees. “The president and the vice president are not covered by any provisions of the Hatch Act,” Erica Hamrick, deputy chief of the office’s Hatch Act Unit, told Maloney in a letter Wednesday. “Accordingly, the Hatch Act does not prohibit President Trump from delivering his RNC acceptance speech on White House grounds.”
There are boundaries for White House employees, though, and they will have to adhere to them. The boundaries are already in place, however, as it is the same for any president who runs for re-election. White House employees have to remain separate from campaign staff and activities.
While Hamrick said Mr. Trump would be cleared to deliver his address accepting the Republican nomination from the White House, she noted the Hatch Act does cover White House employees, so there could be implications for Mr. Trump’s aides depending on their level of involvement with the speech and their role with the administration. White House employees, for example, could not assist with the convention event while on duty or in a federal room or building, according to the advisory opinion. They also would be barred from attending the event while on duty.
That leaves us with the contrast between the two candidates and their acceptance speeches. Which is better for optics – Joe Biden’s basement or a lovely summer day or evening on the grounds of the White House with a cheering crowd? Conventions are all about showmanship and in this case, there is no comparison. Let Trump be Trump. As long as he stays on the teleprompter and sticks to the prepared speech, the decision to do it at the White House will probably turn out to be a good choice.