hotair--2020-07-29--Unexpectedly, Minneapolis car thefts skyrocket with fewer cops available

A quick question for the Mayor and the City Council of Minneapolis .
How ’ s that whole “ abolish the police ” thing working out for you so far ?
The plan has hit a few rocky patches , with the Charter commission recently suggesting perhaps they need to slow down a bit before turning over control of the streets to social justice workers and armed militias .
So it ’ s turning out to be a bit of a problem for the politicians .
But do you know who ’ s really been benefitting from the shrinking number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The most recent numbers show that Grand Theft Auto has moved off of people ’ s Playstation screens and into the real world , with a spike in automobile thefts happening in numbers far outside of any statistical anomaly .
( CBS Minnesota ) Brazen robberies and car thefts , often in broad daylight , highlight a growing problem across the city .
According to Minneapolis Police Department crime data , there have been 2,170 stolen vehicles this year through July 26 .
That ’ s a 46 % increase over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,485 auto thefts happened .
There have been 886 robberies , a jump of 36 % over the same time last year .
CBS reviewed the case of Olivia Arnold and her boyfriend , a man who does gig-economy food deliveries for a side job .
He had pulled over at a customer ’ s house and in the ten seconds it took for him to jump out of his vehicle and drop off the delivery , a waiting thief jumped behind the wheel and took off .
And they aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city , there has been a 46 % increase in vehicle thefts along with a 36 % rise in robberies .
In the city ’ s third precinct they ’ ve seen an increase of more than 100 % in robberies , while car thefts are up by 67 % .
These property crimes come on the heels of a reported surge of violent crimes in similar proportions that Ed reported on last week .
It ’ s not hard to believe that the City Council simply isn ’ t listening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One resident named Steve Taylor who was interviewed for this report sees things going off the rails .
“ When ( City ) Council has their own armed security and community members are being robbed at gunpoint often in broad daylight , that just seems unfair.
” … “ I think we need more police .
Of course we need reformed police and better police that police all of Minneapolis equally , keep everyone equally safe from violent criminals , ” Taylor said .
Ironically , when the CBS reporters finished interviewing Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cameras caught “ a road rage incident involving a baseball bat ” at the corner up the street from his house .
And this was all taking place in broad daylight with no police in the area responding to the incident .
This is obviously the result of elected officials responding to mobs committing crimes by trying to eliminate the police to appease them .
Criminals see what ’ s going on and they move in to take advantage of the situation .
How was all of this not entirely predictable for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the streets ( as opposed to all of the rioters and other criminals ) make up only a small percentage of the entire city ’ s population .
And most of those people expect the municipal government to keep them safe .
That job isn ’ t currently being done .
But if the residents of the city go back in the fall and keep electing the same people again , we really can ’ t have all that much sympathy for them .

A quick question for the Mayor and the City Council of Minneapolis. How’s that whole “abolish the police” thing working out for you so far? The plan has hit a few rocky patches, with the Charter commission recently suggesting perhaps they need to slow down a bit before turning over control of the streets to social justice workers and armed militias. So it’s turning out to be a bit of a problem for the politicians. But do you know who’s really been benefitting from the shrinking number of cops on the force? Carjackers. The most recent numbers show that Grand Theft Auto has moved off of people’s Playstation screens and into the real world, with a spike in automobile thefts happening in numbers far outside of any statistical anomaly. (CBS Minnesota)
Brazen robberies and car thefts, often in broad daylight, highlight a growing problem across the city. According to Minneapolis Police Department crime data, there have been 2,170 stolen vehicles this year through July 26. That’s a 46% increase over the same time period in 2019 — when 1,485 auto thefts happened. There have been 886 robberies, a jump of 36% over the same time last year.
CBS reviewed the case of Olivia Arnold and her boyfriend, a man who does gig-economy food deliveries for a side job. He had pulled over at a customer’s house and in the ten seconds it took for him to jump out of his vehicle and drop off the delivery, a waiting thief jumped behind the wheel and took off. And they aren’t alone in experiencing these problems.
Across the city, there has been a 46% increase in vehicle thefts along with a 36% rise in robberies. In the city’s third precinct they’ve seen an increase of more than 100% in robberies, while car thefts are up by 67%. These property crimes come on the heels of a reported surge of violent crimes in similar proportions that Ed reported on last week.
It’s not hard to believe that the City Council simply isn’t listening to the concerns of its own citizens. One resident named Steve Taylor who was interviewed for this report sees things going off the rails.
“When (City) Council has their own armed security and community members are being robbed at gunpoint often in broad daylight, that just seems unfair.” … “I think we need more police. Of course we need reformed police and better police that police all of Minneapolis equally, keep everyone equally safe from violent criminals,” Taylor said.
Ironically, when the CBS reporters finished interviewing Mr. Taylor, they turned around and their cameras caught “a road rage incident involving a baseball bat” at the corner up the street from his house. And this was all taking place in broad daylight with no police in the area responding to the incident.
This is obviously the result of elected officials responding to mobs committing crimes by trying to eliminate the police to appease them. Criminals see what’s going on and they move in to take advantage of the situation. How was all of this not entirely predictable for the people in charge? The actual protesters in the streets (as opposed to all of the rioters and other criminals) make up only a small percentage of the entire city’s population. And most of those people expect the municipal government to keep them safe. That job isn’t currently being done. But if the residents of the city go back in the fall and keep electing the same people again, we really can’t have all that much sympathy for them.


hotair--2020-07-29--NYPD to AOC, MSNBC's Hayes: This is *not* a kidnapping -- it's an arrest; <span class='red'>Chief of

NYPD to AOC, MSNBC's Hayes: This is *not* a kidnapping -- it's an arrest; Chief of detectives: Here's why we arrested the woman

Wouldn ’ t the first clue have been all of the uniformed police that responded to protect the arrest ?
A warrant squad arrested a woman on the streets of New York City yesterday , hauling her into an unmarked van .
The video of the arrest went viral yesterday , leading MSNBC host Chris Hayes to call it a “ kidnapping ” ( via Townhall ’ s Leah Barkoukis ) : Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned that “ civil liberties are on the brink ” after the ACLU hyperventilated about it as well : Don ’ t be ridiculous , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predicated on an existing warrant .
The suspect had been wanted in a series of incidents of vandalism against police property , and the police on bicycles were not there by accident either : Is it journalistic practice at NBC News to make accusations against law enforcement without first ascertaining the facts ?
Or at the very least , without watching the video carefully to see what actually transpired ?
Actually , it probably isn ’ t , since another NBC News journalist ended up scolding Hayes on Twitter shortly afterward : Kudos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beat reporter for police and courts in the eastern US .
The tactics used in making this arrest are not all that unusual — and to the extent they are , those are forced on the NYPD in the circumstances of the unrest .
People with warrants out who aren ’ t inclined to turn themselves in watch for uniformed police to avoid arrest .
Some police departments use warrant squads in plainclothes and unmarked cars in order to execute warrants more successfully .
They go to residences , places of work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are known to hang out in order to serve the warrants and arrest the suspects .
The fact that this woman was apparently known to be in protest crowds required a different set of tactics .
To keep the officers safe , they had to arrest her quickly and get her into the vehicle before other protesters could assault them .
To walk up and announce themselves and try to make an arrest would invite mob action and prevent the arrest — and in this case , mob action nearly succeeded anyway .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that turned out to be a very wise choice .
There might be a legitimate debate about the use of plainclothes officers in serving warrants .
However , anyone who thinks this is some sort of new policy for local police departments , or used only in arresting protesters , has not been paying attention .
Everyone else hyping this up should ask themselves why police have to protect themselves to this extent these days , and mull over their own roles in contributing to the anarchic environment in which law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Update : The NYPD is pushing back hard against the “ kidnapping ” slur .
This woman was wanted , Chief Rodney Harrison , and for very good reason :

Wouldn’t the first clue have been all of the uniformed police that responded to protect the arrest? A warrant squad arrested a woman on the streets of New York City yesterday, hauling her into an unmarked van. The video of the arrest went viral yesterday, leading MSNBC host Chris Hayes to call it a “kidnapping” (via Townhall’s Leah Barkoukis):
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned that “civil liberties are on the brink” after the ACLU hyperventilated about it as well:
Our civil liberties are on brink. This is not a drill. There is no excuse for snatching women off the street and throwing them into unmarked vans. To not protect our rights is to give them away. It is our responsibility to resist authoritarianism. https://t.co/pw20WF05KK — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 29, 2020
Don’t be ridiculous, the NYPD responded. This was an arrest predicated on an existing warrant. The suspect had been wanted in a series of incidents of vandalism against police property, and the police on bicycles were not there by accident either:
In regard to a video on social media that took place at 2 Ave & 25 St, a woman taken into custody in an unmarked van was wanted for damaging police cameras during 5 separate criminal incidents in & around City Hall Park. The arresting officers were assaulted with rocks & bottles. pic.twitter.com/2jGD3DT3eV — NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) July 29, 2020
When she was placed into the Warrant Squad's unmarked gray minivan, it was behind a cordon of NYPD bicycle cops in bright yellow and blue uniform shirts there to help effect the arrest. — NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) July 29, 2020
Is it journalistic practice at NBC News to make accusations against law enforcement without first ascertaining the facts? Or at the very least, without watching the video carefully to see what actually transpired? Actually, it probably isn’t, since another NBC News journalist ended up scolding Hayes on Twitter shortly afterward:
It could also be undercover detectives from a warrant squad making an arrest with probable cause for someone wanted for 5 specific crimes wearing visible weapons and vests in a car immediately surrounded by uniformed police officers with NYPD written on the back. https://t.co/CsKt5QMSmZ — Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) July 29, 2020
Kudos to Tom Winter, the NBC News beat reporter for police and courts in the eastern US.
The tactics used in making this arrest are not all that unusual — and to the extent they are, those are forced on the NYPD in the circumstances of the unrest. People with warrants out who aren’t inclined to turn themselves in watch for uniformed police to avoid arrest. Some police departments use warrant squads in plainclothes and unmarked cars in order to execute warrants more successfully. They go to residences, places of work, and at times to places where suspects are known to hang out in order to serve the warrants and arrest the suspects.
The fact that this woman was apparently known to be in protest crowds required a different set of tactics. To keep the officers safe, they had to arrest her quickly and get her into the vehicle before other protesters could assault them. To walk up and announce themselves and try to make an arrest would invite mob action and prevent the arrest — and in this case, mob action nearly succeeded anyway. That is why they had uniformed backup, and that turned out to be a very wise choice.
There might be a legitimate debate about the use of plainclothes officers in serving warrants. However, anyone who thinks this is some sort of new policy for local police departments, or used only in arresting protesters, has not been paying attention. Everyone else hyping this up should ask themselves why police have to protect themselves to this extent these days, and mull over their own roles in contributing to the anarchic environment in which law enforcement is now forced to operate.
Update: The NYPD is pushing back hard against the “kidnapping” slur. This woman was wanted, Chief Rodney Harrison, and for very good reason:


hotair--2020-07-29--New Dem poll shows race tightening in nearly all battleground states

This comes with a caveat , but even so it may be the best batch of polls Trump has had all summer .
Two weeks ago Change Research found Biden leading comfortably in every swing state except North Carolina : Two weeks later Change sees the race as a jump ball , with Trump having gained meaningfully in every battleground — again , except North Carolina : His approval across all six battleground states has risen two points in the last two weeks .
The same goes for his handling of the pandemic .
He ’ s still underwater in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the battlegrounds and 45/55 on COVID-19 , but even modest improvement is potentially significant .
Maybe his semi-new tone on fighting the virus is paying off .
He restarted the daily briefing , canceled the GOP convention , and became a little more forceful about wearing masks … before he started demanding anew that governors reopen and babbling about hydroxychloroquine again .
Conceivably his recent spate of “ safety first ” messaging is bringing some wayward voters back to him .
There ’ s another possibility , that the outburst of violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities has begun to erode some of Biden ’ s support .
I wrote about that last night in the context of Minnesota , where Morning Consult recently detected a surprisingly close race .
The “ defund the police ” push there may be leading undecideds towards Trump .
Change Research didn ’ t poll about crime today but I noticed that Biden felt obliged to issue this statement last night : I wonder what Democratic internal polling is showing right now about Trump ’ s “ law and order ” message making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , though , there are caveats .
Here ’ s one : New data from Morning Consult suggesting that Trump ’ s message isn ’ t having a big impact on its intended audience .
Suburbanites are the “ swing ” demographic in that group , one that normally favors the GOP in elections but has been drifting leftward recently .
Highlighting the violence in Portland by deploying DHS is Trump ’ s way of trying to lure them back .
He doesn ’ t have majority support for it here — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the improvement in battlegrounds being seen by Change Research .
Maybe suburbanites in swing states are more receptive to his message about crime than suburbanites in bluer states .
Even if they aren ’ t , it ’ s possible that “ law and order ” has netted him more suburbanite votes than it ’ s cost him .
Those who support the feds ’ presence in Portland may be less decided about their vote this fall than those who oppose it .
The other caveat is that some of Change Research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of them : Their toplines in North Carolina , Arizona , and Wisconsin closely match the RCP polling averages in those states .
But in Florida they have Biden by three while RCP has him up 7.2 points ; in Michigan it ’ s Biden by four versus Biden by eight in RCP ; and in Pennsylvania Change Research has Biden by two while RCP sees Biden ahead by 6.2 points .
That ’ s significant because winning FL , PA , and MI while holding the other 2016 Hillary states would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election .
If RCP ’ s average is more accurate , Trump ’ s still in big trouble .
We ’ ll see what the next round of polling says .
Florida , Arizona , and Texas are especially important to watch right now because the COVID outbreaks there seem to be easing — noticeably so in Arizona , somewhat less dramatically in Texas , and less dramatically still in Florida at the moment .
It could be that having cases abate will ease voters ’ hard feelings towards Trump about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be all he needs to make Arizona and Florida competitive again .

This comes with a caveat, but even so it may be the best batch of polls Trump has had all summer. Two weeks ago Change Research found Biden leading comfortably in every swing state except North Carolina:
Two weeks later Change sees the race as a jump ball, with Trump having gained meaningfully in every battleground — again, except North Carolina:
His approval across all six battleground states has risen two points in the last two weeks. The same goes for his handling of the pandemic. He’s still underwater in both metrics, at 47/53 overall approval in the battlegrounds and 45/55 on COVID-19, but even modest improvement is potentially significant. Maybe his semi-new tone on fighting the virus is paying off. He restarted the daily briefing, canceled the GOP convention, and became a little more forceful about wearing masks … before he started demanding anew that governors reopen and babbling about hydroxychloroquine again. Conceivably his recent spate of “safety first” messaging is bringing some wayward voters back to him.
There’s another possibility, that the outburst of violence in Portland, Oakland, and other cities has begun to erode some of Biden’s support. I wrote about that last night in the context of Minnesota, where Morning Consult recently detected a surprisingly close race. The “defund the police” push there may be leading undecideds towards Trump. Change Research didn’t poll about crime today but I noticed that Biden felt obliged to issue this statement last night:
Full @JoeBiden response calling for "arsonists and anarchists" to be prosecuted for the violence/destruction occurring at some protests. Says Trump is "stoking division and chaos" because "his campaign is failing and he is looking for a political lifeline." pic.twitter.com/D3ScPq1Y9x — Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) July 28, 2020
I wonder what Democratic internal polling is showing right now about Trump’s “law and order” message making inroads with the electorate.
Like I said, though, there are caveats. Here’s one: New data from Morning Consult suggesting that Trump’s message isn’t having a big impact on its intended audience.
New this morning from @cameron_easley: President Trump's "Portland Strategy" isn't flying with suburban voters. 47% disapprove of the DHS deployment, and 49% say the federal presence has done more to increase unrest. More: https://t.co/4cWfPHbWEI pic.twitter.com/S7z85cIrS1 — Mark McDevitt (@MarkTMcDevitt) July 29, 2020
Suburbanites are the “swing” demographic in that group, one that normally favors the GOP in elections but has been drifting leftward recently. Highlighting the violence in Portland by deploying DHS is Trump’s way of trying to lure them back. He doesn’t have majority support for it here — but that’s not necessarily inconsistent with the improvement in battlegrounds being seen by Change Research. Maybe suburbanites in swing states are more receptive to his message about crime than suburbanites in bluer states. Even if they aren’t, it’s possible that “law and order” has netted him more suburbanite votes than it’s cost him. Those who support the feds’ presence in Portland may be less decided about their vote this fall than those who oppose it.
The other caveat is that some of Change Research’s numbers are outlier-ish. Not all of them: Their toplines in North Carolina, Arizona, and Wisconsin closely match the RCP polling averages in those states. But in Florida they have Biden by three while RCP has him up 7.2 points; in Michigan it’s Biden by four versus Biden by eight in RCP; and in Pennsylvania Change Research has Biden by two while RCP sees Biden ahead by 6.2 points. That’s significant because winning FL, PA, and MI while holding the other 2016 Hillary states would easily be enough for Biden to win the election. If RCP’s average is more accurate, Trump’s still in big trouble.
We’ll see what the next round of polling says. Florida, Arizona, and Texas are especially important to watch right now because the COVID outbreaks there seem to be easing — noticeably so in Arizona, somewhat less dramatically in Texas, and less dramatically still in Florida at the moment. It could be that having cases abate will ease voters’ hard feelings towards Trump about the state of the pandemic. That may be all he needs to make Arizona and Florida competitive again.


hotair--2020-07-29--Texas AG to local health officials: You don't have the power to close schools due to COVID-19 fears

Who is in charge here ?
That is the question .
The power struggle between Governor Abbott , Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton , and local officials continue , this time over school closures .
Tuesday Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released a letter offering his opinion on local authorities issuing orders for schools to remain closed when the new school year begins .
Paxton points to the fact that it is the responsibility of local school districts to decide about school openings and making allowances for students to assure their safety in class .
It is not the job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision .
In his letter , Paxton said local health authorities can not preemptively order campus closures for the purposes of preventing COVID-19 outbreaks .
Paxton said it ’ s up to school officials to decide whether , when and how to open schools — not local health authorities whose roles are “ limited by statute to addressing specific , actual outbreaks of disease.
” “ Education of our children is an essential Texas value and there is no current statewide order prohibiting any school from opening , ” Paxton said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may possess some authority to close schools in limited circumstances , they may not issue blanket orders closing all schools on a purely preventative basis .
That decision rightfully remains with school system leaders.
” Paxton ’ s letter isn ’ t legally binding .
He is just delivering his opinion .
What he seems to be expressing is concern over a one-size-fits-all approach to re-opening schools in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak .
What it does , though , is to further muddy the waters .
Most schools have put forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for students and/or a plan to keep students safe in class using the suggestions of medical experts on mitigating the virus – face masks , hand-washing , social distancing .
Earlier this month , Paxton issued guidance to private religious schools – local public health orders attempting to restrict their reopenings are unconstitutional and unlawful .
In addition to violating the U.S. and Texas constitutions and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act , Paxton writes that Gov .
Greg Abbott ’ s executive orders bar local governments from closing religious institutions or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The legally nonbinding letter essentially gives religious schools the green light to disobey local public health orders that would stop them from reopening .
“ In accordance with the protections granted by the First Amendment and Texas law , this guidance allows religious private schools to determine for themselves when to reopen free from any government mandate or interference , ” Paxton said in a statement Friday .
The Texas Education Agency ( TEA ) also weighed in on Tuesday , adding more confusion .
The TEA announced that state school funding may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if schools are closed solely due to concerns over the spread of the coronavirus .
So , public school districts that rely on state funding are left powerless .
For instance , schools in Houston were issued an order by Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo to remain closed through Labor Day , with the possibility that she may extend school closures even longer after that date .
For now , the state guidance does not significantly impact districts that have pushed their start date until after Labor Day or those beginning their year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under TEA rules for the first eight weeks of school .
Nearly all Houston-area districts are employing those options .
“ Virtually all of the public health authority orders covered a time period that was also covered by the start-of-school transition period , ” TEA Commissioner Mike Morath told Texas superintendents on a conference call Tuesday .
However , the guidance could have a longer-term impact if state officials require districts to provide in-person classes to families that want them after the first eight weeks of school .
When Harris County Judge Lina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order lasting through Labor Day , she warned that she likely would extend the mandate amid a regionwide COVID-19 outbreak .
“ Our actions to save lives from this crisis should be guided by public health , science and compassion for the health and safety of our residents — not politics , ” Hidalgo said in a statement Tuesday .
“ That is why we ’ ve consulted with superintendents from across the region to put forth a school plan that protects the health and safety of our community given the severity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other large Texas counties have also issued orders to keep schools closed .
Rest assured , the politics in these decisions are strong .
Hidalgo is quick to release her inner authoritarian and seems intent on keeping Harris County – the state ’ s largest county – closed .
I ’ m sure after November 3 everything will be fine .
TEA officials say that school districts will receive funding for online classes if they are forced to close under an order legally issued by a local health authority , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TEA is confusing .
While the legality of local orders remains in question , the school reopenings remain left hanging in the balance .
Earlier this month , TEA said public school districts had to offer full weekly in-person classes , made available to all families who wanted it .
Then , a week later the agency officials clarified its position saying school districts would receive funding if the districts were legally ordered to close campuses by local health authorities .
And , there is guidance that allows districts to limit in-person classes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new school year .
So , that is where Texas is on school reopenings this fall .
It ’ s clear as mud , right ?
Governor Abbott is going to have to stop sitting on the fence and weigh in on this subject .
When asked about it , Abbott usually says it is up to local officials to use their authority on school reopenings but doesn ’ t specify if it is city officials or public health officials .
Naturally , state education officials ( unions ) want to listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general .
Their statement , ironically , slams Paxton ’ s “ ideological agenda ” .
Meanwhile , school children suffer without normal routines like going to school .
Local health orders mandating the closure of schools remain legally binding for now .
The time lost outside classroom instruction and the effects on kids may never be recovered .

Who is in charge here? That is the question. The power struggle between Governor Abbott, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and local officials continue, this time over school closures.
Tuesday Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released a letter offering his opinion on local authorities issuing orders for schools to remain closed when the new school year begins. Paxton points to the fact that it is the responsibility of local school districts to decide about school openings and making allowances for students to assure their safety in class. It is not the job of public health officials to make that decision.
In his letter, Paxton said local health authorities cannot preemptively order campus closures for the purposes of preventing COVID-19 outbreaks. Paxton said it’s up to school officials to decide whether, when and how to open schools — not local health authorities whose roles are “limited by statute to addressing specific, actual outbreaks of disease.” “Education of our children is an essential Texas value and there is no current statewide order prohibiting any school from opening,” Paxton said in a statement. “While local health authorities may possess some authority to close schools in limited circumstances, they may not issue blanket orders closing all schools on a purely preventative basis. That decision rightfully remains with school system leaders.”
Paxton’s letter isn’t legally binding. He is just delivering his opinion. What he seems to be expressing is concern over a one-size-fits-all approach to re-opening schools in the midst of the coronavirus outbreak. What it does, though, is to further muddy the waters. Most schools have put forward plans to either hold online learning opportunities for students and/or a plan to keep students safe in class using the suggestions of medical experts on mitigating the virus – face masks, hand-washing, social distancing. Earlier this month, Paxton issued guidance to private religious schools – local public health orders attempting to restrict their reopenings are unconstitutional and unlawful.
In addition to violating the U.S. and Texas constitutions and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Paxton writes that Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive orders bar local governments from closing religious institutions or “dictating mitigation strategies to those institutions.” The legally nonbinding letter essentially gives religious schools the green light to disobey local public health orders that would stop them from reopening. “In accordance with the protections granted by the First Amendment and Texas law, this guidance allows religious private schools to determine for themselves when to reopen free from any government mandate or interference,” Paxton said in a statement Friday.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) also weighed in on Tuesday, adding more confusion. The TEA announced that state school funding may be withheld from Texas public school districts if schools are closed solely due to concerns over the spread of the coronavirus. So, public school districts that rely on state funding are left powerless. For instance, schools in Houston were issued an order by Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo to remain closed through Labor Day, with the possibility that she may extend school closures even longer after that date.
For now, the state guidance does not significantly impact districts that have pushed their start date until after Labor Day or those beginning their year with online-only classes, an option available under TEA rules for the first eight weeks of school. Nearly all Houston-area districts are employing those options. “Virtually all of the public health authority orders covered a time period that was also covered by the start-of-school transition period,” TEA Commissioner Mike Morath told Texas superintendents on a conference call Tuesday. However, the guidance could have a longer-term impact if state officials require districts to provide in-person classes to families that want them after the first eight weeks of school. When Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo on Friday issued a school closure order lasting through Labor Day, she warned that she likely would extend the mandate amid a regionwide COVID-19 outbreak. “Our actions to save lives from this crisis should be guided by public health, science and compassion for the health and safety of our residents — not politics,” Hidalgo said in a statement Tuesday. “That is why we’ve consulted with superintendents from across the region to put forth a school plan that protects the health and safety of our community given the severity of this threat right now.”
Local officials in other large Texas counties have also issued orders to keep schools closed. Rest assured, the politics in these decisions are strong. Hidalgo is quick to release her inner authoritarian and seems intent on keeping Harris County – the state’s largest county – closed. I’m sure after November 3 everything will be fine.
TEA officials say that school districts will receive funding for online classes if they are forced to close under an order legally issued by a local health authority, which is why the latest guidance from Paxton and TEA is confusing. While the legality of local orders remains in question, the school reopenings remain left hanging in the balance. Earlier this month, TEA said public school districts had to offer full weekly in-person classes, made available to all families who wanted it. Then, a week later the agency officials clarified its position saying school districts would receive funding if the districts were legally ordered to close campuses by local health authorities. And, there is guidance that allows districts to limit in-person classes for up to eight weeks into the new school year.
So, that is where Texas is on school reopenings this fall. It’s clear as mud, right? Governor Abbott is going to have to stop sitting on the fence and weigh in on this subject. When asked about it, Abbott usually says it is up to local officials to use their authority on school reopenings but doesn’t specify if it is city officials or public health officials. Naturally, state education officials (unions) want to listen to anyone except the Republican governor and attorney general. Their statement, ironically, slams Paxton’s “ideological agenda”.
“The Texas State Teachers Association has more confidence in the professionalism of local health officials and their determination to act in the best interests of all Texans, including our children,” President Ovidia Molina said in a statement. “We have less confidence in Ken Paxton, whose primary goal as attorney general has been to advance an ideological agenda. Now, he is promoting President Trump’s election-year demands that school campuses reopen prematurely, regardless of the price that educators, students and their families may pay.”
Meanwhile, school children suffer without normal routines like going to school. Local health orders mandating the closure of schools remain legally binding for now. The time lost outside classroom instruction and the effects on kids may never be recovered.


hotair--2020-07-29--Oh my! Ghislaine Maxwell may have turned over "nude videos of individuals"

The saga of now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ’ s “ fixer ” Ghislaine Maxwell continues to grind on , generating headlines that the New York Post and the Daily Mail in the UK simply can ’ t resist .
And let ’ s be honest… neither can many of the rest of us .
The Daily Mail has uncovered ( pun intended ) yet another gem from the disgraced madam ’ s upcoming court proceedings .
If the reports turn out to be accurate , the court now has videos of a very provocative , if not pornographic nature involving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been with some of Epstein ’ s young victims .
And until some names are attached to these purported films , there have to be a lot of people out there who are suddenly looking very nervous .
But at least for the present , the public won ’ t be viewing the videos .
They will only be made available to the attorneys involved in the case in closed rooms with no copies being offered .
Prosecutors who are putting Ghislaine Maxwell on trial for child sex trafficking may have incriminating ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Documents filed on Monday in her New York criminal case say US Attorneys may have ‘ Highly Confidential Information ’ , which includes ‘ nude , partially-nude , or otherwise sexualized images , videos , or other depictions of individuals.
’ Prosecutors and Maxwell ’ s lawyers are currently hammering out an agreement on how sensitive documents in the high-profile case should be handled before they hand over to each other the evidence they plan to use at trial .
The highly confidential material in question “ contains nude , partially-nude , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other depictions of individuals.
” But this still leaves many unanswered questions not addressed by the material the court allowed to be released to the media .
First of all , how did the prosecutors obtain these alleged videos ?
Did law enforcement find them during raids of any of the places Maxwell was living over the past couple of years , including her mansion in New Hampshire ?
Assuming any video evidence this potentially explosive exists but was somehow kept entirely secret for such a long time , it doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that sloppy .
The other possibility is that she voluntarily turned them over as part of some sort of plea deal in the making .
But since her attorneys have already entered a not guilty plea on all charges , that brings us to the second question .
Who would we be seeing in the videos ?
Surely not Maxwell herself , right ?
I mean , she wouldn ’ t turn over footage of herself abusing any minors if she ’ s going with a not guilty plea .
But if she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s more famous buddies in compromising positions with underage girls , that would undoubtedly be of value to prosecutors if they still plan to expand the scope of the investigation to include other alleged abusers .
And if that bought Maxwell enough points with the prosecutors and the judge , her not guilty plea could be withdrawn and exchanged for some sort of plea that either keeps her out of prison or at least minimizes her time behind bars .
If the videos are indeed of “ other individuals ” and not Maxwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mystery that ’ s been nagging this tawdry tale from the beginning .
Who are the other men involved ?
Could any of them be highly-placed titans of industry , elected officials or even members of the British Royalty ?
Thus far , most of Epstein ’ s more famous friends have managed to get by with flat denials , assuming that “ he said , she said ” stories that are past the statute of limitations wouldn ’ t pose too much of a risk .
But having the evidence show up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The saga of now-deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s “fixer” Ghislaine Maxwell continues to grind on, generating headlines that the New York Post and the Daily Mail in the UK simply can’t resist. And let’s be honest… neither can many of the rest of us. The Daily Mail has uncovered (pun intended) yet another gem from the disgraced madam’s upcoming court proceedings. If the reports turn out to be accurate, the court now has videos of a very provocative, if not pornographic nature involving unnamed “individuals” who may have been with some of Epstein’s young victims. And until some names are attached to these purported films, there have to be a lot of people out there who are suddenly looking very nervous. But at least for the present, the public won’t be viewing the videos. They will only be made available to the attorneys involved in the case in closed rooms with no copies being offered.
Prosecutors who are putting Ghislaine Maxwell on trial for child sex trafficking may have incriminating ‘nude’ videos, DailyMail.com can reveal. Documents filed on Monday in her New York criminal case say US Attorneys may have ‘Highly Confidential Information’, which includes ‘nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals.’ Prosecutors and Maxwell’s lawyers are currently hammering out an agreement on how sensitive documents in the high-profile case should be handled before they hand over to each other the evidence they plan to use at trial.
The highly confidential material in question “contains nude, partially-nude, or otherwise sexualized images, videos, or other depictions of individuals.” But this still leaves many unanswered questions not addressed by the material the court allowed to be released to the media.
First of all, how did the prosecutors obtain these alleged videos? Did law enforcement find them during raids of any of the places Maxwell was living over the past couple of years, including her mansion in New Hampshire? Assuming any video evidence this potentially explosive exists but was somehow kept entirely secret for such a long time, it doesn’t seem as if Maxwell would be that sloppy. The other possibility is that she voluntarily turned them over as part of some sort of plea deal in the making.
But since her attorneys have already entered a not guilty plea on all charges, that brings us to the second question. Who would we be seeing in the videos? Surely not Maxwell herself, right? I mean, she wouldn’t turn over footage of herself abusing any minors if she’s going with a not guilty plea. But if she had video of some of Epstein’s more famous buddies in compromising positions with underage girls, that would undoubtedly be of value to prosecutors if they still plan to expand the scope of the investigation to include other alleged abusers. And if that bought Maxwell enough points with the prosecutors and the judge, her not guilty plea could be withdrawn and exchanged for some sort of plea that either keeps her out of prison or at least minimizes her time behind bars.
If the videos are indeed of “other individuals” and not Maxwell herself, we arrive at the final mystery that’s been nagging this tawdry tale from the beginning. Who are the other men involved? Could any of them be highly-placed titans of industry, elected officials or even members of the British Royalty? Thus far, most of Epstein’s more famous friends have managed to get by with flat denials, assuming that “he said, she said” stories that are past the statute of limitations wouldn’t pose too much of a risk. But having the evidence show up on film could change that situation considerably.


hotair--2020-07-29--Sound familiar? Allegations of campaign finance and ethics violations emerge against McCloskey prose

Sound familiar? Allegations of campaign finance and ethics violations emerge against McCloskey prosecutor

She made headlines by charging Mark and Patricia McCloskey for defending their property , but St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner might have legal problems of her own .
Over the last two days , multiple allegations of ethics and campaign violations have erupted against Gardner , and not exactly from defenders of the McCloskeys .
The CBS affiliate in St. Louis details a number of trips Gardner took , paid for in part by progressive political supporters , that she never disclosed .
KMOV reports that Gardner ’ s junkets were “ prolific and problematic , ” at times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hot Air reader Edward T ) : Sources tell News 4 Gardner is a frequent flyer .
At times during her tenure as prosecutor , sources say , she has often been gone from her office a couple of times every month , jetting around on someone else ’ s dime .
Social media snaps show Gardner posing for pictures in Portugal , listening to conversations in New Haven , Connecticut , smiling with other prosecutors in Houston and linking arms in Selma , Alabama .
They are trips she apparently took in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclose on travel reports , as required by law .
Sources tell News 4 that some of the trips were paid for in full , or in part , by an organization called Fair and Just Prosecution , a group that professes to support progressive prosecutors .
The organization has repeatedly applauded many of Gardner ’ s actions , including the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey for brandishing guns in the Central West End last month .
Why not just report the trips ?
That might have given her political rivals some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gardner , she provided them with more ammunition by allegedly violating campaign finance regulations .
That accusation comes from Democrats supporting her primary rival , Mary Pat Carl .
And it ’ s not the first time Gardner has done so — in fact , she ’ s on probation for a previous violation : Fred Wessels , a former state representative and city alderman , filed a complaint July 21 with the Missouri Ethics Commission alleging Gardner violated probation of a 2019 ethics violation by failing to file within 48 hours a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a political action committee based in Washington , D.C. Wessels ’ complaint claims Gardner “ failed to report her contracts and payments to the media company who produced the video on her campaign page .
That video is also on the circuit attorney website.
” Wessels also complained Gardner ’ s campaign filed its April and July reports late .
Gardner ended up paying over $ 6,000 and consenting to probation in early 2019 after admitting to using campaign funds for personal expenses : Missouri ethics regulators fined St. Louis Circuit Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she used campaign funds for personal expenses and failed to accurately report numerous contributions and expenditures .
Gardner will have to pay only $ 6,314 to the agency if she cuts a check within 45 days , however , according to a consent order she signed on Dec. 28 with the Missouri Ethics Commission .
… Between April 2015 and July 2016 , according to a 25-page consent order published Wednesday , Gardner used $ 2,855 in campaign funds to pay for housing costs .
The order says the Missouri House reimbursed Gardner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also said that , among other infractions , Gardner had failed to accurately report numerous contributions and expenditures .
If this sounds a bit familiar , it should .
In Atlanta , the charges against the officers in the Rayshard Brooks shooting got filed by Fulton County DA Paul Howard before the investigation into the incident finished .
It turns out that Howard faces a criminal investigation of his own over alleged corruption involving conversion of grant money into his own pockets , to the tune of almost $ 200K .
Howard added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by apparently falsifying grand jury subpoenas in the Brooks case , for which Howard has offered at least three different and conflicting explanations .
Police have accused Howard of railroading the two officers in the Brooks case to distract from his own legal woes and to gin up popularity in the short run .
One has to wonder whether Gardner is taking a page out of Howard ’ s playbook with the odd decision to charge the McCloskeys .
Politically pandering prosecutors — and corruption — seem to be a problem with progressives @ @ @

She made headlines by charging Mark and Patricia McCloskey for defending their property, but St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner might have legal problems of her own. Over the last two days, multiple allegations of ethics and campaign violations have erupted against Gardner, and not exactly from defenders of the McCloskeys. The CBS affiliate in St. Louis details a number of trips Gardner took, paid for in part by progressive political supporters, that she never disclosed. KMOV reports that Gardner’s junkets were “prolific and problematic,” at times interfering with her public duties (via Hot Air reader Edward T):
Sources tell News 4 Gardner is a frequent flyer. At times during her tenure as prosecutor, sources say, she has often been gone from her office a couple of times every month, jetting around on someone else’s dime. Social media snaps show Gardner posing for pictures in Portugal, listening to conversations in New Haven, Connecticut, smiling with other prosecutors in Houston and linking arms in Selma, Alabama. They are trips she apparently took in 2018 and 2019, but did not disclose on travel reports, as required by law. Sources tell News 4 that some of the trips were paid for in full, or in part, by an organization called Fair and Just Prosecution, a group that professes to support progressive prosecutors. The organization has repeatedly applauded many of Gardner’s actions, including the charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey for brandishing guns in the Central West End last month.
Why not just report the trips? That might have given her political rivals some ammunition at election time. Unfortunately for Gardner, she provided them with more ammunition by allegedly violating campaign finance regulations. That accusation comes from Democrats supporting her primary rival, Mary Pat Carl. And it’s not the first time Gardner has done so — in fact, she’s on probation for a previous violation:
Fred Wessels, a former state representative and city alderman, filed a complaint July 21 with the Missouri Ethics Commission alleging Gardner violated probation of a 2019 ethics violation by failing to file within 48 hours a report disclosing a $78,000 in-kind donation from a political action committee based in Washington, D.C. Wessels’ complaint claims Gardner “failed to report her contracts and payments to the media company who produced the video on her campaign page. That video is also on the circuit attorney website.” Wessels also complained Gardner’s campaign filed its April and July reports late.
Gardner ended up paying over $6,000 and consenting to probation in early 2019 after admitting to using campaign funds for personal expenses:
Missouri ethics regulators fined St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner $63,009 after officials said she used campaign funds for personal expenses and failed to accurately report numerous contributions and expenditures. Gardner will have to pay only $6,314 to the agency if she cuts a check within 45 days, however, according to a consent order she signed on Dec. 28 with the Missouri Ethics Commission. … Between April 2015 and July 2016, according to a 25-page consent order published Wednesday, Gardner used $2,855 in campaign funds to pay for housing costs. The order says the Missouri House reimbursed Gardner for the same costs. The commission also said that, among other infractions, Gardner had failed to accurately report numerous contributions and expenditures.
If this sounds a bit familiar, it should. In Atlanta, the charges against the officers in the Rayshard Brooks shooting got filed by Fulton County DA Paul Howard before the investigation into the incident finished. It turns out that Howard faces a criminal investigation of his own over alleged corruption involving conversion of grant money into his own pockets, to the tune of almost $200K. Howard added more potential criminal charges down the road by apparently falsifying grand jury subpoenas in the Brooks case, for which Howard has offered at least three different and conflicting explanations.
Police have accused Howard of railroading the two officers in the Brooks case to distract from his own legal woes and to gin up popularity in the short run. One has to wonder whether Gardner is taking a page out of Howard’s playbook with the odd decision to charge the McCloskeys. Politically pandering prosecutors — and corruption — seem to be a problem with progressives these days.


hotair--2020-07-29--Poll: If the vaccine is approved, will people actually take it?

There ’ s been plenty of progress lately in the hunt for a viable vaccine to protect people from the novel coronavirus .
Both the Oxford vaccine and the Moderna version have entered phase three of their clinical trials .
Patients receiving both have been shown to produce more antibodies , with the Oxford vaccine additionally leading to an increase in T-cells .
Vaccines have also entered the ongoing political debates , with Ed Morrissey recently asking if a successful vaccine could wind up being Donald Trump ’ s “ October surprise.
” Missing from all of the excitement and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather important question .
Let ’ s say that either ( or both ) of the vaccines are approved by early autumn and quickly go into mass production and distribution .
Will people show up at their doctor ’ s office to receive the shots ?
Given the number of people dying or being seriously impaired by the disease , you ’ d think so , wouldn ’ t you ?
But the results of a recent poll conducted by CBS News may come as a surprise .
A significant majority of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine , or at least not right away .
And a measurable subset of those said they had no plans to ever go get it .
Even if a safe and effective vaccine is available by year-end and it was free , a new CBS News poll suggests there may not be takers , at least at first .
The poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans , 70 % , would either wait to see what happens when others got the shot or would never get one .
Fewer than one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away .
Those attitudes were reflected in New Yorkers CBS2 asked on Monday .
“ I don ’ t believe in vaccines .
Never took ’ em .
I never even took a flu vaccine .
That ’ s the way I grew up , I guess .
Culturally , it ’ s the way I am , ” one man said .
“ Not for me , ” one woman said .
I ’ d assumed that demand for the vaccine wouldn ’ t be universal , but a 70 % initial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d anticipated .
Some percentage of those refusing the idea of getting it are obviously the hard-core anti-vaxxers who have no plans to get a vaccine for anything , so that ’ s not really relevant to the specific numbers for the coming COVID shot .
But that ’ s still a pretty small percentage of the population .
A survey taken just this year showed that 86 % of Americans believed vaccines are not more dangerous than the diseases they prevent .
That number is down a bit from 2001 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at least prefer to wait , it may come down to a matter of this being such a new and as-yet unproven development .
And some of the early news may have shaken them up a bit as well .
Back in May , there were reports of some phase one testing participants becoming sick after getting the vaccine , though they had previously been quite healthy .
There were some rumors of one of the first volunteers to test the Oxford vaccine in the UK dying after receiving the treatment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ false .
Still , it probably set off some alarm bells .
Given the uncertainties , you might imagine that the group of people most at risk from COVID-19 would be the least likely to go first , wouldn ’ t you ?
And you ’ d be right .
This survey indicated that only 27 % of those aged 65 and over would go out and get vaccinated immediately .
The vast majority would prefer to stay home and wait to see what happened to all of the guinea pigs who went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can count me in that group . )
Those most likely to go and immediately get vaccinated were the younger , healthier respondents .
Breaking it down along political lines , self-identified liberals were twice as likely than conservatives to go first .
But , again , a lot of this has to be caused by the newness of the vaccine .
How many people ( outside of the anti-vaxxers ) do you see waiting or refusing to get a flu shot if they ’ re in an at-risk group ?
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot more familiar with the flu and know it ’ s coming every winter .
Getting a flu shot doesn ’ t feel like a leap into the unknown .
I ’ m not sure how much of an impact this widespread hesitancy will have on the overall rate of economic recovery .
I mean , how long are people really going to wait ?
Once a few million people have gotten the shot , assuming bunches of them don ’ t start showing up sick or dying after a few weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s time to give it a whirl .
And then ( fingers crossed ) we might finally start getting back to some sense of normalcy .

There’s been plenty of progress lately in the hunt for a viable vaccine to protect people from the novel coronavirus. Both the Oxford vaccine and the Moderna version have entered phase three of their clinical trials. Patients receiving both have been shown to produce more antibodies, with the Oxford vaccine additionally leading to an increase in T-cells. Vaccines have also entered the ongoing political debates, with Ed Morrissey recently asking if a successful vaccine could wind up being Donald Trump’s “October surprise.”
Missing from all of the excitement and controversy, however, has been one rather important question. Let’s say that either (or both) of the vaccines are approved by early autumn and quickly go into mass production and distribution. Will people show up at their doctor’s office to receive the shots? Given the number of people dying or being seriously impaired by the disease, you’d think so, wouldn’t you? But the results of a recent poll conducted by CBS News may come as a surprise. A significant majority of people said they would not go get the vaccine, or at least not right away. And a measurable subset of those said they had no plans to ever go get it.
Even if a safe and effective vaccine is available by year-end and it was free, a new CBS News poll suggests there may not be takers, at least at first. The poll found that more than two-thirds of Americans, 70%, would either wait to see what happens when others got the shot or would never get one. Fewer than one in three would get the vaccine right away. Those attitudes were reflected in New Yorkers CBS2 asked on Monday. “I don’t believe in vaccines. Never took ’em. I never even took a flu vaccine. That’s the way I grew up, I guess. Culturally, it’s the way I am,” one man said. “Not for me,” one woman said.
I’d assumed that demand for the vaccine wouldn’t be universal, but a 70% initial rejection rate was far more than I’d anticipated. Some percentage of those refusing the idea of getting it are obviously the hard-core anti-vaxxers who have no plans to get a vaccine for anything, so that’s not really relevant to the specific numbers for the coming COVID shot. But that’s still a pretty small percentage of the population. A survey taken just this year showed that 86% of Americans believed vaccines are not more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. That number is down a bit from 2001, however.
For others who either refuse or at least prefer to wait, it may come down to a matter of this being such a new and as-yet unproven development. And some of the early news may have shaken them up a bit as well. Back in May, there were reports of some phase one testing participants becoming sick after getting the vaccine, though they had previously been quite healthy. There were some rumors of one of the first volunteers to test the Oxford vaccine in the UK dying after receiving the treatment, but those were later proven to be false. Still, it probably set off some alarm bells.
Given the uncertainties, you might imagine that the group of people most at risk from COVID-19 would be the least likely to go first, wouldn’t you? And you’d be right. This survey indicated that only 27% of those aged 65 and over would go out and get vaccinated immediately. The vast majority would prefer to stay home and wait to see what happened to all of the guinea pigs who went first. (For the record, you can count me in that group.) Those most likely to go and immediately get vaccinated were the younger, healthier respondents. Breaking it down along political lines, self-identified liberals were twice as likely than conservatives to go first.
But, again, a lot of this has to be caused by the newness of the vaccine. How many people (outside of the anti-vaxxers) do you see waiting or refusing to get a flu shot if they’re in an at-risk group? Not many. But we’re all a lot more familiar with the flu and know it’s coming every winter. Getting a flu shot doesn’t feel like a leap into the unknown.
I’m not sure how much of an impact this widespread hesitancy will have on the overall rate of economic recovery. I mean, how long are people really going to wait? Once a few million people have gotten the shot, assuming bunches of them don’t start showing up sick or dying after a few weeks, most of us will probably decide that it’s time to give it a whirl. And then (fingers crossed) we might finally start getting back to some sense of normalcy.


hotair--2020-07-30--McCloskeys file motion to disqualify Kim Gardner over fundraising emails sent before charges were fi

McCloskeys file motion to disqualify Kim Gardner over fundraising emails sent before charges were filed

Wednesday an attorney for Mark & Patricia McCloskey filed two motions to have St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner disqualified from their case .
The twin motions allege that Gardner used their case for campaign fundraising both before and after charges against them were filed .
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner used the McCloskey case in solicitations for campaign donations before she charged the couple for pointing guns at protesters , and should , therefore , be disqualified from the case , according to a motion filed by the couple ’ s attorney Wednesday .
Attorney Joel Schwartz cited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion , which was sent three days before his clients , Mark and Patricia McCloskey , were charged with unlawful use of a weapon .
“ The July 17th email drew a direct line from the incident , which had not yet resulted in criminal charges , to Ms. Gardner ’ s political antagonists and from there to a call for donations to further her re-election efforts , ” he wrote .
“ It implied that the defendant was among those ‘ perpetuating a system of systemic racism and police brutality.
’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCloskey says the fundraising email on July 17th read as follows : Because you are a supporter of Kim , I want to make you aware of a few late-breaking developments that are making national headlines right now .
You might be familiar with the story of the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest outside of their mansions .
The email continued , “ Kim needs your help to fight back !
Her election is only weeks away.
” and included two links to donate to Gardner ’ s campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , charges were filed against the McCloskeys .
Here ’ s the fundraising email which is Exhibit A in the motion : Two days after the charges were filed on the 20th , Gardner ’ s campaign sent out a 2nd email that said , “ In the last 24 hours , there has been a lot of national attention surrounding Kim ’ s decision to press charges against a couple that brandished guns at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest.
” The email went on to mention threats Gardner had received and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when leaders like Kim stand up against a system that elevates the privileged and powerful.
” That email also included two links for donations to her campaign .
As a result of these solicitations , the motion argues that prosecutor Kim Gardner has an “ interest ” in the case as defined by law , meaning not only that her campaign stands to benefit financially from it but also that she is attempting to benefit politically from the case .
The motion also notes that there is apparently no previous case in Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pending investigation and charging decision during campaign/fundraising activities.
” As Ed pointed out yesterday , this isn ’ t the only allegation of improper behavior Gardner is facing days before the Democratic primary .
Gardner , who was on probation for a previous ethics violation is accused of violating campaign finance laws by failing to disclose an in-kind donation from a PAC .

Wednesday an attorney for Mark & Patricia McCloskey filed two motions to have St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner disqualified from their case. The twin motions allege that Gardner used their case for campaign fundraising both before and after charges against them were filed.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner used the McCloskey case in solicitations for campaign donations before she charged the couple for pointing guns at protesters, and should, therefore, be disqualified from the case, according to a motion filed by the couple’s attorney Wednesday. Attorney Joel Schwartz cited a July 17 campaign email in his motion, which was sent three days before his clients, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, were charged with unlawful use of a weapon. “The July 17th email drew a direct line from the incident, which had not yet resulted in criminal charges, to Ms. Gardner’s political antagonists and from there to a call for donations to further her re-election efforts,” he wrote. “It implied that the defendant was among those ‘perpetuating a system of systemic racism and police brutality.’”
The motion filed on behalf of Mark McCloskey says the fundraising email on July 17th read as follows:
Because you are a supporter of Kim, I want to make you aware of a few late-breaking developments that are making national headlines right now. You might be familiar with the story of the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest outside of their mansions.
A bit later the email added:
Instead of fighting for the millions of Americans affected by the pandemic—including 31 thousand Missourians—President Trump and the Governor are fighting for the two who pointed guns at peaceful citizens during the Black Lives Matter protests.
The email continued, “Kim needs your help to fight back! Her election is only weeks away.” and included two links to donate to Gardner’s campaign. Three days later, on July 20th, charges were filed against the McCloskeys. Here’s the fundraising email which is Exhibit A in the motion:
Two days after the charges were filed on the 20th, Gardner’s campaign sent out a 2nd email that said, “In the last 24 hours, there has been a lot of national attention surrounding Kim’s decision to press charges against a couple that brandished guns at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest.” The email went on to mention threats Gardner had received and said, “This is what happens when leaders like Kim stand up against a system that elevates the privileged and powerful.” That email also included two links for donations to her campaign.
As a result of these solicitations, the motion argues that prosecutor Kim Gardner has an “interest” in the case as defined by law, meaning not only that her campaign stands to benefit financially from it but also that she is attempting to benefit politically from the case. The motion also notes that there is apparently no previous case in Missouri in which a prosecutor referenced “a pending investigation and charging decision during campaign/fundraising activities.”
As Ed pointed out yesterday, this isn’t the only allegation of improper behavior Gardner is facing days before the Democratic primary. Gardner, who was on probation for a previous ethics violation is accused of violating campaign finance laws by failing to disclose an in-kind donation from a PAC.


hotair--2020-07-30--Politico founder: Trump still might pull an LBJ and drop out!

There ’ s doubling down , and then there ’ s John Harris .
By his own admission , Politico ’ s founding editor has been predicting that Trump would quit “ for a couple of years now ” to his colleagues and sources , “ usually to dismissive grunts or quizzical stares.
” With less than 100 days before the election and almost nothing new to offer as support for this theory , Harris insists that it ’ s still a distinct possibility : As it happens , the Trump Drops Out scenario is one I have trafficked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , usually to dismissive grunts or quizzical stares .
It is true that there is scant time left for the scenario to come to pass .
It ’ s true also that , if I were a reliable predictor of Trump ’ s political fortunes , Hillary Clinton would now be running for reelection .
But even if one doesn ’ t really think Trump will drop out of the race—as a proselytizer of the theory I acknowledge it is a stretch—it is worth examining the reasons he just might , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his situation with just over three months to go before the general election .
Is it worth examining ?
Or is it just a rehash of polling data and gut reactions to Trump ?
YMMV : No doubt Trump would savor the validation of winning a second term .
Under the current trajectory , that looks less likely than not ; By the light of some evidence it looks highly unlikely .
One question is whether Trump genuinely believes he has a plausible plan—beyond throw a lot of stuff against the wall and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trajectory .
The second question is how Trump conceives of the balance of his lifetime—and his historical reputation after that—if he were to lose to Joseph Biden and join the ranks of defeated incumbents .
The Trump-drops-out scenario hinges on the assumption that Trump is less concerned with wielding the levers of government than he is preserving his role as disrupter at large in American politics over the next decade .
The latter might be much easier to maintain if he avoids being tattooed as loser in November—especially if the margin is larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his most conspiracy-minded supporters , to media bias or vote-counting manipulation by Democrats .
Fair use prohibits me from excerpting much more , but this theory is the core of Harris ’ argument .
The rest of it is mainly images of Trump from after the disappointing Tulsa rally and Trump ’ s lamenting that Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx are more popular than he is , mixed in with a high degree of confidence in June-July polling .
In other words , there ’ s not much support for this theory and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is still entertaining to read .
The theory itself has big holes in it anyway .
Is Harris sure that Trump ’ s interested in leading a movement for the next decade ?
Or did he jump to the front of a movement in order to run the country for a while ?
Trump ’ s a narcissist — like many other politicians , only less refined about it — and it seems much more likely that he ’ s interested in the office a lot more than leading a movement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead a movement , too ?
Where ’ s he been for the last four years ?
Cutting deals to make lots of money , and mainly staying quiet , even to the point of letting his former VP sink or swim on his own until very recently .
That ’ s precisely what Trump will do as well .
The “ balance of his lifetime ” will be spent getting back to making money , both in real estate and in bookwriting , or at least telling his story to a ghostwriter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason Trump might have called off a re-election campaign — to get back to his business and start raking in the cash .
Maybe he ’ ll even follow Obama ’ s lead and get back into the entertainment-production business , where he had significant success before .
But Trump ’ s not going to spend the next decade in political organizing , nor would it work anyway without himself as the center of it .
Trump ’ s success has almost exclusively been in self-promotion , and he knows it .
Finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago if he planned to skip a re-election bid .
It would have freed him in many ways — allowing him to fully vent his agenda and his tongue .
Instead , after the campaign shake-up earlier this month , Trump has gotten somewhat more message discipline and focus ( well , until this morning , anyway ) .
He has shifted back to dealing with COVID-19 and become less shrill on reopening , and the tweets have even been a bit less problematic .
That ’ s not the sign of someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sign of an incumbent getting serious for a general-election fight .
Perhaps Harris just needed one more opportunity to float this hypothesis .
He should have taken a clue from the dismissive grunts .

There’s doubling down, and then there’s John Harris. By his own admission, Politico’s founding editor has been predicting that Trump would quit “for a couple of years now” to his colleagues and sources, “usually to dismissive grunts or quizzical stares.” With less than 100 days before the election and almost nothing new to offer as support for this theory, Harris insists that it’s still a distinct possibility:
As it happens, the Trump Drops Out scenario is one I have trafficked to colleagues and sources for a couple years now, usually to dismissive grunts or quizzical stares. It is true that there is scant time left for the scenario to come to pass. It’s true also that, if I were a reliable predictor of Trump’s political fortunes, Hillary Clinton would now be running for reelection. But even if one doesn’t really think Trump will drop out of the race—as a proselytizer of the theory I acknowledge it is a stretch—it is worth examining the reasons he just might, as a way of illuminating the bleakness of his situation with just over three months to go before the general election.
Is it worth examining? Or is it just a rehash of polling data and gut reactions to Trump? YMMV:
No doubt Trump would savor the validation of winning a second term. Under the current trajectory, that looks less likely than not; By the light of some evidence it looks highly unlikely. One question is whether Trump genuinely believes he has a plausible plan—beyond throw a lot of stuff against the wall and hope some of it sticks—to change that trajectory. The second question is how Trump conceives of the balance of his lifetime—and his historical reputation after that—if he were to lose to Joseph Biden and join the ranks of defeated incumbents. The Trump-drops-out scenario hinges on the assumption that Trump is less concerned with wielding the levers of government than he is preserving his role as disrupter at large in American politics over the next decade. The latter might be much easier to maintain if he avoids being tattooed as loser in November—especially if the margin is larger than could be attributed, even by his most conspiracy-minded supporters, to media bias or vote-counting manipulation by Democrats.
Fair use prohibits me from excerpting much more, but this theory is the core of Harris’ argument. The rest of it is mainly images of Trump from after the disappointing Tulsa rally and Trump’s lamenting that Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx are more popular than he is, mixed in with a high degree of confidence in June-July polling. In other words, there’s not much support for this theory and Harris’ prediction than wishcasting, although it is still entertaining to read.
The theory itself has big holes in it anyway. Is Harris sure that Trump’s interested in leading a movement for the next decade? Or did he jump to the front of a movement in order to run the country for a while? Trump’s a narcissist — like many other politicians, only less refined about it — and it seems much more likely that he’s interested in the office a lot more than leading a movement. Remember when people thought Barack Obama would lead a movement, too? Where’s he been for the last four years? Cutting deals to make lots of money, and mainly staying quiet, even to the point of letting his former VP sink or swim on his own until very recently.
That’s precisely what Trump will do as well. The “balance of his lifetime” will be spent getting back to making money, both in real estate and in bookwriting, or at least telling his story to a ghostwriter. That might actually be the only reason Trump might have called off a re-election campaign — to get back to his business and start raking in the cash. Maybe he’ll even follow Obama’s lead and get back into the entertainment-production business, where he had significant success before. But Trump’s not going to spend the next decade in political organizing, nor would it work anyway without himself as the center of it. Trump’s success has almost exclusively been in self-promotion, and he knows it.
Finally, Trump would have bailed out long ago if he planned to skip a re-election bid. It would have freed him in many ways — allowing him to fully vent his agenda and his tongue. Instead, after the campaign shake-up earlier this month, Trump has gotten somewhat more message discipline and focus (well, until this morning, anyway). He has shifted back to dealing with COVID-19 and become less shrill on reopening, and the tweets have even been a bit less problematic. That’s not the sign of someone hanging it up — it’s the sign of an incumbent getting serious for a general-election fight.
Perhaps Harris just needed one more opportunity to float this hypothesis. He should have taken a clue from the dismissive grunts.


hotair--2020-07-30--Obama at John Lewis's funeral: If we need to end a "Jim Crow relic" like the filibuster in order to

Obama at John Lewis's funeral: If we need to end a "Jim Crow relic" like the filibuster in order to expand voting rights, so be it

There ’ s no question that Biden and Schumer are going to end the filibuster next year if they get control of the White House and Senate , respectively .
To the extent that Biden ’ s still entertaining illusions that Senate Republicans might be willing to work with him , he ’ ll be disabused of it in short order .
With Trump gone and the GOP suffering even more of an ideological vacuum than before , the default ideology will be “ Block everything.
” And they ’ re unlikely to suffer electorally for it : Democrats learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be rewarded in the midterms by Republican voters for successfully thwarting a left-wing president than they are to be punished by Democratic voters for doing so .
That means Biden and Schumer will likely have 24 months to move their agenda , probably with something like a narrow 52/48 Senate majority in a best-case scenario for them in November .
Even if they ’ re squeamish about nuking the filibuster , the left ’ s not going to accept a do-nothing Biden presidency in return for holding their noses to vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the only way to get that done is to nuke away .
And now here ’ s the first black president , the most popular man in the party , whose own agenda was bottled up for part of his second term by the filibuster , using the occasion of the funeral of a civil-rights hero to give them his explicit permission to do so .
It ’ s a done deal .
His reference to the filibuster as a “ Jim Crow relic ” is a misnomer in the sense that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently as that , but what he means is clear enough in context .
Some of the most infamous uses of procedural obstruction in Senate history came during the 20th century in the context of civil rights .
In the early 1920s an anti-lynching bill was successfully filibustered and ultimately withdrawn .
Strom Thurmond uncorked the longest talking filibuster on record in 1957 when he spoke for slightly more than 24 hours to try to derail civil-rights legislation .
In 1964 , with the landmark Civil Rights Act headed for passage , southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to block the bill that went on for 60 days and included a 14-hour speech from former Klansman turned sainted Democratic statesman Robert Byrd .
Of course , the taint of racism on the filibuster never stopped Sen. Obama from using it for his own political ends , like when he joined a failed filibuster of Justice Alito ’ s SCOTUS nomination .
But in the context of calling for passing a raft of new voting-rights legislation , as he did in today ’ s eulogy , you can see why reminding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crow lowlights might be effective : A fascinating strategic question for Biden and Schumer is which type of legislation they ’ ll offer first upon assuming power in the expectation that the GOP will filibuster it .
Logically they should want to offer a bill which the public supports almost unanimously but which the GOP , due to the preferences of its special interests , is obliged to oppose .
I ’ ve always assumed it ’ ll be universal background checks , an issue which draws upwards of 90 percent support across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Dems are going to do something as radical and taboo as nuking the filibuster , they want to be able to plead their case with voters that they simply had no choice as a matter of basic democracy : Virtually the entire electorate wants X , Republicans refuse to support X , therefore fulfilling the people ’ s will requires bulldozing them .
Background checks is the closest thing they have to an issue desired by the entire electorate , so much so that I wonder if , say , 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill , averting the nuking .
Nuking the filibuster to pass voting-rights legislation would be an interesting strategic choice too , though .
It ’ s not as universally popular as expanding background checks is , but it ’ s pretty popular per this Pew poll from 2018 : A smart friend of mine pointed out to me not long ago that Trump does better in some polling among younger African-Americans than his Republican predecessors .
His theory of why is that it ’ s not so much particular to Trump as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 70s , and 80s passing into history , with younger generations less apt to associate Republicans with the “ southern strategy ” and thus feeling somewhat less obliged to vote Democratic .
In that case , Schumer might want to push a voting-rights package early in the hope and expectation that the GOP would filibuster it as part of their “ block everything ” effort and then have Democrats use that obstruction to try to convince younger minority voters that the “ southern strategy ” is as dominant now as ever .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course . )
That might tamp down some of the nascent interest among younger black Americans in exploring their partisan options .

There’s no question that Biden and Schumer are going to end the filibuster next year if they get control of the White House and Senate, respectively. To the extent that Biden’s still entertaining illusions that Senate Republicans might be willing to work with him, he’ll be disabused of it in short order. With Trump gone and the GOP suffering even more of an ideological vacuum than before, the default ideology will be “Block everything.” And they’re unlikely to suffer electorally for it: Democrats learned in 2014 that Republicans are more apt to be rewarded in the midterms by Republican voters for successfully thwarting a left-wing president than they are to be punished by Democratic voters for doing so. That means Biden and Schumer will likely have 24 months to move their agenda, probably with something like a narrow 52/48 Senate majority in a best-case scenario for them in November.
Even if they’re squeamish about nuking the filibuster, the left’s not going to accept a do-nothing Biden presidency in return for holding their noses to vote for him. They want a payoff, and the only way to get that done is to nuke away.
And now here’s the first black president, the most popular man in the party, whose own agenda was bottled up for part of his second term by the filibuster, using the occasion of the funeral of a civil-rights hero to give them his explicit permission to do so. It’s a done deal.
His reference to the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic” is a misnomer in the sense that the tactic didn’t originate as recently as that, but what he means is clear enough in context. Some of the most infamous uses of procedural obstruction in Senate history came during the 20th century in the context of civil rights. In the early 1920s an anti-lynching bill was successfully filibustered and ultimately withdrawn. Strom Thurmond uncorked the longest talking filibuster on record in 1957 when he spoke for slightly more than 24 hours to try to derail civil-rights legislation. In 1964, with the landmark Civil Rights Act headed for passage, southern Democrats launched a sustained debate to try to block the bill that went on for 60 days and included a 14-hour speech from former Klansman turned sainted Democratic statesman Robert Byrd.
Of course, the taint of racism on the filibuster never stopped Sen. Obama from using it for his own political ends, like when he joined a failed filibuster of Justice Alito’s SCOTUS nomination. But in the context of calling for passing a raft of new voting-rights legislation, as he did in today’s eulogy, you can see why reminding the audience of the procedure’s Jim Crow lowlights might be effective:
President Obama just endorsed these ideas: —Restore Voting Rights Act
—Auto register all Americans to vote
—Voting rights for former inmates
—Add polling places
—Expand early voting
—Make Election Day a holiday
—Equal representation for DC & Puerto Rico
—End gerrymandering — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 30, 2020
A fascinating strategic question for Biden and Schumer is which type of legislation they’ll offer first upon assuming power in the expectation that the GOP will filibuster it. Logically they should want to offer a bill which the public supports almost unanimously but which the GOP, due to the preferences of its special interests, is obliged to oppose. I’ve always assumed it’ll be universal background checks, an issue which draws upwards of 90 percent support across the public but which gun-rights advocates disdain. If Dems are going to do something as radical and taboo as nuking the filibuster, they want to be able to plead their case with voters that they simply had no choice as a matter of basic democracy: Virtually the entire electorate wants X, Republicans refuse to support X, therefore fulfilling the people’s will requires bulldozing them. Background checks is the closest thing they have to an issue desired by the entire electorate, so much so that I wonder if, say, 10 Senate Republicans might break ranks and support the bill, averting the nuking.
Nuking the filibuster to pass voting-rights legislation would be an interesting strategic choice too, though. It’s not as universally popular as expanding background checks is, but it’s pretty popular per this Pew poll from 2018:
A smart friend of mine pointed out to me not long ago that Trump does better in some polling among younger African-Americans than his Republican predecessors. His theory of why is that it’s not so much particular to Trump as it is a byproduct of the 60s, 70s, and 80s passing into history, with younger generations less apt to associate Republicans with the “southern strategy” and thus feeling somewhat less obliged to vote Democratic. In that case, Schumer might want to push a voting-rights package early in the hope and expectation that the GOP would filibuster it as part of their “block everything” effort and then have Democrats use that obstruction to try to convince younger minority voters that the “southern strategy” is as dominant now as ever. (Before proceeding to nuke that filibuster, of course.) That might tamp down some of the nascent interest among younger black Americans in exploring their partisan options.
Anyway, here’s Obama in Paul-Wellstone-funeral mode.


hotair--2020-07-30--National Security Law: Hong Kong police arrest four students for posting pro-independence statements

National Security Law: Hong Kong police arrest four students for posting pro-independence statements online

We all saw it coming .
Back in May China announced plans to pass a new national security law for Hong Kong through its own one-party system .
In doing so , China to effectively put an end to the “ one country , two systems ” commitment they had made when Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997 .
China promised to respect Hong Kong ’ s semi-independence for at least 50 years but 23 years later it ’ s clear that nothing approaching freedom of speech exists in Hong Kong any longer .
Police announced they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of advocating Hong Kong independence .
One of the four is only 16-years-old .
The four students arrested had connections to a group called Studentlocalism which was pro-independence .
I say ‘ was ’ because Studentlocalism was shut down a few days before the new national security law took effect .
The former leader of that group , Tony Chung , was one of the people arrested .
Pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong said Chung was arrested for a post on Facebook about Chinese nationalism .
Wong also claimed Chung ’ s phone was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader who fled Hong Kong earlier this month said it appeared China was afraid of social media posts by teenagers : According to the Senior Superintendent of the National Security Department , it ’ s all perfectly legal now thanks to the new national security law .
Under the law , “ separatism ” is a crime with a possible life sentence .
Li Kwai-Wah , a senior superintendent at the newly established national security department , said the four people arrested had said that “ they want to establish a Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it.
” “ They also said they want to unite all pro-independence groups in Hong Kong for this purpose , ” he added… Under the new measures , those convicted of crimes amounting to what Beijing described as “ separatism , ” “ subversion , ” “ terrorism ” and “ collusion with foreign forces ” could face life sentences .
The law also allows for police to enter homes without a warrant , conduct surveillance on those suspected to have violated the law and seize their devices .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to in Hong Kong this week .
China also announced today that 12 pro-democracy candidates for office have been disqualified from running in the upcoming elections .
Activist Joshua Wong tweeted about the decision and noted that the official reason for his disqualification is that he wrote something critical of the national security law .
Hong Kong is now about as free as the rest of China , i.e .
you can say whatever you want as long as it ’ s pro-CCP and pro-Xi Jinping .
However , if you deviate from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will show up and you could face life in prison .

We all saw it coming. Back in May China announced plans to pass a new national security law for Hong Kong through its own one-party system. In doing so, China to effectively put an end to the “one country, two systems” commitment they had made when Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997. China promised to respect Hong Kong’s semi-independence for at least 50 years but 23 years later it’s clear that nothing approaching freedom of speech exists in Hong Kong any longer.
Police announced they had arrested four students for the crime of advocating Hong Kong independence. One of the four is only 16-years-old.
#Breaking: Three males and one female, aged 16-21, who claimed to be students, have been arrested for breaching the #NationalSecurityLaw. They were suspected of secession by advocating #HKIndependence. Investigation is underway. #Hongkong — Hong Kong Police Force (@hkpoliceforce) July 29, 2020
The four students arrested had connections to a group called Studentlocalism which was pro-independence. I say ‘was’ because Studentlocalism was shut down a few days before the new national security law took effect. The former leader of that group, Tony Chung, was one of the people arrested. Pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong said Chung was arrested for a post on Facebook about Chinese nationalism. Wong also claimed Chung’s phone was hacked:
Tony was arrested for "inciting secession" after he wrote a FB post on #China's nationalism. Meanwhile, arrestees' mobile phones were hacked by unknown #Huawei and #Samsung phones soon after their arrests. Tonight's arrest will clearly send a chilling effect on #HK online speech. https://t.co/OtTLziJmOR pic.twitter.com/KGmDJrxzzY — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) July 29, 2020
Nathan Law, another pro-democracy leader who fled Hong Kong earlier this month said it appeared China was afraid of social media posts by teenagers:
So students are arrested because of a SOCIAL MEDIA POST. Bloody hell. How vulnerable a country is to be afraid of a post by a group of teenagers. https://t.co/8FqN4YBThK — Nathan Law 羅冠聰 (@nathanlawkc) July 29, 2020
According to the Senior Superintendent of the National Security Department, it’s all perfectly legal now thanks to the new national security law. Under the law, “separatism” is a crime with a possible life sentence.
Li Kwai-Wah, a senior superintendent at the newly established national security department, said the four people arrested had said that “they want to establish a Hong Kong republic and that they will unreservedly fight for it.” “They also said they want to unite all pro-independence groups in Hong Kong for this purpose,” he added… Under the new measures, those convicted of crimes amounting to what Beijing described as “separatism,” “subversion,” “terrorism” and “collusion with foreign forces” could face life sentences. The law also allows for police to enter homes without a warrant, conduct surveillance on those suspected to have violated the law and seize their devices.
That’s not the only mischief China is up to in Hong Kong this week. China also announced today that 12 pro-democracy candidates for office have been disqualified from running in the upcoming elections. Activist Joshua Wong tweeted about the decision and noted that the official reason for his disqualification is that he wrote something critical of the national security law.
2. The excuse they use is that I describe #nationalsecuritylaw as a draconian law, which shows that I do not support this sweeping law. pic.twitter.com/7TGttyYxr7 — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) July 30, 2020
4. Clealy, #Beijing shows a total disregard for the will of the #Hongkongers, tramples upon the city’s last pillar of vanishing autonomy and attempts to keep #HK’s legislature under its firm grip. — Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 😷 (@joshuawongcf) July 30, 2020
Hong Kong is now about as free as the rest of China, i.e. you can say whatever you want as long as it’s pro-CCP and pro-Xi Jinping. However, if you deviate from the party even slightly, the police will show up and you could face life in prison.