hotair--2020-09-27--Angry Democrat senators refuse to meet with Amy Coney Barrett

Sen. Mazie Hirono and Sen. Richard Blumenthal are the first two Democrats to come out and say they will refuse to meet with Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett before her Senate confirmation hearing .
Let ’ s face it , the minds of senators have been made up and none of them are open to persuasion one way or the other .
ACB ’ s confirmation vote in the Senate will be strictly along party lines .
This is why Americans hate politicians .
Mitch McConnell has the Republican votes banked in the Senate for ACB ’ s confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet their obligation to advice and consent .
If some don ’ t want to meet with the nominee for a personal one-on-one interview , so be it .
Many Republican senators passed on a private meeting with Obama ’ s nominee , Merrick Garland , including Mitch McConnell .
Two Republican senators who did meet with him , Sen. Kirk and Sen. Ayotte , both lost their re-election campaigns .
Ayotte said at the time she still opposed putting his nomination up for a vote , though she met with him as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as opposed to what is happening now , is that ACB ’ s nomination is going to come up for a vote while a vote on Garland was never going to happen .
McConnell said so from the start of the process .
Senate leadership and the White House was controlled by different political parties .
It was bare-knuckles politics .
It doesn ’ t matter , technically speaking , if Democrats meet with her in their offices before her hearing or not .
Senator Hirono has already announced she will not vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That isn ’ t breaking news , given her hyper-partisan voting record and how she treated Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing .
She said she will wait and question ACB during the hearing when she is under oath .
Sounds like a cheap shot about ACB ’ s relationship with honesty , right ?
She tweeted out a thread on her reasoning .
Her main concern is the same as other Democrats .
Their talking point is that ACB will take away health care insurance and the Affordable Care Act will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the pro-abortion stance of Democrats , particularly Democrat women .
Senator Blumenthal has his own thread about why he won ’ t support ACB and it is pretty much the same as Hirono ’ s .
Health care insurance , abortion , and the fact that ACB is a conservative woman .
It would be redundant to include his whole Twitter thread here .
Suffice it to say the war on conservative women continues from the left .
Blumenthal did add another dimension to his rant , though .
He calls her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stabenow was a guest on Fox News Sunday this morning and while she did congratulate ACB for her nomination , she , too delivered the Democrats ’ talking point that ACB will “ be the vote to end the Affordable Care Act ” and then she took it a step further .
Stabenow stated with no hesitation that “ The number one priority of Donald Trump has been to take away people ’ s health care.
” And , “ Common sense tells you he will put someone on the court that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she will vote.
” When pressed on “ all kinds of clues ” , Stabenow had no proof to offer .
I appreciated Senator Kennedy ’ s response to Stabenow ’ s interview – “ Sell crazy somewhere else , we ’ re all stocked up here.
” Two Republican senators , Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins , have both come out in opposition to moving forward with a nomination before the election .
Collins is in a tough re-election battle and this is a pander to Independents in her state .
Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Real Clear Politics .
Murkowski isn ’ t up for re-election this cycle , she ’ s just an ardent Never-Trump Independent now .
Murkowski hasn ’ t however said she will not vote for ACB when the vote comes up .
She wants it both ways .
So , let Hirono and Blumenthal make their political tweets against extending common courtesy to a Supreme Court nominee .
It doesn ’ t matter – in fact , the more who say they don ’ t want to bother with private meetings the quicker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to the confirmation hearing and get the process completed .

Sen. Mazie Hirono and Sen. Richard Blumenthal are the first two Democrats to come out and say they will refuse to meet with Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett before her Senate confirmation hearing. Let’s face it, the minds of senators have been made up and none of them are open to persuasion one way or the other. ACB’s confirmation vote in the Senate will be strictly along party lines. This is why Americans hate politicians.
Mitch McConnell has the Republican votes banked in the Senate for ACB’s confirmation. Democrats are essentially only expected to meet their obligation to advice and consent. If some don’t want to meet with the nominee for a personal one-on-one interview, so be it. Many Republican senators passed on a private meeting with Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, including Mitch McConnell. Two Republican senators who did meet with him, Sen. Kirk and Sen. Ayotte, both lost their re-election campaigns. Ayotte said at the time she still opposed putting his nomination up for a vote, though she met with him as a courtesy. The difference then, as opposed to what is happening now, is that ACB’s nomination is going to come up for a vote while a vote on Garland was never going to happen. McConnell said so from the start of the process. Senate leadership and the White House was controlled by different political parties. It was bare-knuckles politics. It doesn’t matter, technically speaking, if Democrats meet with her in their offices before her hearing or not.
Senator Hirono has already announced she will not vote in favor of ACB’s nomination. That isn’t breaking news, given her hyper-partisan voting record and how she treated Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. She said she will wait and question ACB during the hearing when she is under oath. Sounds like a cheap shot about ACB’s relationship with honesty, right? She tweeted out a thread on her reasoning. Her main concern is the same as other Democrats. Their talking point is that ACB will take away health care insurance and the Affordable Care Act will go away.
I will not support the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court for the following reasons: — Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) September 26, 2020
She will vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act after being rushed on the Supreme Court in time to hear the case on November 10. Millions of Americans will lose their health care – catastrophic in the middle of a pandemic. — Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) September 26, 2020
And, there’s the pro-abortion stance of Democrats, particularly Democrat women.
She has a long history of being anti-choice and an explicit willingness to reverse SC precedent – endangering the protections of Roe v Wade. A woman’s right to control her own body is at stake. The president expects her to support any challenge he mounts to the election results. — Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) September 26, 2020
Barrett has an ideological agenda she won’t acknowledge and an expressed willingness to overturn Supreme Court precedent. Her agenda poses a direct threat to health care, a woman’s right to control her body, the rights of LGBTQ Americans, and other individual and civil rights. — Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) September 26, 2020
I oppose her nomination and will fight to deny her a lifetime position on the United States Supreme Court, and in doing so, will tell the American people the danger she poses to hard-won rights. — Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) September 26, 2020
Senator Blumenthal has his own thread about why he won’t support ACB and it is pretty much the same as Hirono’s. Health care insurance, abortion, and the fact that ACB is a conservative woman. It would be redundant to include his whole Twitter thread here. Suffice it to say the war on conservative women continues from the left. Blumenthal did add another dimension to his rant, though. He calls her nomination “illegitimate”.
I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are already casting their votes. Americans deserve a voice in this hugely consequential decision. — Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) September 26, 2020
Senator Debbie Stabenow was a guest on Fox News Sunday this morning and while she did congratulate ACB for her nomination, she, too delivered the Democrats’ talking point that ACB will “be the vote to end the Affordable Care Act” and then she took it a step further. Stabenow stated with no hesitation that “The number one priority of Donald Trump has been to take away people’s health care.” And, “Common sense tells you he will put someone on the court that has given all kinds of clue on how she will vote.” When pressed on “all kinds of clues”, Stabenow had no proof to offer.
I appreciated Senator Kennedy’s response to Stabenow’s interview – “Sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here.”
Two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, have both come out in opposition to moving forward with a nomination before the election. Collins is in a tough re-election battle and this is a pander to Independents in her state. Her race is in the toss-up column on Real Clear Politics. Murkowski isn’t up for re-election this cycle, she’s just an ardent Never-Trump Independent now. Murkowski hasn’t however said she will not vote for ACB when the vote comes up. She wants it both ways.
So, let Hirono and Blumenthal make their political tweets against extending common courtesy to a Supreme Court nominee. It doesn’t matter – in fact, the more who say they don’t want to bother with private meetings the quicker the nomination process will go. Move on to the confirmation hearing and get the process completed.


hotair--2020-09-27--Trump: Americans will benefit if our now very conservative Supreme Court terminates ObamaCare

It ’ s off-the-charts bananas that he ’ s talking this way two days before the first debate , knowing that Democrats are planning to spend the next month scaring voters into believing Amy Coney Barrett will soon nuke coverage for preexisting conditions .
This is the left ’ s entire closing argument for the presidential election , that ObamaCare ’ s a goner if she ’ s confirmed — and it ’ s coming out of the president ’ s own mouth .
It ’ d be like Biden suddenly tweeting that , come to think of it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s a nonzero chance that Biden ’ s going to warn 90 million people on Tuesday night that the new Supreme Court is about to kill the Affordable Care Act and Trump will turn to the camera and say , “ Correct.
” The inevitable reply from Biden will be that if there ’ s a better , cheaper alternative , it ’ s strange that Republicans haven ’ t been able to produce it after 10 years of trying .
To try to protect himself from that charge , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week that amounts to little more than a press release that he supports continued coverage for preexisting conditions .
The order has no practical effect ; if the Court nukes O-Care , insurers would be free to start denying that coverage again .
“ It would be richly deserved if GOP electoral hopes collapse because of an interaction between their abstract belief that Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be struck down and their utter failure to produce a strategy for dealing with the resulting fallout , ” observed Peter Spiliakos of NRO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left ’ s entire closing argument for the election , I ’ m not exaggerating .
Chuck Schumer made it official yesterday : Chuck Schumer has some simple advice for how to take down Amy Coney Barrett : Talk about “ health care , health care , health care.
” … “ All the data show that with COVID raging , the number one priority for the American people is health care — its affordability , accessibility and quality , ” Schumer said in the Dear Colleague note to other Democratic senators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus like a laser on health care because Judge Barrett ’ s record is so clear on this issue.
” … “ Given Senate Republicans ‘ monomaniacal drive to fill this vacancy as quickly as possible , the best way to defend those rights is a bipartisan majority that will refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nominee before the election , ” Schumer said .
“ This will not happen on its own .
It requires public pressure on Senate Republicans .
Health care remains the best way to keep the pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true that the chances of Roe being overturned are now greater than they ’ ve been since 1992 and yet that ’ s *not* Democrats ’ top objection to Barrett ’ s nomination .
That ’ s how confident they are that the threat to ObamaCare is a political winner for them .
I ’ ll never understand why Trump insists on embracing positions which he has every reason to know will hurt him at the polls .
My best guess is that he ’ s completely bought into his own “ silent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no matter what the polls say and no matter how successful Democratic House candidates were in 2018 , his positions on issues are the secret preference of a majority of Americans .
Admittedly , if you watched Fox News for 10 hours a day , you might reasonably reach that conclusion too .
But in reality , it would leave you in a position like this : ABC/WaPo , which has Biden up 10 among likely voters , is one of several new polls out this morning .
Another comes from the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The fine print is interesting : The poll suggests that Mr. Trump would reap little political benefit from a clash over abortion rights : 56 percent said they would be less likely to vote for Mr. Trump if his justice would help overturn Roe v. Wade , while just 24 percent said they would be more inclined to vote for him… The poll shows that 71 percent of independents said abortion should be legal all or most of the time , and even 31 percent of Republicans said the same .
Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedure should be illegal all or most of the time… Fifty-seven percent of voters , including nearly two-thirds of independents , said they supported the Affordable Care Act , the Obama-era law that Mr. Trump ’ s administration is seeking to overturn in the Supreme Court… Americans oppose Mr. Trump ’ s policy preferences on the pandemic by significant margins : Two-thirds of voters said they would support a national mask mandate , while 63 percent said they would support new lockdowns to fight a second wave of the disease if public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense , he didn ’ t have much room to maneuver on the Ginsburg vacancy .
Appointing pro-life justices is the reason much of his base stuck with him ; he can ’ t abandon that now just because centrists are leery of seeing Roe overturned .
But he can certainly stop advertising the fact that he thinks his new pick is going to blow up ObamaCare , just like he can certainly finesse his rhetoric on masks and lockdowns to seem a little more in sync with wary voters whose support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Times national poll and a new NBC poll of Michigan and Wisconsin find majorities want the winner of the election to fill Ginsburg ’ s seat .
That ’ s probably not a big problem for Trump , as voters are more evenly divided on what the Senate should do now that Trump has made the pick anyway : It ’ s also possible if not probable that Barrett will prove so impressive and sympathetic during her confirmation hearing that voters who ’ d prefer to let the electorate decide who gets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that position .
But the numbers at this early stage aren ’ t great .
Nationally , 56 percent want the next president to fill the seat versus 41 percent who want Trump to do it now ; among women , independents , and college-educated whites , all groups that he needs to make inroads with , 60 percent or more wanted to let the election decide who makes the pick .
In Michigan the split on that question was 54/42 overall and in Wisconsin it was 56/42 .
I doubt that him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s on the fence to support Biden , but it may be that someone who ’ s already leaning Biden will treat it as just one more reason not to give Trump a second look .
And he badly needs that second look : He trails by eight in Michigan and by 10 in Wisconsin , according to NBC .
So here he is this morning , gleefully speculating in the middle of a pandemic that ObamaCare insurance might soon be “ terminated.
” Makes no sense .
I bet there were audible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tweet .
One last point .
Polling over the last few months suggests that Michigan and Wisconsin are the toughest “ holds ” for Trump this year among the swing states he won in 2016 .
If NBC ’ s numbers are accurate , they may be starting to slip away .
If that ’ s so , it would mean Trump ’ s realistic best-case scenario for electoral votes this fall is 280 .
( He could go higher if he gets a pick-up opportunity in Nevada or Minnesota , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too . )
That would mean Biden would need merely to flip any one of Pennsylvania , Ohio , North Carolina , Georgia , or Florida to win the presidency .
Flipping Arizona plus any other red battleground , including Iowa , or even just the Second Districts in Maine or Nebraska would also get him to 270 .
Trump needs some movement back towards him in MI or WI or else his chances start to look very precarious .

It’s off-the-charts bananas that he’s talking this way two days before the first debate, knowing that Democrats are planning to spend the next month scaring voters into believing Amy Coney Barrett will soon nuke coverage for preexisting conditions. This is the left’s entire closing argument for the presidential election, that ObamaCare’s a goner if she’s confirmed — and it’s coming out of the president’s own mouth.
It’d be like Biden suddenly tweeting that, come to think of it, he *does* support riots and Antifa.
There’s a nonzero chance that Biden’s going to warn 90 million people on Tuesday night that the new Supreme Court is about to kill the Affordable Care Act and Trump will turn to the camera and say, “Correct.”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1310219962024439808
The inevitable reply from Biden will be that if there’s a better, cheaper alternative, it’s strange that Republicans haven’t been able to produce it after 10 years of trying. To try to protect himself from that charge, Trump was reduced to issuing an executive order last week that amounts to little more than a press release that he supports continued coverage for preexisting conditions. The order has no practical effect; if the Court nukes O-Care, insurers would be free to start denying that coverage again. “It would be richly deserved if GOP electoral hopes collapse because of an interaction between their abstract belief that Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be struck down and their utter failure to produce a strategy for dealing with the resulting fallout,” observed Peter Spiliakos of NRO.
When I say this is the left’s entire closing argument for the election, I’m not exaggerating. Chuck Schumer made it official yesterday:
Chuck Schumer has some simple advice for how to take down Amy Coney Barrett: Talk about “health care, health care, health care.”… “All the data show that with COVID raging, the number one priority for the American people is health care — its affordability, accessibility and quality,” Schumer said in the Dear Colleague note to other Democratic senators, obtained by POLITICO. “We must focus like a laser on health care because Judge Barrett’s record is so clear on this issue.”… “Given Senate Republicans‘ monomaniacal drive to fill this vacancy as quickly as possible, the best way to defend those rights is a bipartisan majority that will refuse to vote on a Supreme Court nominee before the election,” Schumer said. “This will not happen on its own. It requires public pressure on Senate Republicans. Health care remains the best way to keep the pressure up.”
It’s weird but true that the chances of Roe being overturned are now greater than they’ve been since 1992 and yet that’s *not* Democrats’ top objection to Barrett’s nomination. That’s how confident they are that the threat to ObamaCare is a political winner for them.
I’ll never understand why Trump insists on embracing positions which he has every reason to know will hurt him at the polls. My best guess is that he’s completely bought into his own “silent majority” rhetoric and believes that, no matter what the polls say and no matter how successful Democratic House candidates were in 2018, his positions on issues are the secret preference of a majority of Americans. Admittedly, if you watched Fox News for 10 hours a day, you might reasonably reach that conclusion too. But in reality, it would leave you in a position like this:
How Trump's base first appeals have backfired https://t.co/C1TlC5KXl6 You see it well in this AM's ABC/WaPo poll. He's doing much better with conservatives than in 2016, but doing significantly worse w/ liberals/moderates. The result? Losing by a lot more now overall than in 2016 pic.twitter.com/mdfsK9aqqv — (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) September 27, 2020
ABC/WaPo, which has Biden up 10 among likely voters, is one of several new polls out this morning. Another comes from the Times and has Biden ahead nationally by eight. The fine print is interesting:
The poll suggests that Mr. Trump would reap little political benefit from a clash over abortion rights: 56 percent said they would be less likely to vote for Mr. Trump if his justice would help overturn Roe v. Wade, while just 24 percent said they would be more inclined to vote for him… The poll shows that 71 percent of independents said abortion should be legal all or most of the time, and even 31 percent of Republicans said the same. Only 33 percent of the country said the procedure should be illegal all or most of the time… Fifty-seven percent of voters, including nearly two-thirds of independents, said they supported the Affordable Care Act, the Obama-era law that Mr. Trump’s administration is seeking to overturn in the Supreme Court… Americans oppose Mr. Trump’s policy preferences on the pandemic by significant margins: Two-thirds of voters said they would support a national mask mandate, while 63 percent said they would support new lockdowns to fight a second wave of the disease if public health experts recommend them.
In Trump’s defense, he didn’t have much room to maneuver on the Ginsburg vacancy. Appointing pro-life justices is the reason much of his base stuck with him; he can’t abandon that now just because centrists are leery of seeing Roe overturned. But he can certainly stop advertising the fact that he thinks his new pick is going to blow up ObamaCare, just like he can certainly finesse his rhetoric on masks and lockdowns to seem a little more in sync with wary voters whose support he needs.
Perhaps relatedly, both the Times national poll and a new NBC poll of Michigan and Wisconsin find majorities want the winner of the election to fill Ginsburg’s seat. That’s probably not a big problem for Trump, as voters are more evenly divided on what the Senate should do now that Trump has made the pick anyway:
NYT/Siena Poll: “If Donald Trump selects a nominee for the Supreme Court before the election, do you think the Senate should or should not act?” 47% of voters say Senate should act. 48% of voters say it should not.https://t.co/dAzT6phHYa pic.twitter.com/6od2eZsLHg — John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) September 27, 2020
It’s also possible if not probable that Barrett will prove so impressive and sympathetic during her confirmation hearing that voters who’d prefer to let the electorate decide who gets to fill this seat will soften on that position. But the numbers at this early stage aren’t great. Nationally, 56 percent want the next president to fill the seat versus 41 percent who want Trump to do it now; among women, independents, and college-educated whites, all groups that he needs to make inroads with, 60 percent or more wanted to let the election decide who makes the pick. In Michigan the split on that question was 54/42 overall and in Wisconsin it was 56/42. I doubt that him choosing Barrett will convince anyone who’s on the fence to support Biden, but it may be that someone who’s already leaning Biden will treat it as just one more reason not to give Trump a second look. And he badly needs that second look: He trails by eight in Michigan and by 10 in Wisconsin, according to NBC.
So here he is this morning, gleefully speculating in the middle of a pandemic that ObamaCare insurance might soon be “terminated.” Makes no sense. I bet there were audible groans from Senate Republicans when they saw his tweet.
One last point. Polling over the last few months suggests that Michigan and Wisconsin are the toughest “holds” for Trump this year among the swing states he won in 2016. If NBC’s numbers are accurate, they may be starting to slip away. If that’s so, it would mean Trump’s realistic best-case scenario for electoral votes this fall is 280. (He could go higher if he gets a pick-up opportunity in Nevada or Minnesota, but those states increasingly seem like a stretch too.) That would mean Biden would need merely to flip any one of Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, or Florida to win the presidency. Flipping Arizona plus any other red battleground, including Iowa, or even just the Second Districts in Maine or Nebraska would also get him to 270. Trump needs some movement back towards him in MI or WI or else his chances start to look very precarious.


hotair--2020-09-27--The cast of 'Veep' to reunite for a Biden/Harris fundraiser

Selina Meyer wants you to vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
Actress and political activist Julia Louis-Dreyfus desperately wants President Trump out of the White House .
Selina Meyer was the character she played in the HBO series , Veep .
The cast is getting together to raise money for the Harris/Biden ticket in Wisconsin .
This is a pattern with the Democrat Party of Wisconsin now .
The party first had the idea to raise money off a cast reunion because a staffer had a longtime friendship with a member of The Princess Bride cast .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a virtual fundraiser for the state party .
Wisconsin is an important swing state and the state Democrats are hoping to find some enthusiasm for Sleepy Joe and Kamala by using Hollywood celebrities to garner some attention .
The cast of Parks and Recreation reunited to benefit the Wisconsin Democrats , too .
A cast reunion of The West Wing came together with Michelle Obama ’ s get out the vote initiative in support of Black Lives Matter .
Julia Louis-Dreyfus , you might remember , hosted one night of the Democrat National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her performance .
From just the little amount of time I saw of her that night , she underwhelmed me with her stiff demeanor and lame jokes .
Nonetheless , she fancies herself a part of the national political discourse and so it isn ’ t surprising that she is jumping on the bandwagon to help out Wisconsin Democrats .
One commenter argued that Trump doesn ’ t have to win Wisconsin to win the election .
Dreyfus ’ job isn ’ t to count Electoral College votes , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some money and go vote .
The show ended last year after seven seasons , from 2012 to 2019 .
This will be the cast ’ s first reunion .
“ Surprise special guests ” are promised .
It makes sense to garner attention with a show like Veep , a political satire , because of the political theme .
The Princess Bride cast and Parks and Recreation cast were chided for politicizing their reunions .
A show that was all about politics just makes for a better choice , if it must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one party over another .
No one has ever questioned the political leanings of Julia Louis-Dreyfus or other members of the cast .
The same was true of the The West Wing reunion announcement .
It , too , was all about politics .
Hollywood has gone all-in for this election cycle , more so than previous years .
Readings of the Muller Report and movies have been produced to work against Trump ’ s re-election .
And there are plenty of books that have been published to attack Trump , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , though , isn ’ t real America .
People in states that aren ’ t on either coast don ’ t pay much attention to endorsements made by celebrities .
Celebrities rallying around a Democrat candidate is not news .
California Senator Kamala Harris didn ’ t even hang around in the Democrat primary long enough to see any delegates go her way , much less California voters .
She was a dud of a candidate , despite the best efforts of liberal women reporters trying to make her into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , President Trump is paying attention to Wisconsin voters .
He travels there to keep enthusiasm up .
Sleepy Joe and Kamala have made a trip to the state to capitalize on the shooting of a black man who allegedly sexually assaulted the mother of his children just before that .

Selina Meyer wants you to vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Actress and political activist Julia Louis-Dreyfus desperately wants President Trump out of the White House. Selina Meyer was the character she played in the HBO series, Veep. The cast is getting together to raise money for the Harris/Biden ticket in Wisconsin.
This is a pattern with the Democrat Party of Wisconsin now. The party first had the idea to raise money off a cast reunion because a staffer had a longtime friendship with a member of The Princess Bride cast. The cast reunion for that cult favorite held a virtual fundraiser for the state party. Wisconsin is an important swing state and the state Democrats are hoping to find some enthusiasm for Sleepy Joe and Kamala by using Hollywood celebrities to garner some attention. The cast of Parks and Recreation reunited to benefit the Wisconsin Democrats, too.
A cast reunion of The West Wing came together with Michelle Obama’s get out the vote initiative in support of Black Lives Matter.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, you might remember, hosted one night of the Democrat National Convention. She was hailed by liberals for her performance. From just the little amount of time I saw of her that night, she underwhelmed me with her stiff demeanor and lame jokes. Nonetheless, she fancies herself a part of the national political discourse and so it isn’t surprising that she is jumping on the bandwagon to help out Wisconsin Democrats.
“All roads to the White House go through the great state of Wisconsin. Trump can’t win re-election if he doesn’t win Wisconsin,” the actress said. “The future of democracy is on the line, people!”
One commenter argued that Trump doesn’t have to win Wisconsin to win the election. Dreyfus’ job isn’t to count Electoral College votes, it’s to motivate the base to send in some money and go vote.
Actually if trumps wins MN and loses Wisc & everythin else stays the same, he wins the White House . Come to think of it, he got 304 electoral votes last time, u only need 170- WI has 10 so he can lose Wisc & if every other state stays the same, he wins with 294 electoral votes — Stunny Corleoney (@MahkieAvelli) September 27, 2020
The show ended last year after seven seasons, from 2012 to 2019. This will be the cast’s first reunion. “Surprise special guests” are promised.
This will mark the cast’s first reunion since the series concluded last year. Joining Louis-Dreyfus will be stars Anna Chlumsky, Reid Scott, Sam Richardson, Tony Hale, Timothy Simons, Clea DuVall, and Matt Walsh, along with showrunner David Mandel and surprise special guests. Fans can view the virtual reunion, which will be livestreamed Sunday, Oct. 4 at 7 p.m. ET, by making a donation of any amount.
It makes sense to garner attention with a show like Veep, a political satire, because of the political theme. The Princess Bride cast and Parks and Recreation cast were chided for politicizing their reunions. A show that was all about politics just makes for a better choice, if it must come out as a fundraising vehicle for one party over another. No one has ever questioned the political leanings of Julia Louis-Dreyfus or other members of the cast. The same was true of the The West Wing reunion announcement. It, too, was all about politics.
Hollywood has gone all-in for this election cycle, more so than previous years. Readings of the Muller Report and movies have been produced to work against Trump’s re-election. And there are plenty of books that have been published to attack Trump, too. The liberal bubble that Hollywood liberals live in, though, isn’t real America. People in states that aren’t on either coast don’t pay much attention to endorsements made by celebrities. Celebrities rallying around a Democrat candidate is not news. California Senator Kamala Harris didn’t even hang around in the Democrat primary long enough to see any delegates go her way, much less California voters. She was a dud of a candidate, despite the best efforts of liberal women reporters trying to make her into a star.
Unlike Hillary Clinton in 2016, President Trump is paying attention to Wisconsin voters. He travels there to keep enthusiasm up. Sleepy Joe and Kamala have made a trip to the state to capitalize on the shooting of a black man who allegedly sexually assaulted the mother of his children just before that.


hotair--2020-09-27--The last shall be first, and their eyes are opened: Sunday reflection

Jesus said to the chief priests and elders of the people : “ What is your opinion ?
A man had two sons .
He came to the first and said , ‘ Son , go out and work in the vineyard today.
’ He said in reply , ‘ I will not , ’ but afterwards changed his mind and went .
The man came to the other son and gave the same order .
He said in reply , ‘ Yes , sir , ’ but did not go .
Which of the two did his father ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The first.
” Jesus said to them , “ Amen , I say to you , tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you .
When John came to you in the way of righteousness , you did not believe him ; but tax collectors and prostitutes did .
Yet even when you saw that , you did not later change your minds and believe him.
” For the second week in a row , the Gospel and the readings invite us to explore the issue of fairness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
To the human mind — in principle , anyway — it usually refers to a balance between justice and mercy .
And we understand fairness almost from the moment of consciousness , because it enters into virtually every communal exchange in human experience , in one way or another .
Unfortunately , we understand it from a human , self-centered point of view .
Fairness usually means fair to me more than fair overall ; perhaps more generously , we can ’ t see past our own needs and desires well enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it might be that we see fairness as a balance between justice and mercy , when from the divine perspective there is no need to balance the two at all .
In today ’ s Gospel , much like last week ’ s , we see the conflict between the human point of view of fairness and the divine .
In both parables , Jesus uses work to make a point about salvation , the need for perseverance , and the mercy of the Lord ’ s forgiveness .
Last week , Jesus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field , all of whom received the same reward even though they began their work at different times .
The workers who started earlier objected to this treatment , feeling that they should have been given a greater reward — but the master reminds them that they agreed to those wages when they began , and what the others received shouldn ’ t be their concern .
The point in that parable was that the reward of salvation is the same for all of us , no matter when we commit ourselves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s parable takes the issue from another angle , that of rebellion and commitment .
The one son openly rebels but repents and follows his father ’ s order .
The other son agrees to do his father ’ s will but then rejects the father .
Jesus challenges the priests and elders to say which son did the father ’ s will , and they correctly choose the first one – even though he came to that obedience late .
One can look at this parable from a couple of angles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that sinners are grasping salvation better than the priests and temple authorities by repenting , a warning that they were missing the Messiah and His true nature and mission .
One can also look at the two sons as the new church of sinners and Gentiles and the old “ church ” of Israelites , too .
However , all of these interpretations also reflect on the idea of fairness .
The priests and elders enforced the Law ; how was it fair that they were left behind ?
The Israelites had endured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , albeit imperfectly ; was it fair that they were about to be supplanted in salvation by sinners among them , but also by Gentiles ?
The problem with this view of fairness is that it misses the whole context of salvation , and our role within it .
The Lord chose the Israelites to bring the Law to the whole world by becoming a nation of priests , but the Israelites chose worldly authority instead due to their own self-interest .
The chief priests and elders saw the promise of the Messiah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than an extension of the Lord ’ s mission of salvation , again due to a blindness over their self-interest .
Ezekiel had warned about the false perception of fairness , in the same exact context in which Jesus taught in today ’ s Gospel : The Lord ’ s teaching through Ezekiel warns about the difference between the human perception of fairness and its divine application .
We are too tainted by self-love to properly perceive true fairness , which is the hope that all of our brothers and sisters find salvation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reward or a wage we are owed on the basis of a length of service , but a gift from God on the basis of true repentance and aligning our will to His .
That is what the first son does in today ’ s parable , and what the late-joining workers do in last week ’ s parable as well .
If we truly grasped salvation in the Gospel , we wouldn ’ t feel cheated by this extension of mercy as a form of injustice — we would be rejoicing at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Paul writes to the Philippians , the key to unlocking salvation is adopting that same caritas and emptying one ’ s self of self-love , in imitation of Christ .
“ Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory ; rather , humbly regard others as more important than yourselves , ” Paul teaches , “ each looking out not for his own interests , but also for those of others.
” Christ “ emptied himself , taking the form of a slave ” for our sakes , Paul continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We are all called not just to our own salvation , but also to work for the salvation of others .
We should understand each true conversion as a victory for the Lord and for all of us as well , no matter when it comes … and no matter how much we in our limited vision perceive injustice in that reward .
And it is those who truly understand how much they do not deserve salvation but realize the value of this gift of grace who will go first — a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Gospel as a warning to the self-righteous of that time .
Let that warning open our eyes in our own time as well .
The front page image is a detail from “ Jesús en Casa de Anás ” by José de Madrazo y Agudo , 1803 .
Currently on display at the Museo del Prado , Madrid , Spain .
Via Wikimedia Commons .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of view , intended to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is Matthew 21:28–32:
Jesus said to the chief priests and elders of the people: “What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you. When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.”
For the second week in a row, the Gospel and the readings invite us to explore the issue of fairness. What do we mean by fairness? To the human mind — in principle, anyway — it usually refers to a balance between justice and mercy. And we understand fairness almost from the moment of consciousness, because it enters into virtually every communal exchange in human experience, in one way or another.
Unfortunately, we understand it from a human, self-centered point of view. Fairness usually means fair to me more than fair overall; perhaps more generously, we can’t see past our own needs and desires well enough to grasp fairness more broadly. Or it might be that we see fairness as a balance between justice and mercy, when from the divine perspective there is no need to balance the two at all.
In today’s Gospel, much like last week’s, we see the conflict between the human point of view of fairness and the divine. In both parables, Jesus uses work to make a point about salvation, the need for perseverance, and the mercy of the Lord’s forgiveness. Last week, Jesus painted the scene of workers in the field, all of whom received the same reward even though they began their work at different times. The workers who started earlier objected to this treatment, feeling that they should have been given a greater reward — but the master reminds them that they agreed to those wages when they began, and what the others received shouldn’t be their concern. The point in that parable was that the reward of salvation is the same for all of us, no matter when we commit ourselves to the kingdom of God.
Today’s parable takes the issue from another angle, that of rebellion and commitment. The one son openly rebels but repents and follows his father’s order. The other son agrees to do his father’s will but then rejects the father. Jesus challenges the priests and elders to say which son did the father’s will, and they correctly choose the first one – even though he came to that obedience late.
One can look at this parable from a couple of angles. Jesus uses it to make the point that sinners are grasping salvation better than the priests and temple authorities by repenting, a warning that they were missing the Messiah and His true nature and mission. One can also look at the two sons as the new church of sinners and Gentiles and the old “church” of Israelites, too.
However, all of these interpretations also reflect on the idea of fairness. The priests and elders enforced the Law; how was it fair that they were left behind? The Israelites had endured for millennia in worship of the Lord, albeit imperfectly; was it fair that they were about to be supplanted in salvation by sinners among them, but also by Gentiles?
The problem with this view of fairness is that it misses the whole context of salvation, and our role within it. The Lord chose the Israelites to bring the Law to the whole world by becoming a nation of priests, but the Israelites chose worldly authority instead due to their own self-interest. The chief priests and elders saw the promise of the Messiah as their return to worldly authority rather than an extension of the Lord’s mission of salvation, again due to a blindness over their self-interest.
Ezekiel had warned about the false perception of fairness, in the same exact context in which Jesus taught in today’s Gospel:
You say, “The LORD’s way is not fair!” Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair? When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity, and dies, it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, and does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life; since he has turned away from all the sins that he has committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
The Lord’s teaching through Ezekiel warns about the difference between the human perception of fairness and its divine application. We are too tainted by self-love to properly perceive true fairness, which is the hope that all of our brothers and sisters find salvation in Him. That is not a reward or a wage we are owed on the basis of a length of service, but a gift from God on the basis of true repentance and aligning our will to His. That is what the first son does in today’s parable, and what the late-joining workers do in last week’s parable as well. If we truly grasped salvation in the Gospel, we wouldn’t feel cheated by this extension of mercy as a form of injustice — we would be rejoicing at the salvation of more of His children.
As Paul writes to the Philippians, the key to unlocking salvation is adopting that same caritas and emptying one’s self of self-love, in imitation of Christ. “Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves,” Paul teaches, “each looking out not for his own interests, but also for those of others.” Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a slave” for our sakes, Paul continues, showing us the way to salvation.
We are all called not just to our own salvation, but also to work for the salvation of others. We should understand each true conversion as a victory for the Lord and for all of us as well, no matter when it comes … and no matter how much we in our limited vision perceive injustice in that reward. And it is those who truly understand how much they do not deserve salvation but realize the value of this gift of grace who will go first — a point Jesus makes plain in today’s Gospel as a warning to the self-righteous of that time. Let that warning open our eyes in our own time as well.
The front page image is a detail from “Jesús en Casa de Anás” by José de Madrazo y Agudo, 1803. Currently on display at the Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here.


hotair--2020-09-27--Liberals go after Amy Coney Barrett by attacking her adopted children

Amy Coney Barrett will be the next Supreme Court justice , it ’ s a fact .
Mitch McConnell has the votes secured and her nomination will move forward .
She will get a vote in the Senate before Election Day .
She will be the ninth justice .
All that said , her road to that seat on the country ’ s highest court will be a bumpy one for her and her family .
It began before she was even formally announced on Saturday by President Trump .
I noticed that a particularly nasty line of attack was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A Democrat staffer and activist posted a thread pondering if the adoption process for her two Haitian-born children was legit .
The person even implied that maybe the children were snatched up and taken out of Haiti by “ ultra-religious Americans ” .
That person ’ s Twitter account is now private .
The twit is a coward .
This kind of personal attack on the children of public figures is gut-wrenching .
ACB keeps her family private .
During her 2017 confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rare occurrence .
Five children are biological children , two are adopted .
Also , her youngest child is a special needs child , he has Downs Syndrome .
“ Emma is 16 .
The first apple of our eye , ” Amy said during the hearing .
“ Vivian , directly next to Emma , is 13 .
Vivian is our miracle .
Vivian joined our family—she was born in Haiti and she came home when she was 14 months old , and she weighed 11 pounds and she was so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk normally or speak .
Today Vivian is a track star , and I assure you she has no trouble talking .
Tess , sitting next to Vivian , is also 13 years old .
Both in 8th grade .
She ’ s one of the most compassionate and determined people that I know.
” “ John Peter is 10 , and like Vivian , he was born in Haiti .
He joined our family in 2010 when he was 3 years old after the devastating earthquake in Haiti , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curious 8-year-old .
And Juliet is our spunky 6-year-old .
Benjamin , our youngest , is 5. and Benjamin has special needs , and that presents unique challenges for all of us .
But I think all you need to know about Benjamin ’ s place in the family is summed up by the fact the other children unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling.
” That was three years ago .
Now Vivian is 16 years old and John Peter is 13 .
They will hear and read all the ugliness thrown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question them about it , too .
It ’ s unnecessary stress on minor children purely for political reasons .
It ’ s disgusting .
It brought back memories of the confirmation hearings of John Roberts in 2005 .
At that time , it was the New York Times doing the bidding of Democrats .
A reporter was investigating the private adoption of his children .
Roberts ’ children were even younger than the Barrett children – Josie was 5 years old and Jack was 4 .
The Washington Post ran a story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their father ’ s announcement .
Today , a tweeter went after ACB for “ weaponizing her white womanhood ” as a power grab and accused her of using her children as political props .
Her Twitter account is now private , too .
These hideous people are brave keyboard warriors until they start to get some blowback and then they hide behind private accounts .
Reporter Kelly O ’ Donnell tweeted a short video of ACB and her “ large family ” leaving their home in Indiana to travel to Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuanced jabs will continue , too .
Next , we ’ ll be hearing about the carbon footprints of “ large families ” , you know .
What I noticed was that the children were holding each other ’ s hands .
It was a sweet look at how they protect each other .
Democrats are just warming up .
The personal attacks will soon be combined with the professional attacks on ACB .
Already I saw one tweet from a liberal woman complaining that ACB only has three years on the 7th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Kagen had no time on any bench , so… Democrat senators are showing their pettiness by stating they will not even bother to meet with ACB , as is tradition before confirmation hearings .
Frankly , that works out fine by me .
It will speed up the process .
Chuck Schumer is leading the charge that ACB ’ s appointment on the Supreme Court means the end of health care and everyone will die , or something .
Democrats are really hammering on the Trump administration ’ s lawsuit against Obamacare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They claim that scare tactics about health care coverage worked for them in the 2018 election cycle and they intend to do the same now for the November general election .
“ By nominating Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court , President Trump has put Americans ’ health care at grave risk , ” Schumer said at an after-dark press conference in New York City .
“ And as COVID-19 continues and we need more health care , the nomination by President Trump of Amy Coney Barrett will mean less health care for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care is the most important issue on the ballot to Americans and as Americans learn Judge Barrett ’ s views on health care and so many other issues , she will become less and less popular , and hopefully they will call their senators and say ‘ don ’ t vote for someone who will take away my health care , ' ” Schumer said .
Republicans are having a little fun while they raise money , too .

Amy Coney Barrett will be the next Supreme Court justice, it’s a fact. Mitch McConnell has the votes secured and her nomination will move forward. She will get a vote in the Senate before Election Day. She will be the ninth justice. All that said, her road to that seat on the country’s highest court will be a bumpy one for her and her family. It began before she was even formally announced on Saturday by President Trump.
I noticed that a particularly nasty line of attack was developing against ACB Friday night on Twitter. A Democrat staffer and activist posted a thread pondering if the adoption process for her two Haitian-born children was legit. The person even implied that maybe the children were snatched up and taken out of Haiti by “ultra-religious Americans”.
Senator Josh Hawley noticed and posted a response outing the Democrat staffer.
Read this from Democrat activist & Hill staffer. Questioning whether #AmyConeyBarrett *illegally* adopted her children from Haiti, maybe snatching them from birth parents! This is the Dem gameplan. Nothing but raw bigotry and hate. I promise you, this will not stand pic.twitter.com/JEMqhe05dY — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) September 26, 2020
That person’s Twitter account is now private. The twit is a coward.
This kind of personal attack on the children of public figures is gut-wrenching. ACB keeps her family private. During her 2017 confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she spoke of her seven children, a rare occurrence. Five children are biological children, two are adopted. Also, her youngest child is a special needs child, he has Downs Syndrome.
“Emma is 16. The first apple of our eye,” Amy said during the hearing. “Vivian, directly next to Emma, is 13. Vivian is our miracle. Vivian joined our family—she was born in Haiti and she came home when she was 14 months old, and she weighed 11 pounds and she was so weak we were told she might never walk normally or speak. Today Vivian is a track star, and I assure you she has no trouble talking. Tess, sitting next to Vivian, is also 13 years old. Both in 8th grade. She’s one of the most compassionate and determined people that I know.” “John Peter is 10, and like Vivian, he was born in Haiti. He joined our family in 2010 when he was 3 years old after the devastating earthquake in Haiti,” she said. “Liam is 8. Typically curious 8-year-old. And Juliet is our spunky 6-year-old. Benjamin, our youngest, is 5. and Benjamin has special needs, and that presents unique challenges for all of us. But I think all you need to know about Benjamin’s place in the family is summed up by the fact the other children unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling.”
That was three years ago. Now Vivian is 16 years old and John Peter is 13. They will hear and read all the ugliness thrown at their family. Their friends will question them about it, too. It’s unnecessary stress on minor children purely for political reasons. It’s disgusting. It brought back memories of the confirmation hearings of John Roberts in 2005. At that time, it was the New York Times doing the bidding of Democrats. A reporter was investigating the private adoption of his children. Roberts’ children were even younger than the Barrett children – Josie was 5 years old and Jack was 4. The Washington Post ran a story ridiculing the clothes the children wore for their father’s announcement.
Today, a tweeter went after ACB for “weaponizing her white womanhood” as a power grab and accused her of using her children as political props. Her Twitter account is now private, too. These hideous people are brave keyboard warriors until they start to get some blowback and then they hide behind private accounts.
Reporter Kelly O’Donnell tweeted a short video of ACB and her “large family” leaving their home in Indiana to travel to Washington, D.C. this morning. These kinds of nuanced jabs will continue, too. Next, we’ll be hearing about the carbon footprints of “large families”, you know. What I noticed was that the children were holding each other’s hands. It was a sweet look at how they protect each other.
NEW: Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her large family left their Indiana home this afternoon dressed up for a special occasion. Our @GaryGrumbach on the scene for us. Announcement at 5pm at WH for Supreme Court nomination. pic.twitter.com/A4yVNo7jgE — Kelly O'Donnell (@KellyO) September 26, 2020
Democrats are just warming up. The personal attacks will soon be combined with the professional attacks on ACB. Already I saw one tweet from a liberal woman complaining that ACB only has three years on the 7th Circuit. Someone quickly educated her that Justice Kagen had no time on any bench, so…
Democrat senators are showing their pettiness by stating they will not even bother to meet with ACB, as is tradition before confirmation hearings. Frankly, that works out fine by me. It will speed up the process.
Chuck Schumer is leading the charge that ACB’s appointment on the Supreme Court means the end of health care and everyone will die, or something. Democrats are really hammering on the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Obamacare now pending in the Supreme Court. They claim that scare tactics about health care coverage worked for them in the 2018 election cycle and they intend to do the same now for the November general election.
“By nominating Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court, President Trump has put Americans’ health care at grave risk,” Schumer said at an after-dark press conference in New York City. “And as COVID-19 continues and we need more health care, the nomination by President Trump of Amy Coney Barrett will mean less health care for over 100 million Americans.” “Health care is the most important issue on the ballot to Americans and as Americans learn Judge Barrett’s views on health care and so many other issues, she will become less and less popular, and hopefully they will call their senators and say ‘don’t vote for someone who will take away my health care,'” Schumer said.
The American people should make no mistake: A vote by any Senator for Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a vote to eliminate health care for millions in the middle the COVID-19 pandemic. Democrats are fighting for Americans' health care. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) September 26, 2020
Republicans are having a little fun while they raise money, too.


hotair--2020-09-28--USPS: We have no idea how much mail theft is going on

With all of the discussions taking place on the subject of mass mail-in voting this year and concerns over the potential for ballots being stolen and fraudulently submitted ( not that Democrats or most of the media want to discuss it ) , one obvious issue is coming under increasing scrutiny .
Exactly how much mail theft is really going on in the United States ?
NBC News recently submitted FOIA requests and conducted interviews with postal inspectors to find out .
They received a couple of different answers , beginning with a report saying there had been a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
That was then modified to say that the numbers were significantly “ overstated.
” And finally , the USPS threw up their hands and admitted that they really have no idea how much mail theft is going on .
The U.S .
Postal Service has been under fire for months for a delivery slowdown spurred by changes brought by the new postmaster general , Louis DeJoy .
But the nation ’ s mail system has also been plagued by a previously undisclosed problem : It has no reliable system for tracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s law enforcement arm acknowledged the shortcoming after NBC News , prompted by anecdotal accounts of an uptick in mail theft around the country , sought and received mail theft figures through a Freedom of Information Act request .
The linked report contains all manner of horror stories about thefts of letters and packages .
This January in Phoenix , “ several trays of mail ” were grabbed out of a Post Office parking lot .
In April , thieves at Grand Central Station in New York City made off with entire bags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In one suburb of Seattle , carriers have started to “ avoid leaving unemployment and Social Security checks ” at one apartment complex because the mail is stolen so often .
The initial report from the USPS claimed that they had seen a 600 % increase in mail theft from 2017 to this year .
But they then admitted that the figures represent customer complaints that can include many reports of issues that don ’ t actually involve theft , such as vandalism or delivery delays .
So in other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is taking place .
Of course , it seems as if the USPS can ’ t really know the full picture because we ’ re talking about two classes of theft here .
Some robberies take place before delivery but a lot of it happens after the carrier drops it off at the recipient ’ s address .
The Post Office should certainly be able to track letters and packages as they make their way through the system so you would think they could tell you when things go missing , but apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a case of mail being stolen after delivery , however , how would the postal service know ?
They might if someone reports the package or envelope not arriving , but what if they weren ’ t expecting it ?
This could be particularly true in the case of mail-in ballots in states that don ’ t traditionally conduct their elections this way .
Unless the voter watches the state and national news like a hawk , they might not even be aware that they should be on the lookout for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if someone steals it at some point during the delivery process , they may be none the wiser and find themselves in for an unpleasant surprise when they show up at their polling place on November 3rd .
The US Postal Service is clearly in need of even more of an overhaul than the one currently being planned by the White House .
If we ’ re not only unable to significantly curb mail theft but can ’ t even figure out approximately how much mail is being stolen , we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with delivery slowdowns .

With all of the discussions taking place on the subject of mass mail-in voting this year and concerns over the potential for ballots being stolen and fraudulently submitted (not that Democrats or most of the media want to discuss it), one obvious issue is coming under increasing scrutiny. Exactly how much mail theft is really going on in the United States? NBC News recently submitted FOIA requests and conducted interviews with postal inspectors to find out. They received a couple of different answers, beginning with a report saying there had been a huge spike in thefts over the past few years. That was then modified to say that the numbers were significantly “overstated.” And finally, the USPS threw up their hands and admitted that they really have no idea how much mail theft is going on.
The U.S. Postal Service has been under fire for months for a delivery slowdown spurred by changes brought by the new postmaster general, Louis DeJoy. But the nation’s mail system has also been plagued by a previously undisclosed problem: It has no reliable system for tracking mail theft. The Postal Service’s law enforcement arm acknowledged the shortcoming after NBC News, prompted by anecdotal accounts of an uptick in mail theft around the country, sought and received mail theft figures through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The linked report contains all manner of horror stories about thefts of letters and packages. This January in Phoenix, “several trays of mail” were grabbed out of a Post Office parking lot. In April, thieves at Grand Central Station in New York City made off with entire bags of mail and packages in broad daylight. In one suburb of Seattle, carriers have started to “avoid leaving unemployment and Social Security checks” at one apartment complex because the mail is stolen so often.
The initial report from the USPS claimed that they had seen a 600% increase in mail theft from 2017 to this year. But they then admitted that the figures represent customer complaints that can include many reports of issues that don’t actually involve theft, such as vandalism or delivery delays. So in other words, they have no idea how much theft is taking place.
Of course, it seems as if the USPS can’t really know the full picture because we’re talking about two classes of theft here. Some robberies take place before delivery but a lot of it happens after the carrier drops it off at the recipient’s address. The Post Office should certainly be able to track letters and packages as they make their way through the system so you would think they could tell you when things go missing, but apparently, they cant.
When it’s a case of mail being stolen after delivery, however, how would the postal service know? They might if someone reports the package or envelope not arriving, but what if they weren’t expecting it? This could be particularly true in the case of mail-in ballots in states that don’t traditionally conduct their elections this way. Unless the voter watches the state and national news like a hawk, they might not even be aware that they should be on the lookout for a ballot showing up in their mailbox. And if someone steals it at some point during the delivery process, they may be none the wiser and find themselves in for an unpleasant surprise when they show up at their polling place on November 3rd.
The US Postal Service is clearly in need of even more of an overhaul than the one currently being planned by the White House. If we’re not only unable to significantly curb mail theft but can’t even figure out approximately how much mail is being stolen, we have some bigger fish to fry than simply dealing with delivery slowdowns.


hotair--2020-09-28--Streisand on Amy Coney Barrett: She will "set the country back decades"

Hey , I wonder what Barbra Streisand thinks about Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to the Supreme Court ?
said no one ever.The aging singer and political pundit posted her opinion on Twitter Sunday morning .
She ’ s not a fan of President Trump ’ s choice .
Barbra Streisand and other liberal feminists of her age group often sound as though they are stuck in the 1970s .
In the case of Streisand , she is quick to deliver standard Democrat talking points as though they are facts not to be questioned .
She began her tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which seems odd .
That ’ s the word she chose to use .
Spite has nothing to do with Trump ’ s choice – it ’ s all about politics and securing a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court .
Did she think he ’ d nominate a liberal ?
His nominee is the “ polar opposite of RBG ” , Babs , and she is an excellent choice .
Conservatives are very excited about this unexpected development just as the clock is running out on Trump ’ s first term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women , always go straight for the abortion issue .
This time they are including their zeal for the issue into their fear of losing the Obamacare lawsuit before the Supreme Court set to be heard when the new court session begins .
Thus the hyperbole – she will set the country back for decades .
This is said every time a conservative judge is nominated and every time , Roe v Wade remains unchanged .
That ruling , which many of us think was made unconstitutionally , hasn ’ t changed since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t so easy to overturn , though , as Senator Mike Lee said Sunday .
He said that one issue can ’ t be the only reason to vote in favor of a nominee , her record is the important factor .
“ You know , only time can tell what will happen to any one precedent , ” he said .
“ In any event , you can ’ t look at the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice and boil down that jurist ’ s contribution to the law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might do with a single case , ” he added .
The Utah Republican added that “ overruling a precedent ” is “ a lot more complicated than people might think.
” Can ACB be the deciding factor once she is the ninth justice ?
It ’ s unclear at this point but she is on the record of saying abortion is “ always immoral ” .
She does have what the left calls an “ anti-abortion rights judicial record ” .
CBS reports that she ruled in favor of restriction on access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quote an “ anti-abortion political group ” in favor of ACB ’ s nomination .
ACB ruled in favor of parental notification when a minor is attempting to get an abortion .
She joined dissenters in a case .
that regulated the fetal remains from abortion procedures .
And she dissented in another case that would have banned abortions for reasons related to sex , race , or disability .
The majority , in that case , found that the restriction limited a patient ’ s ability to receive an abortion prior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals , she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases , both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion .
“ She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices , ” said Marjorie Dannenfelser , president of the Susan B. Anthony List , an anti-abortion rights political group , in an emailed statement to CBS News .
President Trump frequently refers to himself as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has certainly been consistent on the issue and ACB will join two other pro-life Trump appointments to the Supreme Court .
Other celebrities have weighed in with their hot takes on ACB , too .
Remember the show Frasier ?
Here is one of the cast offering a kind of puzzling opinion : And there have been some standard Hollywood tweets .
Poor Debra Messing ’ s world is collapsing , apparently .
A West Wing cast member would like for Kamala to “ filet ” ACB .
Someone should check on Cher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the older folks .
Nice work , President Trump .
GOP voters will , in fact , remember in November .

Hey, I wonder what Barbra Streisand thinks about Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court? said no one ever.The aging singer and political pundit posted her opinion on Twitter Sunday morning. She’s not a fan of President Trump’s choice.
Barbra Streisand and other liberal feminists of her age group often sound as though they are stuck in the 1970s. In the case of Streisand, she is quick to deliver standard Democrat talking points as though they are facts not to be questioned. She began her tweet by calling President Trump “spiteful” which seems odd. That’s the word she chose to use. Spite has nothing to do with Trump’s choice – it’s all about politics and securing a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Did she think he’d nominate a liberal? His nominee is the “polar opposite of RBG”, Babs, and she is an excellent choice. Conservatives are very excited about this unexpected development just as the clock is running out on Trump’s first term in office.
A spiteful Donald Trump picked a woman who is the polar opposite of RBG. Barrett opposes the ACA and a woman’s right to choose her reproductive decisions. She will set the country back decades. Remember the GOP did this in November. — Barbra Streisand (@BarbraStreisand) September 27, 2020
Liberals, especially liberal women, always go straight for the abortion issue. This time they are including their zeal for the issue into their fear of losing the Obamacare lawsuit before the Supreme Court set to be heard when the new court session begins. Thus the hyperbole – she will set the country back for decades. This is said every time a conservative judge is nominated and every time, Roe v Wade remains unchanged. That ruling, which many of us think was made unconstitutionally, hasn’t changed since 1971.
The legality of abortion isn’t so easy to overturn, though, as Senator Mike Lee said Sunday. He said that one issue can’t be the only reason to vote in favor of a nominee, her record is the important factor.
“You know, only time can tell what will happen to any one precedent,” he said. “In any event, you can’t look at the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice and boil down that jurist’s contribution to the law, past and future, to what they might do with a single case,” he added. The Utah Republican added that “overruling a precedent” is “a lot more complicated than people might think.”
Can ACB be the deciding factor once she is the ninth justice? It’s unclear at this point but she is on the record of saying abortion is “always immoral”. She does have what the left calls an “anti-abortion rights judicial record”. CBS reports that she ruled in favor of restriction on access to abortion twice and goes on to quote an “anti-abortion political group” in favor of ACB’s nomination. ACB ruled in favor of parental notification when a minor is attempting to get an abortion. She joined dissenters in a case . that regulated the fetal remains from abortion procedures. And she dissented in another case that would have banned abortions for reasons related to sex, race, or disability. The majority, in that case, found that the restriction limited a patient’s ability to receive an abortion prior to fetal viability.
During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases, both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion. “She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion rights political group, in an emailed statement to CBS News.
Planned Parenthood issued a statement.
“Barrett’s history of hostility toward reproductive health and rights, expanded health care access, and more demonstrate that she will put Justice Ginsburg’s long record of ensuring that everyone receives equal justice under the law at risk,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, Planned Parenthood’s president, in a statement emailed to CBS News following Barrett’s nomination on Saturday.
President Trump frequently refers to himself as the most pro-life president ever. He has certainly been consistent on the issue and ACB will join two other pro-life Trump appointments to the Supreme Court.
Other celebrities have weighed in with their hot takes on ACB, too.
Remember the show Frasier? Here is one of the cast offering a kind of puzzling opinion:
You can’t be pro-life and pro Amy Coney Barrett. #BlockBarrett — Peri Gilpin (@GilpinPeri) September 26, 2020
And there have been some standard Hollywood tweets. Poor Debra Messing’s world is collapsing, apparently.
THIS IS A LAST DITCH POWER GRAB. At GRAVE risk:
🚨Universal Healthcare
🚨Preexisting Conditions PROTECTIONS
🚨Women’s Bodily Autonomy
🚨Voting Rights
🚨Response to the Climate Crisis#Trump said he is pushing this through so she can vote him in w/ contested election results. https://t.co/zAOLCsqPgA — Debra Messing✍🏻 (@DebraMessing) September 26, 2020
A West Wing cast member would like for Kamala to “filet” ACB.
I don’t want to condone this process, but I do want to see everyone on the judiciary committee give their time to @KamalaHarris so she can filet Amy Coney Barret. — (((Bradley Whitford))) (@BradleyWhitford) September 27, 2020
Someone should check on Cher.
Trump APPOINTS FEMALE NEOCON JUDGE WHO PLEDGES BEHIND THE SCENES, 2 KILL ACA & PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DURING A PANDEMIC,& ROE WADE 2 GO.
SICK CHILDREN WILL SUFFER
BECAUSE MEDICINES TOO EXPENSIVE .NO💰4 DIALYSIS,HEART CANCER, KIDNEY DISEASES, IF PPL DONT GET TREATMENT
THEY DIE — Cher (@cher) September 26, 2020
And one more, this one for the older folks.
Do you think they tried very hard to get Donald to read anything about #AmyConeyBarrett, or did they just say, “We found a lady Mike Pence” during a commercial break on OANN? — bettemidler (@BetteMidler) September 26, 2020
Nice work, President Trump. GOP voters will, in fact, remember in November.


hotair--2020-09-28--The Brad Parscale bodycam arrest video

The Brad Parscale bodycam arrest video

Much of the reaction to this clip on political Twitter this afternoon is people asking why the cops felt they had to tackle him .
It does appear gratuitous , as you ’ ll see .
My guess is that it was a combination of two things .
One was his wife telling police that he had four or five guns in the house and had already dramatically cocked one in front of her , which frightened her .
( Eventually they found 10 guns . )
She also claimed to have heard a loud bang , which may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been a car backfiring nearby .
Either way , the police might have feared he was ready to go out in a blaze of glory .
The other key fact is that Parscale is a very big man , at 6 ’ 8 .
Even if he wasn ’ t armed with , say , a gun down the back of his shorts , a guy that size who ’ s drinking and emotionally fraught might make a move on an officer and overpower one of them quickly .
But that still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why not approach him and ask to pat him down before talking to him ?
It seemed like he was trying to speak to them calmly .
And if he had a gun concealed , tackling him might not have stopped him from pulling it and starting to fire once he hit the ground .
Long story short : This may be the first and last time Donald Trump watches footage of police roughing someone up and concludes that excessive force was used .
The general reaction to Parscale ’ s arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Initially it was sympathetic , as his wife claimed that he ’ d been threatening suicide .
Everyone can relate to feeling despondent ; even some lefties warned their followers on social media not to make light of Parscale ’ s despair , as there but for the grace of God go all of us .
But more information came out today that complicates that reaction .
He may have been threatening to hurt himself , but if you believe his wife he ’ s already hurt her .
Officers also wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife told them he had post-traumatic stress disorder and had become violent in recent weeks .
Candice Parscale , 41 , showed them bruises on her arms from an argument two days prior , they said .
Police say they took photos of injuries .
“ While speaking with Candace Parscale I noticed several large sized contusions on both of her arms , her cheek and forehead , ” wrote Detective Steven Smith , slightly misspelling Candice Parscale ’ s first name .
“ When I asked how she received the bruising , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Parscale ’ s wife told them her husband had not hit her Sunday , but had smacked her phone out of her hand when she tried to call his father , according to the police reports .
No one should lose their career because they ’ ve struggled with depression .
But if they ’ re abusing their spouse ?
We ’ ll see how that stand of this story develops in the coming days and weeks .
One other thing to bear in mind before you watch is that this clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full scene that played out outside the home .
Parscale seems pretty chill when he finally emerges , seemingly not suicidal .
But he reportedly didn ’ t sound that way while he was still inside , when the cops were chatting with him by phone : “ [ Parscale ’ s ] speech was slurred as though he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and he seemed to be crying , ” Skaggs wrote in his report .
“ Due to his refusal [ to ] exit the residence on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , crisis negotiators were requested.
” Candice Parscale told police that her husband has been stressed out for the past two weeks and has made suicidal comments throughout the week about shooting himself , but that he had not made any suicidal comments that day .
She said that her husband drinks and “ suffers from PTSD.
” They had good reason to believe they were dealing with a desperate man with death on his mind when they encountered him .
Whether that justifies the tackle is another question .
Exit quotation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a general matter , I think two signs of an unhealthy culture are 1 ) people feeling like its normal to have 10 guns in a suburban home and 2 ) cops thinking it is acceptable to just spear dudes for no discernible reason .
”

Much of the reaction to this clip on political Twitter this afternoon is people asking why the cops felt they had to tackle him. It does appear gratuitous, as you’ll see. My guess is that it was a combination of two things. One was his wife telling police that he had four or five guns in the house and had already dramatically cocked one in front of her, which frightened her. (Eventually they found 10 guns.) She also claimed to have heard a loud bang, which may have been him firing a shot or may have been a car backfiring nearby. Either way, the police might have feared he was ready to go out in a blaze of glory. The other key fact is that Parscale is a very big man, at 6’8. Even if he wasn’t armed with, say, a gun down the back of his shorts, a guy that size who’s drinking and emotionally fraught might make a move on an officer and overpower one of them quickly.
But that still doesn’t really explain the tackle. Why not approach him and ask to pat him down before talking to him? It seemed like he was trying to speak to them calmly. And if he had a gun concealed, tackling him might not have stopped him from pulling it and starting to fire once he hit the ground.
Long story short: This may be the first and last time Donald Trump watches footage of police roughing someone up and concludes that excessive force was used.
The general reaction to Parscale’s arrest has evolved over the past 18 hours. Initially it was sympathetic, as his wife claimed that he’d been threatening suicide. Everyone can relate to feeling despondent; even some lefties warned their followers on social media not to make light of Parscale’s despair, as there but for the grace of God go all of us.
But more information came out today that complicates that reaction. He may have been threatening to hurt himself, but if you believe his wife he’s already hurt her.
Officers also wrote in their reports that Parscale’s wife told them he had post-traumatic stress disorder and had become violent in recent weeks. Candice Parscale, 41, showed them bruises on her arms from an argument two days prior, they said. Police say they took photos of injuries. “While speaking with Candace Parscale I noticed several large sized contusions on both of her arms, her cheek and forehead,” wrote Detective Steven Smith, slightly misspelling Candice Parscale’s first name. “When I asked how she received the bruising, Candace Parscale stated Brad Parscale hits her.” Parscale’s wife told them her husband had not hit her Sunday, but had smacked her phone out of her hand when she tried to call his father, according to the police reports.
No one should lose their career because they’ve struggled with depression. But if they’re abusing their spouse? We’ll see how that stand of this story develops in the coming days and weeks.
One other thing to bear in mind before you watch is that this clip is obviously a truncated version of the full scene that played out outside the home. Parscale seems pretty chill when he finally emerges, seemingly not suicidal. But he reportedly didn’t sound that way while he was still inside, when the cops were chatting with him by phone:
“[Parscale’s] speech was slurred as though he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and he seemed to be crying,” Skaggs wrote in his report. “Due to his refusal [to] exit the residence on his own free will and his emotional state, crisis negotiators were requested.” Candice Parscale told police that her husband has been stressed out for the past two weeks and has made suicidal comments throughout the week about shooting himself, but that he had not made any suicidal comments that day. She said that her husband drinks and “suffers from PTSD.”
They had good reason to believe they were dealing with a desperate man with death on his mind when they encountered him. Whether that justifies the tackle is another question. Exit quotation from Tim Miller: “Just as a general matter, I think two signs of an unhealthy culture are 1) people feeling like its normal to have 10 guns in a suburban home and 2) cops thinking it is acceptable to just spear dudes for no discernible reason.”


hotair--2020-09-28--Brian Stelter: Fox News prime time hosts are 'poisonous' but CNN's Don Lemon 'is a news anchor who h

Brian Stelter: Fox News prime time hosts are 'poisonous' but CNN's Don Lemon 'is a news anchor who has a point of view'

Two weeks ago I wrote about Brian Stelter ’ s book tour and what happened when he was challenged about CNN ’ s media ethics during an interview on The View .
At the time , Stelter suggested Meghan McCain ’ s examples were “ cherry-picked ” and then dodged the questions saying he wasn ’ t a spokesperson for CNN .
Today the book tour continues and Stelter appeared on Hugh Hewitt ’ s show where he once again struggled to defend his views when challenged .
I want to highlight two exchanges here .
In this first one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prime time opinion shows at CNN are just as partisan as those on Fox News .
Stelter : And if you watch the opinion shows , first of all , you need to watch prime time on Fox .
It is poisonous .
It is extremist rhetoric .
And that ’ s why we should pay attention to it .
It ’ s important to know what four , five , six million people are hearing every night , because it ’ s so extreme and so radical anti-Democrat , anti-Biden .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or MSNBC is doing .
It ’ s just not .
Here ’ s my favorite example , Hugh .
MSNBC , Rachel Maddow at 9pm , she ’ s always saying buy a local newspaper , support local news , support a healthy media ecosystem .
Sean Hannity says journalism is dead .
He tells you not to trust anything else .
I think there ’ s just a gigantic difference between what Fox is doing in prime time and the other networks .
HH : Let me queue up for you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go through thousands of clips with you on CNN where I can disagree , but I ’ m going to play you Don Lemon from last week .
Here ’ s Don .
Hewitt then played this clip of Don Lemon to rebut Stelter ’ s point : Hewitt asked what the difference was between this and Sean Hannity and Stelter changed the subject : HH : Brian Stelter , blow up the whole system , stack the courts , amend the Constitution .
That ’ s radical .
That ’ s Don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person ’ s view of a situation .
Why is that , why do you think that ’ s a big , why isn ’ t that shocking or surprising ?
HH : Because Don ’ s a , do you think Don is an opinion host or a news host ?
BS : Don Lemon is a news anchor who has a point of view and talks about his point of view , because sometimes , the best way to get through the news and all the noise is to explain what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
HH : How can you contrast Don and Sean and say they ’ re any different ?
Don ’ s just a lefty , and Sean ’ s a righty .
That ’ s all .
BS : Well again , here ’ s another example… Eventually , Hewitt came around to his main problem with Stelter ’ s book .
He notes that Stelter is criticizing Fox for its coverage of things like the Mueller investigation but , in the end , that investigation found no evidence of the long-promised collusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amazing : HH : We know the end of some stories that you criticize Fox for their coverage of .
We know the end of the Mueller report , right ?
There was no collusion , correct ?
BS : You know , I ’ m not going to play a game about a word that is irrelevant to the question at hand .
There ’ s still a lot we don ’ t know about the President ’ s ties with Russia , period .
HH : But Brian , that kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Your criticism in Hoax , a lot of is based in the coverage of the Mueller investigation and how they downplayed it and called it a Hoax .
It turns out there was no collusion , and it turns out we know this week , you couldn ’ t have known it during writing of Hoax… HH : …that the primary sub-source of the Steele dossier is probably a Russian agent , correct ?
BS : I think there ’ s a fantasyland that Fox promotes about what you ’ re describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that that distracts from the key questions about Trump ’ s ties with Russia .
We now know from the New York Times hundreds of millions of dollars of loans .
Who does the President owe money to ?
We need to know .
We deserve to know that , Hugh .
HH : Brian , that ’ s a deflection .
The primary sub-source of the dossier was revealed last week to be a Russian agent investigated by the Obama Department of Justice in 2009 and ’ 10 .
The dossier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These are factual matters .
That ’ s my problem with Hoax .
BS : I ’ m reflecting , I ’ m a media reporter , and I ’ m not a Steele dossier reporter .
What I know is that when you use the word hoax over and over again the way the President has , it ’ s dangerous and poisonous , because it makes people think there ’ s nothing real and nothing true anymore .
And that ’ s what I think the problem is .
HH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me that the primary sub-source of the dossier has been revealed to be a Russian agent ?
BS : I literally do not know , because I ’ m a media reporter .
BS : I hate to disappoint you .
I just , I don ’ t cover the dossier over the air… If you follow the conversation closely here , Stelter first denies that collusion is a settled issue .
Then he calls the report that Steele ’ s primary sub-source was investigated as a likely Russian agent part of Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dossier .
Finally , when pressed , Stelter claims he doesn ’ t know the details about the dossier ’ s source because that ’ s not his beat .
That ’ s quite a series of deflections on Stelter ’ s part .
How can you complain a network isn ’ t reporting things accurately when you don ’ t know the facts in the first place ?
Stelter doesn ’ t seem to have an answer for that .
Video of the exchange isn ’ t available on YouTube yet but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Finally , here ’ s Mollie Hemingway ’ s reaction to Stelter ’ s admission that he doesn ’ t know much about the dossier or its sourcing .
She argues that Stelter has managed to miss the biggest media story of the Trump era .

Two weeks ago I wrote about Brian Stelter’s book tour and what happened when he was challenged about CNN’s media ethics during an interview on The View. At the time, Stelter suggested Meghan McCain’s examples were “cherry-picked” and then dodged the questions saying he wasn’t a spokesperson for CNN.
Today the book tour continues and Stelter appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s show where he once again struggled to defend his views when challenged. I want to highlight two exchanges here. In this first one, Hewitt argues (convincingly) that prime time opinion shows at CNN are just as partisan as those on Fox News.
Stelter: And if you watch the opinion shows, first of all, you need to watch prime time on Fox. It is poisonous. It is extremist rhetoric. And that’s why we should pay attention to it. It’s important to know what four, five, six million people are hearing every night, because it’s so extreme and so radical anti-Democrat, anti-Biden. That is not the same as what CNN or MSNBC is doing. It’s just not. Here’s my favorite example, Hugh. MSNBC, Rachel Maddow at 9pm, she’s always saying buy a local newspaper, support local news, support a healthy media ecosystem. Sean Hannity says journalism is dead. He tells you not to trust anything else. I think there’s just a gigantic difference between what Fox is doing in prime time and the other networks. HH: Let me queue up for you, I’m not going to go through thousands of clips with you on CNN where I can disagree, but I’m going to play you Don Lemon from last week. Here’s Don.
Hewitt then played this clip of Don Lemon to rebut Stelter’s point:
Hewitt asked what the difference was between this and Sean Hannity and Stelter changed the subject:
HH: Brian Stelter, blow up the whole system, stack the courts, amend the Constitution. That’s radical. That’s Don. BS: That’s one person’s view of a situation. Why is that, why do you think that’s a big, why isn’t that shocking or surprising? HH: Because Don’s a, do you think Don is an opinion host or a news host? BS: Don Lemon is a news anchor who has a point of view and talks about his point of view, because sometimes, the best way to get through the news and all the noise is to explain what’s happening in our own words. HH: How can you contrast Don and Sean and say they’re any different? Don’s just a lefty, and Sean’s a righty. That’s all. BS: Well again, here’s another example…
Eventually, Hewitt came around to his main problem with Stelter’s book. He notes that Stelter is criticizing Fox for its coverage of things like the Mueller investigation but, in the end, that investigation found no evidence of the long-promised collusion. Stelter’s reaction is pretty amazing:
HH: We know the end of some stories that you criticize Fox for their coverage of. We know the end of the Mueller report, right? There was no collusion, correct? BS: You know, I’m not going to play a game about a word that is irrelevant to the question at hand. There’s still a lot we don’t know about the President’s ties with Russia, period. HH: But Brian, that kind of asks, that begs the question. Your criticism in Hoax, a lot of is based in the coverage of the Mueller investigation and how they downplayed it and called it a Hoax. It turns out there was no collusion, and it turns out we know this week, you couldn’t have known it during writing of Hoax… BS: Yeah. HH: …that the primary sub-source of the Steele dossier is probably a Russian agent, correct? BS: I think there’s a fantasyland that Fox promotes about what you’re describing, about the Steele dossier and all of that that distracts from the key questions about Trump’s ties with Russia. We now know from the New York Times hundreds of millions of dollars of loans. Who does the President owe money to? We need to know. We deserve to know that, Hugh. HH: Brian, that’s a deflection. The primary sub-source of the dossier was revealed last week to be a Russian agent investigated by the Obama Department of Justice in 2009 and ’10. The dossier is discredited. There was no collusion. These are factual matters. That’s my problem with Hoax. BS: I’m reflecting, I’m a media reporter, and I’m not a Steele dossier reporter. What I know is that when you use the word hoax over and over again the way the President has, it’s dangerous and poisonous, because it makes people think there’s nothing real and nothing true anymore. And that’s what I think the problem is. HH: Will you at least agree with me that the primary sub-source of the dossier has been revealed to be a Russian agent? BS: I literally do not know, because I’m a media reporter. HH: Okay. BS: I hate to disappoint you. I just, I don’t cover the dossier over the air…
If you follow the conversation closely here, Stelter first denies that collusion is a settled issue. Then he calls the report that Steele’s primary sub-source was investigated as a likely Russian agent part of Fox’s “fantasyland” about the dossier. Finally, when pressed, Stelter claims he doesn’t know the details about the dossier’s source because that’s not his beat.
That’s quite a series of deflections on Stelter’s part. How can you complain a network isn’t reporting things accurately when you don’t know the facts in the first place? Stelter doesn’t seem to have an answer for that.
Video of the exchange isn’t available on YouTube yet but you can listen to the audio here. Finally, here’s Mollie Hemingway’s reaction to Stelter’s admission that he doesn’t know much about the dossier or its sourcing. She argues that Stelter has managed to miss the biggest media story of the Trump era.