hotair--2020-08-06--Pence: Let's face it, Chief Justice Roberts is a "disappointment to conservatives"

“ Look , we have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States , ” Mike Pence tells CBN ’ s David Brody in an upcoming interview , and then goes on to call its Chief Justice a “ disappointment.
” That is nothing new for conservative activists , nor is making the Supreme Court a major issue in presidential elections .
Having a Vice President call out a justice by name as a “ disappointment ” does seem a little unusual , however , and it escalates a feud between the White House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last few years .
Vice President Mike Pence described Chief Justice John Roberts in a new interview as a “ disappointment ” to conservative voters , explicitly seeking to cast the Supreme Court as a campaign issue ahead of the November election .
“ Look , we have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States , ” Pence told the Christian Broadcasting Network ’ s David Brody on Wednesday .
“ But Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives — whether it be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel.
” The vice president ’ s criticism of the chief justice ’ s jurisprudence comes after Roberts sided with the high court ’ s Democratic appointees on several occasions in recent months , dealing the Trump administration defeats on issues including LGBT workplace discrimination , immigration and abortion .
… “ We remember the issue back in 2016 , which I believe loomed large in voters ’ decisions between Hillary Clinton and the man who would become president of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And some people thought that it wouldn ’ t be as big an issue these days .
But I think that ’ s all changed.
” Pence isn ’ t saying anything conservatives aren ’ t already discussing .
Chatter about Roberts has increased ever since his Obamacare ruling eight years ago , and it seems lately that Roberts has tacked to the center more deliberately since Anthony Kennedy retired .
Nor are conservatives the only people noticing this drift .
Yesterday , the Washington Post took note of a new Gallup poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest approval rating in eleven years , and that a majority of Democrats approve of them for the first time in Trump ’ s presidency : The Supreme Court has its highest public approval rating in a decade , according to a new Gallup poll , after a consequential term in which both liberals and conservatives could claim wins .
The approval rate of 58 percent is the highest since 2009 , the polling organization said .
At a time when partisan divides are starker than ever , perhaps the most significant finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 56 percent ) , Republicans ( 60 percent ) and independents ( 57 percent ) approve of the court ’ s performance .
… It is the first time since President Trump took office that a majority of Democrats have had a favorable opinion of the court .
Perhaps that is because the administration suffered a number of setbacks at the court this term , including findings that Trump is not immune from answering subpoenas from congressional investigators and a state prosecutor regarding his personal financial records .
WaPo reporter Paul Kane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the reason : Amazing is certainly one word for it .
Kane ’ s not the first person who has publicly concluded that Roberts has steered the court for political purposes , albeit against partisan purposes , in order to strengthen its position with the American electorate .
That , however , isn ’ t the role of the Supreme Court , and its use of lifetime appointments is supposed to be a bulwark against such considerations .
If Roberts was seen as more of a straight shooter , then Pence ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bounds .
As it is , though , Roberts is making himself and the court fair game — and Pence is correct at least in noting that control of the court ’ s appointments should be a major consideration in the 2020 election .
And in every other election as long as the court continues bargaining for popular approval rather than sticking to its job .

“Look, we have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Mike Pence tells CBN’s David Brody in an upcoming interview, and then goes on to call its Chief Justice a “disappointment.” That is nothing new for conservative activists, nor is making the Supreme Court a major issue in presidential elections. Having a Vice President call out a justice by name as a “disappointment” does seem a little unusual, however, and it escalates a feud between the White House and the Chief Justice that has percolated for the last few years.
EXCLUSIVE: Vice President Mike Pence calls out Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts by name. He says, "Chief Justice Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives." Watch from my interview with @VP in Florida today. Full report on @700club Thursday + clips on @CBNNews pic.twitter.com/z6IANVONr5 — David Brody (@DavidBrodyCBN) August 6, 2020
Vice President Mike Pence described Chief Justice John Roberts in a new interview as a “disappointment” to conservative voters, explicitly seeking to cast the Supreme Court as a campaign issue ahead of the November election. “Look, we have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Pence told the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody on Wednesday. “But Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives — whether it be the Obamacare decision, or whether it be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel.” The vice president’s criticism of the chief justice’s jurisprudence comes after Roberts sided with the high court’s Democratic appointees on several occasions in recent months, dealing the Trump administration defeats on issues including LGBT workplace discrimination, immigration and abortion. … “We remember the issue back in 2016, which I believe loomed large in voters’ decisions between Hillary Clinton and the man who would become president of the United States,” he said. “And some people thought that it wouldn’t be as big an issue these days. But I think that’s all changed.”
Pence isn’t saying anything conservatives aren’t already discussing. Chatter about Roberts has increased ever since his Obamacare ruling eight years ago, and it seems lately that Roberts has tacked to the center more deliberately since Anthony Kennedy retired. Nor are conservatives the only people noticing this drift. Yesterday, the Washington Post took note of a new Gallup poll showing that the Supreme Court has its highest approval rating in eleven years, and that a majority of Democrats approve of them for the first time in Trump’s presidency:
The Supreme Court has its highest public approval rating in a decade, according to a new Gallup poll, after a consequential term in which both liberals and conservatives could claim wins. The approval rate of 58 percent is the highest since 2009, the polling organization said. At a time when partisan divides are starker than ever, perhaps the most significant finding is that almost equal majorities of Democrats (56 percent), Republicans (60 percent) and independents (57 percent) approve of the court’s performance. … It is the first time since President Trump took office that a majority of Democrats have had a favorable opinion of the court. Perhaps that is because the administration suffered a number of setbacks at the court this term, including findings that Trump is not immune from answering subpoenas from congressional investigators and a state prosecutor regarding his personal financial records.
WaPo reporter Paul Kane sees deliberate strategy rather than random caseload as the reason:
Amazing: Chief Roberts seemed to pick & choose decisions based on public support. And so now SCOTUS now is 1 of most popular institutions in nation, 58% approval, highest since '09
Some will say that's politics, not the law.
Via @scotusreporter https://t.co/OvSSjdRvnr — Paul Kane (@pkcapitol) August 6, 2020
Amazing is certainly one word for it. Kane’s not the first person who has publicly concluded that Roberts has steered the court for political purposes, albeit against partisan purposes, in order to strengthen its position with the American electorate. That, however, isn’t the role of the Supreme Court, and its use of lifetime appointments is supposed to be a bulwark against such considerations.
If Roberts was seen as more of a straight shooter, then Pence’s direct criticism might seem more out of bounds. As it is, though, Roberts is making himself and the court fair game — and Pence is correct at least in noting that control of the court’s appointments should be a major consideration in the 2020 election. And in every other election as long as the court continues bargaining for popular approval rather than sticking to its job.


hotair--2020-08-06--Dems hint: Maybe Trump is looking for an excuse to skip the debates

With 98 percent certainty , this is just Team Joe and its allies within the party and the media enjoying a bit of “ turnabout is fair play ” at Republicans ’ expense .
Righties have spent months idly wondering if Slow Joe will find a reason to back out of the debates for fear of being exposed onstage as having lost his few remaining marbles .
Now it ’ s the Bidenites ’ turn to exploit yesterday ’ s Trump demand for a fourth debate , or an earlier first debate , as evidence that the president himself has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is , however , a one-percent chance that Trump genuinely doesn ’ t want to debate because , let ’ s face it , he ’ d be looking for a reason to back out if he were leading in the polls .
“ Why take a risk ?
” the president would say if he were leading 50/43 instead of vice versa .
Trump maximizes his advantage in all situations irrespective of “ norms.
” If he were ahead , preserving his lead by finding a pretext to skip the debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ’ s the thing : He ’ s deep enough in a yes-man cocoon that he might believe he is leading in the “ real ” polls right now .
So , one-percent chance of that .
There ’ s also a one-percent chance that his advisors watched that Axios interview this week and the Chris Wallace interview a few weeks ago and concluded that the president does not , shall we say , “ have the best words ” anymore .
If they ’ re convinced that he ’ d do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matching up with Biden in front of the cameras then naturally they ’ d search for a pretext to back out .
The race has tightened ( slightly ) lately .
Maybe it ’ ll continue to tighten unless Trump inadvertently gives Biden a showcase to prove that he ’ s at least as fit for the job as Trump is .
But really , when you ’ re down seven , you have to run that risk .
Trump will compete , even if Biden ’ s chief spokesman is hinting otherwise… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ echoing the point… …and even if splashy features raising doubt are appearing in magazines like Vanity Fair : In assessing which candidate is really trying to skirt the debates , it is probably more useful to consider what the respective campaigns have actually said , rather than the “ public advice ” of newspaper columnists and cable-news pundits .
In December , Trump lashed out at the commission on Twitter , saying it was stacked with “ Trump Haters ” and “ Never Trumpers.
” Days later , Trump campaign advisers met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has sponsored every debate since 1988 , raising the possibility that the president may seek a forum organized by a different firm .
Frank Fahrenkopf , the co-chairman of the commission and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee , told me in an interview that the group would consider a fourth debate if both campaigns agreed , but he acknowledged that it was unlikely , given Biden ’ s adherence to the original plan .
“ They know it ’ s not going anywhere with us , ” Fahrenkopf said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly that we ’ re sticking with our original plan that was proposed last year.
” Whether Trump sticks to that plan remains an elusive question .
Murtaugh did not respond directly to my inquiries on whether the president will participate in the three established debates regardless of whether there is a fourth , or whether the selection of moderators will have any bearing on his decision .
Fahrenkopf said the commission will likely announce which news anchors will moderate the debates in the first week of September .
Could the inclusion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of the other outlets Trump repeatedly maligns as “ fake news ” be enough to keep him off stage ?
“ You know , I think that ’ s a possibility , ” former CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer told me in an interview this week .
Schieffer , who moderated presidential debates in 2004 , 2008 , and 2012 , said that Trump ’ s ever-shifting positions make it difficult to predict one way or another .
“ My guess is we ’ ll see him threaten not to take part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether he will or not , I think we ’ ll find out the night they have the debate , ” Schieffer said .
This morning Giuliani went as far as to call for the abolition of the debate commission if they don ’ t accept his demand for an earlier debate or a fourth one : I made the case last night that agreeing to an early debate would be in Biden ’ s interest in certain ways , although less so in others — specifically , if he had a terrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before early voting began , it could cost him many votes that would otherwise be banked for him if instead the first debate were held at the end of September , as is currently scheduled .
Team Biden seems to have decided that it ’ s not worth the risk .
“ We have said all along , including in a letter to the commission in June , that Joe Biden will appear on the dates that the commission selected and in the locations they chose , ” said Biden spokesman Andrew Bates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand .
“ Donald Trump has not , continually trying to insert his choice of friendly moderators , now including one who just published an op-ed offering ‘ the case ’ for Trump ’ s reelection.
” If Biden ’ s sticking to the dates that he ’ s already agreed to , with the first debate on September 29 , then it ’ s Trump ’ s move .
He can either capitulate and drop his demand or back out .
Backing out is unthinkable since it would forfeit his last best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explode MAGA Nation ’ s talking point that Biden ’ s a drooling imbecile who ’ ll surely be exposed before the cameras by the president ’ s steel-trap mind .
The cynical take on why Trump and Giuliani made their demand is that they thought there was at least a small chance Biden might go for it and that , if he didn ’ t , it ’ d become another thing they could point to after the election as “ proof ” that the president was cheated somehow .
“ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mail-in ballots .
And the fake-news media ’ s vendetta against him .
And the refusal of Biden and the commission to agree to debates before early voting started.
” Trump will show up .
He ’ s just looking to cultivate a new grievance for his fans .
I think there ’ s a less cynical possibility too .
Trump fancies himself a supremely skilled negotiator and might just be putting on a show of “ negotiating ” with Biden and the committee before ultimately capitulating .
He has no leverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debates at this point more than Biden does .
But being a realtor by trade , he feels obliged to always come to the table complaining about unfairness and insisting upon major concessions in hopes that the final deal will end up being a tiny bit more favorable to him .
As it is , Biden and the commission have made him a “ take it or leave it ” offer .
What ’ ll he do ?

With 98 percent certainty, this is just Team Joe and its allies within the party and the media enjoying a bit of “turnabout is fair play” at Republicans’ expense. Righties have spent months idly wondering if Slow Joe will find a reason to back out of the debates for fear of being exposed onstage as having lost his few remaining marbles. Now it’s the Bidenites’ turn to exploit yesterday’s Trump demand for a fourth debate, or an earlier first debate, as evidence that the president himself has cold feet.
Ninety-eight percent chance. There is, however, a one-percent chance that Trump genuinely doesn’t want to debate because, let’s face it, he’d be looking for a reason to back out if he were leading in the polls. “Why take a risk?” the president would say if he were leading 50/43 instead of vice versa. Trump maximizes his advantage in all situations irrespective of “norms.” If he were ahead, preserving his lead by finding a pretext to skip the debates would be to his advantage.
And here’s the thing: He’s deep enough in a yes-man cocoon that he might believe he is leading in the “real” polls right now. So, one-percent chance of that.
There’s also a one-percent chance that his advisors watched that Axios interview this week and the Chris Wallace interview a few weeks ago and concluded that the president does not, shall we say, “have the best words” anymore. If they’re convinced that he’d do himself more harm politically than good by matching up with Biden in front of the cameras then naturally they’d search for a pretext to back out. The race has tightened (slightly) lately. Maybe it’ll continue to tighten unless Trump inadvertently gives Biden a showcase to prove that he’s at least as fit for the job as Trump is.
But really, when you’re down seven, you have to run that risk. Trump will compete, even if Biden’s chief spokesman is hinting otherwise…
they have not https://t.co/mr4G9sbtfX — Kate Bedingfield (@KBeds) August 5, 2020
…and even if former Obama advisors are echoing the point…
I don’t think people are taking seriously enough the idea that it’s Trump who is desperately looking to get out of debates. If he were, it would look exactly like what he’s been doing—make tons of nonsense demands, and when he doesn’t get them, walk. He’s done it before, in fact. pic.twitter.com/of6XH4Fqgw — Jesse Lee (@JesseCharlesLee) August 5, 2020
…and even if splashy features raising doubt are appearing in magazines like Vanity Fair:
In assessing which candidate is really trying to skirt the debates, it is probably more useful to consider what the respective campaigns have actually said, rather than the “public advice” of newspaper columnists and cable-news pundits. In December, Trump lashed out at the commission on Twitter, saying it was stacked with “Trump Haters” and “Never Trumpers.” Days later, Trump campaign advisers met with the commission, a bipartisan nonprofit group that has sponsored every debate since 1988, raising the possibility that the president may seek a forum organized by a different firm. Frank Fahrenkopf, the co-chairman of the commission and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, told me in an interview that the group would consider a fourth debate if both campaigns agreed, but he acknowledged that it was unlikely, given Biden’s adherence to the original plan. “They know it’s not going anywhere with us,” Fahrenkopf said. “We’ve said very clearly that we’re sticking with our original plan that was proposed last year.” Whether Trump sticks to that plan remains an elusive question. Murtaugh did not respond directly to my inquiries on whether the president will participate in the three established debates regardless of whether there is a fourth, or whether the selection of moderators will have any bearing on his decision. Fahrenkopf said the commission will likely announce which news anchors will moderate the debates in the first week of September. Could the inclusion of someone from CNN, NBC, or any of the other outlets Trump repeatedly maligns as “fake news” be enough to keep him off stage? “You know, I think that’s a possibility,” former CBS News anchor Bob Schieffer told me in an interview this week. Schieffer, who moderated presidential debates in 2004, 2008, and 2012, said that Trump’s ever-shifting positions make it difficult to predict one way or another. “My guess is we’ll see him threaten not to take part some place along the way, but whether he will or not, I think we’ll find out the night they have the debate,” Schieffer said.
This morning Giuliani went as far as to call for the abolition of the debate commission if they don’t accept his demand for an earlier debate or a fourth one:
On Fox & Friends, Rudy Giuliani says the Commission on Presidential Debates should be abolished if they refuse the Trump campaign's request to add a fourth debate or move the first one up. pic.twitter.com/OANirPptBQ — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) August 6, 2020
I made the case last night that agreeing to an early debate would be in Biden’s interest in certain ways, although less so in others — specifically, if he had a terrible debate at the start of September, before early voting began, it could cost him many votes that would otherwise be banked for him if instead the first debate were held at the end of September, as is currently scheduled. Team Biden seems to have decided that it’s not worth the risk. “We have said all along, including in a letter to the commission in June, that Joe Biden will appear on the dates that the commission selected and in the locations they chose,” said Biden spokesman Andrew Bates yesterday in response to Giuliani’s demand. “Donald Trump has not, continually trying to insert his choice of friendly moderators, now including one who just published an op-ed offering ‘the case’ for Trump’s reelection.”
If Biden’s sticking to the dates that he’s already agreed to, with the first debate on September 29, then it’s Trump’s move. He can either capitulate and drop his demand or back out. Backing out is unthinkable since it would forfeit his last best chance to turn the race around and explode MAGA Nation’s talking point that Biden’s a drooling imbecile who’ll surely be exposed before the cameras by the president’s steel-trap mind. The cynical take on why Trump and Giuliani made their demand is that they thought there was at least a small chance Biden might go for it and that, if he didn’t, it’d become another thing they could point to after the election as “proof” that the president was cheated somehow. “He would have won if not for all the mail-in ballots. And the fake-news media’s vendetta against him. And the refusal of Biden and the commission to agree to debates before early voting started.” Trump will show up. He’s just looking to cultivate a new grievance for his fans.
I think there’s a less cynical possibility too. Trump fancies himself a supremely skilled negotiator and might just be putting on a show of “negotiating” with Biden and the committee before ultimately capitulating. He has no leverage to make demands, as he needs the debates at this point more than Biden does. But being a realtor by trade, he feels obliged to always come to the table complaining about unfairness and insisting upon major concessions in hopes that the final deal will end up being a tiny bit more favorable to him. As it is, Biden and the commission have made him a “take it or leave it” offer. What’ll he do?


hotair--2020-08-06--Yet another Portland riot: 'Who's ready to raise some hell tonight?'

Last night was the 70th straight night of anti-police protests in Portland and the 2nd night in a row the crowd became violent enough that a riot was declared .
Hannah Ray Lambert , a KOIN reporter on the scene , said that as the crowd was getting worked up she heard someone ask “ Who ’ s ready to raise some hell tonight ?
” The group marched to Portland ’ s East Precinct , which had been boarded up in advance , and began tearing off the plywood while chanting : “ No KKK , no fascist USA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ F**k the police !
” Notice in the 2nd clip below they are using both umbrellas and lasers to prevent the cameras from seeing them while they vandalize the cameras .
They managed to get some of the plywood off and after initially failing to break the glass , decided to barricade the doors .
This group is not usually shy about going after anyone filming them so I ’ m wondering how this reporter was able to get such a good view of the vandalism in process without being attacked .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assembly and ordered people out of the street .
A few minutes before 10 pm they declared a riot .
Meanwhile the mob was setting a fire in front of the precinct while chanting “ No cops , no prisons , full abolition !
” So , believe it or not , these goons are utopian idealists .
A little after 10 pm , the crowd was throwing rocks and fireworks at the police .
Police pushed them back with tear gas .
At least one arrest was made and police identified what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside the precinct .
Later that night they announced they had checked it and found it was not an explosive .
At some point during this time as police and protesters were drifting back and forth near the precinct , a truck identified by police as belonging to someone in the protest group “ attempted to run over several officers.
” So far , that ’ s all the detail there is about that incident .
I haven ’ t seen any video of it anywhere .
I ’ m sure the protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have certainly changed since last Friday when the Washington Post published a series of live updates under the heading , “ Calm returns to Portland protests as federal forces pull back.
” Well , there were zero federal forces involved last night and still this is the 2nd riot in a row and the third one since Saturday .
It ’ s almost as if the anti-police rioters don ’ t care that much whether the police they are targeting are feds or locals .
The only difference now is the targets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ courthouse , the mob is now attacking the Police union building and the East Precinct .
I don ’ t see any reason why this behavior will stop until police decide to arrest a few people and pin some charges on the ones doing the damage .
As it stands now there isn ’ t much price being paid by the rioters for this behavior .

Last night was the 70th straight night of anti-police protests in Portland and the 2nd night in a row the crowd became violent enough that a riot was declared. Hannah Ray Lambert, a KOIN reporter on the scene, said that as the crowd was getting worked up she heard someone ask “Who’s ready to raise some hell tonight?”
"Who's ready to raise some hell tonight?" a person with a megaphone asked, prompting cheers. The crowd of about 200 gathered at Floyd Light City Park plans to march to PPB's East Precinct any minute now. https://t.co/vCBEruq9fW — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 6, 2020
The group marched to Portland’s East Precinct, which had been boarded up in advance, and began tearing off the plywood while chanting: “No KKK, no fascist USA, no cops!” and “F**k the police!” Notice in the 2nd clip below they are using both umbrellas and lasers to prevent the cameras from seeing them while they vandalize the cameras.
The security cameras are getting spray painted. pic.twitter.com/XkUvnkvTpw — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 6, 2020
They managed to get some of the plywood off and after initially failing to break the glass, decided to barricade the doors. This group is not usually shy about going after anyone filming them so I’m wondering how this reporter was able to get such a good view of the vandalism in process without being attacked.
They didn't have much luck breaking in so now they are barricading the doors. pic.twitter.com/yZJxqLIxhz — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 6, 2020
At 9:45 pm, police declared an unlawful assembly and ordered people out of the street. A few minutes before 10 pm they declared a riot.
PPB just declared riot. Warning of tear gas and impact munitions if people don't disperse. — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 6, 2020
Meanwhile the mob was setting a fire in front of the precinct while chanting “No cops, no prisons, full abolition!” So, believe it or not, these goons are utopian idealists.
Better view. Cops moving in now. pic.twitter.com/rEGhRLmqD3 — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 6, 2020
A little after 10 pm, the crowd was throwing rocks and fireworks at the police. Police pushed them back with tear gas. At least one arrest was made and police identified what they initially thought was an explosive device outside the precinct.
Arrests at 106th and Washington. pic.twitter.com/PzwMro0rxX — Hannah Ray Lambert (@TheHannahRay) August 6, 2020
We have reason to believe an explosive device has been left outside East Precinct. The area of SE Washington to SE Cherry Blossom St on SE 106th Ave is closed. Also closed is the property of Floyd Light Middle School and the East Portland Community Center. — Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) August 6, 2020
Later that night they announced they had checked it and found it was not an explosive. At some point during this time as police and protesters were drifting back and forth near the precinct, a truck identified by police as belonging to someone in the protest group “attempted to run over several officers.” So far, that’s all the detail there is about that incident. I haven’t seen any video of it anywhere. I’m sure the protesters tell a very different story.
Things have certainly changed since last Friday when the Washington Post published a series of live updates under the heading, “Calm returns to Portland protests as federal forces pull back.” Well, there were zero federal forces involved last night and still this is the 2nd riot in a row and the third one since Saturday. It’s almost as if the anti-police rioters don’t care that much whether the police they are targeting are feds or locals. The only difference now is the targets. Instead of gathering nightly at the federal courthouse, the mob is now attacking the Police union building and the East Precinct.
I don’t see any reason why this behavior will stop until police decide to arrest a few people and pin some charges on the ones doing the damage. As it stands now there isn’t much price being paid by the rioters for this behavior.


hotair--2020-08-06--Today's Rorschach test: Is this video from Portland propaganda, or an aggravated assault?

This will count on your final grade , students .
Activist/journalist Andy Ngo published video of a confrontation at a house last night in Portland after demonstrators got pushed away from a police precinct , where they committed acts of vandalism .
More on that in a moment , but this video prompted a hot debate in my Twitter feed .
What does this video depict ?
Is it an aggravated assault on a random homeowner , or is it a propaganda piece by Ngo intended to discredit demonstrations in Portland ?
Some in my TL objected to Ngo ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainly to Ngo himself .
They see Ngo as a provocateur of his own and a propagandist .
Specifically in this case , some accused Ngo of deliberately only covering certain incidents in order to paint all demonstrators with a broad brush as Antifa and domestic terrorists .
Fair enough — we often note the motivations of journalists and observers and draw conclusions from those , and note that what doesn ’ t get covered matters as much or more as what does .
However , this incident speaks for itself .
Shining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a deliberate assault ; three federal officers got blinded by the same tactic at the federal courthouse in Portland , and may not recover their sight .
That is assault , even apart from the physical battery that the woman suffers at one point in this standoff .
The mob on her property is intimidating her back into her house , which is another crime ; that is the resident ’ s property , not public property , and they have no right to be on it , let alone prevent her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not an isolated event , as The Oregonian reported separately last night .
It started with an assault on a police precinct , then dispersed for a time into residential neighborhoods : An Oregonian/OregonLive journalist saw someone point green lasers at a security camera .
People also spray painted the cameras and a glass door at the front of the building .
Police said one person was seen trying to tear down a camera .
Most of the windows had been covered with plywood , and demonstrators tore down some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police issued the warning .
The size of the crowd increased to around 200 people .
Most people chanted as a few people started taking down plywood from the building , exposing glass windows and a door .
Some people pushed dumpsters to form barricades in the street .
Police called the gathering unlawful at 9:45 p.m. , and told people to leave immediately .
Several people wearing yellow t-shirts formed a line and linked arms at the south end of the street .
The yellow t-shirts are a uniform of protesters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Black lives matter !
” Near the entrance of the building , someone used a metal tool to repeatedly hit the glass window .
Police said demonstrators cracked glass doors at the precinct .
Someone soon started a fire in a trash can next to the entrance .
The residential confrontations were a mixed bag , to be sure : Most people stayed in the area .
One altercation occurred between a person who lived nearby and several protesters , after the woman walked out of her apartment wearing a swastika .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Neighbors were mixed in their reaction to the crowd .
At least other two bystanders got into shouting matches with protesters after screaming “ all lives matter ” at the crowd .
One man who claimed to live in the neighborhood walked toward police , held out his arms and shouted , “ I live here .
You need to leave !
” This incident caught by Ngo appears to either be among the latter described by the Oregonian , or not covered at all .
Either way , the paper never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the physical assaults on her .
We have to rely on Ngo ’ s video to be informed of that .
Should we then discount all of the Oregonian ’ s reporting for missing that incident and leaving the impression that these people are just demonstrators rather than a mob action ?
The Daily Wire has more of Ngo ’ s videos at the East Precinct , which again one can watch while either accepting or rejecting Ngo ’ s characterization of the events .
The beauty of video is that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allows viewers to reach their own conclusions .
If anyone can provide a reasonable explanation of any legal justification for shining lasers into the face of a woman standing on her own porch , and then manhandling her when she refuses to retreat from her own property , then I ’ ll be willing to entertain the “ propaganda ” argument .

This will count on your final grade, students. Activist/journalist Andy Ngo published video of a confrontation at a house last night in Portland after demonstrators got pushed away from a police precinct, where they committed acts of vandalism. More on that in a moment, but this video prompted a hot debate in my Twitter feed.
What does this video depict? Is it an aggravated assault on a random homeowner, or is it a propaganda piece by Ngo intended to discredit demonstrations in Portland?
After #antifa were dispersed by police following the attack on the East Precinct, they tried to blind a woman at her home with lasers and attacked her. Antifa have gone into residential parts of the city after moving on from attacking federal courthouse. pic.twitter.com/mKcrgHixmC — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) August 6, 2020
Some in my TL objected to Ngo’s characterization of the event, but mainly to Ngo himself. They see Ngo as a provocateur of his own and a propagandist. Specifically in this case, some accused Ngo of deliberately only covering certain incidents in order to paint all demonstrators with a broad brush as Antifa and domestic terrorists. Fair enough — we often note the motivations of journalists and observers and draw conclusions from those, and note that what doesn’t get covered matters as much or more as what does.
However, this incident speaks for itself. Shining green lasers into someone’s eyes is a deliberate assault; three federal officers got blinded by the same tactic at the federal courthouse in Portland, and may not recover their sight. That is assault, even apart from the physical battery that the woman suffers at one point in this standoff. The mob on her property is intimidating her back into her house, which is another crime; that is the resident’s property, not public property, and they have no right to be on it, let alone prevent her from using it.
Moreover, this was not an isolated event, as The Oregonian reported separately last night. It started with an assault on a police precinct, then dispersed for a time into residential neighborhoods:
An Oregonian/OregonLive journalist saw someone point green lasers at a security camera. People also spray painted the cameras and a glass door at the front of the building. Police said one person was seen trying to tear down a camera. Most of the windows had been covered with plywood, and demonstrators tore down some of the boards. People did not leave after police issued the warning. The size of the crowd increased to around 200 people. Most people chanted as a few people started taking down plywood from the building, exposing glass windows and a door. Some people pushed dumpsters to form barricades in the street. Police called the gathering unlawful at 9:45 p.m., and told people to leave immediately. Several people wearing yellow t-shirts formed a line and linked arms at the south end of the street. The yellow t-shirts are a uniform of protesters who identify as mothers. They repeated, “Black lives matter!” Near the entrance of the building, someone used a metal tool to repeatedly hit the glass window. Police said demonstrators cracked glass doors at the precinct. Someone soon started a fire in a trash can next to the entrance.
The residential confrontations were a mixed bag, to be sure:
Most people stayed in the area. One altercation occurred between a person who lived nearby and several protesters, after the woman walked out of her apartment wearing a swastika. Both sides shouted insults at each other. Neighbors were mixed in their reaction to the crowd. At least other two bystanders got into shouting matches with protesters after screaming “all lives matter” at the crowd. One man who claimed to live in the neighborhood walked toward police, held out his arms and shouted, “I live here. You need to leave!”
This incident caught by Ngo appears to either be among the latter described by the Oregonian, or not covered at all. Either way, the paper never specifically reports the intimidation of the woman or the physical assaults on her. We have to rely on Ngo’s video to be informed of that. Should we then discount all of the Oregonian’s reporting for missing that incident and leaving the impression that these people are just demonstrators rather than a mob action?
The Daily Wire has more of Ngo’s videos at the East Precinct, which again one can watch while either accepting or rejecting Ngo’s characterization of the events. The beauty of video is that it tends to provide its own corroboration and allows viewers to reach their own conclusions. If anyone can provide a reasonable explanation of any legal justification for shining lasers into the face of a woman standing on her own porch, and then manhandling her when she refuses to retreat from her own property, then I’ll be willing to entertain the “propaganda” argument.


hotair--2020-08-06--Biden: Unlike the African-American community, the Latino-American community has diverse opinions

I ’ m imagining Kamala Harris watching this clip and yesterday ’ s , mindful that most of a running mate ’ s job is defending things the nominee says , and thinking , “ You know what ?
Maybe being VP is overrated.
” This sort of gaffe is a much greater risk to him at the debates than the Trumpist dream scenario in which he trails off mid-sentence and starts asking the moderators what year it is .
Odds of Biden entering a fugue state while onstage : < 1 % .
Odds of Biden inadvertently offending a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer : 97 % -ish .
You can see the basic point he ’ s trying to make here , but hoo boy .
He really Bidens this one up .
A fuller quote via Yahoo News : “ [ U ] nlike the African-American community , with notable exceptions , the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things .
You go to Florida , and you find a very different attitude about immigration in certain places than you do when you ’ re in Arizona.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ different ethnic groups within the broader Latino demographic bend more conservative or liberal than others .
Florida ’ s Cuban-Americans are famously more sympathetic to the GOP than Latino voters nationwide because of the right ’ s righteous history of opposing communism .
Karen Bass ’ s salute to the “ Comandante en Jefe ” a few years ago is a key reason , maybe *the* reason , Biden won ’ t end up choosing her as VP .
And certainly it ’ s true that Latino-Americans as a group are more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ ve been a rare weak spot for Biden in his polling against Trump , in fact .
The reason he ’ s leading comfortably isn ’ t because he ’ s piling up stratospheric numbers with traditionally Democratic groups like blacks and Latinos .
He ’ s leading because he ’ s cut into Trump ’ s advantage with whites , especially white suburbanites .
But lay all that aside .
Here ’ s the question : Why did Biden have to invoke African-Americans in the clip in order to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just say , “ Latino-Americans are diverse ideologically ” ?
I can ’ t imagine there ’ s a single black voter who ’ ll watch this clip and feel flattered that Biden seems to believe they ’ re part of some hivemind without much difference among them in their policy views .
In fact , there ’ s quite a bit of ideological diversity among black voters .
Not between left and right ; they ’ re an overwhelmingly Democratic group , without question .
The relevant divide is age : Interestingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to go further left than their elders , others are willing to go further right .
A survey conducted in April and May by UCLA and the Democracy Fund found Trump ’ s favorable rating above 20 percent among black Americans aged 44 and under versus just nine percent among black senior citizens .
The center-left Democratic faction led by Biden should be more attuned to ideological diversity among African-Americans than other political groups , not less , because they stand to lose the most from it in coming years .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monolith they may wake up one day and find that a meaningful chunk of younger African-Americans have decamped for the DSA while another chunk is considering the GOP .
But I think this really is how Biden views their group , as a monolith .
How can anyone who ’ s watched the famous “ vote for me or you ain ’ t black ” clip conclude otherwise ?
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s a leftover from yesterday via the Free Beacon .

I’m imagining Kamala Harris watching this clip and yesterday’s, mindful that most of a running mate’s job is defending things the nominee says, and thinking, “You know what? Maybe being VP is overrated.”
This sort of gaffe is a much greater risk to him at the debates than the Trumpist dream scenario in which he trails off mid-sentence and starts asking the moderators what year it is. Odds of Biden entering a fugue state while onstage: <1%. Odds of Biden inadvertently offending a gigantic demographic constituency with some awkward policy answer: 97%-ish.
You can see the basic point he’s trying to make here, but hoo boy. He really Bidens this one up.
.@JoeBiden: “Unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community" pic.twitter.com/CFO4Q40jEI — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) August 6, 2020
A fuller quote via Yahoo News: “[U]nlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things. You go to Florida, and you find a very different attitude about immigration in certain places than you do when you’re in Arizona.” Certainly it’s true that different ethnic groups within the broader Latino demographic bend more conservative or liberal than others. Florida’s Cuban-Americans are famously more sympathetic to the GOP than Latino voters nationwide because of the right’s righteous history of opposing communism. Karen Bass’s salute to the “Comandante en Jefe” a few years ago is a key reason, maybe *the* reason, Biden won’t end up choosing her as VP.
And certainly it’s true that Latino-Americans as a group are more likely to vote Republican than African-Americans are. They’ve been a rare weak spot for Biden in his polling against Trump, in fact. The reason he’s leading comfortably isn’t because he’s piling up stratospheric numbers with traditionally Democratic groups like blacks and Latinos. He’s leading because he’s cut into Trump’s advantage with whites, especially white suburbanites.
But lay all that aside. Here’s the question: Why did Biden have to invoke African-Americans in the clip in order to make his point about Latino-Americans? Why not just say, “Latino-Americans are diverse ideologically”? I can’t imagine there’s a single black voter who’ll watch this clip and feel flattered that Biden seems to believe they’re part of some hivemind without much difference among them in their policy views.
In fact, there’s quite a bit of ideological diversity among black voters. Not between left and right; they’re an overwhelmingly Democratic group, without question. The relevant divide is age:
Interestingly, while some younger black voters are willing to go further left than their elders, others are willing to go further right. A survey conducted in April and May by UCLA and the Democracy Fund found Trump’s favorable rating above 20 percent among black Americans aged 44 and under versus just nine percent among black senior citizens. The center-left Democratic faction led by Biden should be more attuned to ideological diversity among African-Americans than other political groups, not less, because they stand to lose the most from it in coming years. If they continue to treat blacks as a monolith they may wake up one day and find that a meaningful chunk of younger African-Americans have decamped for the DSA while another chunk is considering the GOP.
But I think this really is how Biden views their group, as a monolith. How can anyone who’s watched the famous “vote for me or you ain’t black” clip conclude otherwise?
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a leftover from yesterday via the Free Beacon.


hotair--2020-08-06--NBA coach: This is what "our president is trying to get us not to do"

During a video conference call with reporters on Wednesday , L.A. Clippers coach Doc Rivers weighed in on President Trump ’ s recent remarks about NBA players kneeling during the national anthem .
His opinion hasn ’ t changed from the time Colin Kaepernick took a knee to today .
He doesn ’ t like it .
Trump phoned in to Wednesday ’ s Fox and Friends for a very long-winded interview with the show ’ s hosts , which lasted almost an hour .
With so much time given to the president , there was a wide assortment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , Trump said that despite the fact that he “ pushed hard ” for the NBA to start playing games again , the players kneel during the national anthem .
He went on to say that he just stops watching the games when that happens .
He described the action of kneeling as “ disgraceful ” .
It is as though he takes the social justice statement by the players as a personal attack as he expresses how strongly he feels about it .
“ Hey , if I ’ m wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an election and that ’ s ok with me.
” Clippers coach Rivers wore a blue baseball cap with the word “ VOTE ” in capital letters during the video conference call .
He referenced the cap as he accused Trump of voter suppression .
He was delivering a favorite talking point of the Democrats .
The bad Orange Man is trying to suppress the black vote .
Specifically , he was referencing Trump ’ s tweet about the possibility of delaying the election because of mail-in ballots .
“ Well , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost one guy .
Like , really , I don ’ t even care .
We know that justice is on our side , right ?
“ And this hat that I ’ m wearing is what our president is trying to get us to not do , which I think is just as disgraceful.
” Rivers actively supports get-out-the-vote efforts and speaks out on social justice .
He uses his platform to promote his personal politics , as NBA players do , particularly about the Black Lives Matter movement .
“ Oh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vital , ” Rivers said about voting during the recent media session .
“ First of all , it ’ s our right .
And the fact that there ’ s so much voter suppression going on with Blacks and Latinos , and really young people , tells you how important voting is .
And so , I ’ m not going to tell you who to vote for .
I have my opinion , as you all know .
But I just urge everyone to vote , exercise that right .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t need to “ tell you who to vote for ” when he publicly tells fans that Trump is suppressing the vote , does he ?
Though Trump claims that NBA viewership is down because of the politicization of professional sports , that claim doesn ’ t hold up .
I do think , however , that Trump ’ s right when he says that many Americans are turned off by political statements from players on the court .
Sports fans are desperate for their favorite teams to play , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for now .
Sports are a welcome distraction , especially this year while everyone is locked down at home .
According to Sports Media Watch , though , the NBA ’ s restart to its season averaged 1.86 million viewers on TNT , ESPN and ABC through Monday night ’ s games , which was up 14 % from all three networks ’ averages before the league halted play in March because of the coronavirus outbreak .
When TNT showed the game between the Lakers and Clippers on opening night of the restart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubled its average viewership for a regular-season telecast , making it the eighth-most-watched game of the season so far .
I find it interesting that the professional players and coaches who make a lot of money off lucrative deals in China are so sanctimonious about the state of America under President Trump when it comes to civil rights .
They sure don ’ t mind taking money from the Communist Chinese , which , last time I looked have a much worse record on civil rights than does America .
To blame one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States is ridiculous .
Black Lives Matter began during the presidency of Barack Obama , a black man who was elected to the presidency twice .
Basketball players are shrugging off the president ’ s withdrawal of support .
One player noted it ’ s a political tactic aimed at Trump ’ s base .
Everyone around the league expected this at some point .
The reaction around the league has been a shrug , knowing the president is playing election-year politics the only way he knows how .
The Pelicans ’ J.J. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoughts a week ago in an interview with Yahoo Sports , reacting to a different Tweet from the president .
“ First of all , I don ’ t think anybody in the NBA cares if President Trump watches basketball .
I couldn ’ t care less .
As far as his base , I think regardless of the specificity of tweeting about the NBA , every tweet of his is meant to divide , every tweet is meant to incite , every tweet is meant to embolden his base.
” LeBron James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the league “ couldn ’ t care less ” about losing Trump ’ s viewership .
He delivered a get-out-the-vote message by noting “ what leadership we have at the top ” and if everyone wants to see change happen in the country , the election is right around the corner .
He wasn ’ t willing to go further in his remarks , though , apparently having learned that the opinions of sports fans are not monolithic .
Suddenly the man who is always ready to dunk on Trump and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discretion is probably a good idea .

During a video conference call with reporters on Wednesday, L.A. Clippers coach Doc Rivers weighed in on President Trump’s recent remarks about NBA players kneeling during the national anthem. His opinion hasn’t changed from the time Colin Kaepernick took a knee to today. He doesn’t like it.
Trump phoned in to Wednesday’s Fox and Friends for a very long-winded interview with the show’s hosts, which lasted almost an hour. With so much time given to the president, there was a wide assortment of topics covered. When professional sports came up, Trump said that despite the fact that he “pushed hard” for the NBA to start playing games again, the players kneel during the national anthem. He went on to say that he just stops watching the games when that happens. He described the action of kneeling as “disgraceful”. It is as though he takes the social justice statement by the players as a personal attack as he expresses how strongly he feels about it. “Hey, if I’m wrong, I’m gonna lose an election and that’s ok with me.”
President Trump calls NBA players "disgraceful" for kneeling during anthem, implies that he's done more for the black community than Abraham Lincoln pic.twitter.com/C5YJW3pAps — gifdsports (@gifdsports) August 5, 2020
Clippers coach Rivers wore a blue baseball cap with the word “VOTE” in capital letters during the video conference call. He referenced the cap as he accused Trump of voter suppression. He was delivering a favorite talking point of the Democrats. The bad Orange Man is trying to suppress the black vote. Specifically, he was referencing Trump’s tweet about the possibility of delaying the election because of mail-in ballots.
“Well,” said Rivers, laughing, “we lost one guy. Like, really, I don’t even care. We know that justice is on our side, right? “And this hat that I’m wearing is what our president is trying to get us to not do, which I think is just as disgraceful.”
Rivers actively supports get-out-the-vote efforts and speaks out on social justice. He uses his platform to promote his personal politics, as NBA players do, particularly about the Black Lives Matter movement.
“Oh, my gosh, it’s vital,” Rivers said about voting during the recent media session. “First of all, it’s our right. And the fact that there’s so much voter suppression going on with Blacks and Latinos, and really young people, tells you how important voting is. And so, I’m not going to tell you who to vote for. I have my opinion, as you all know. But I just urge everyone to vote, exercise that right. We have fought so hard.”
Rivers doesn’t need to “tell you who to vote for” when he publicly tells fans that Trump is suppressing the vote, does he? Though Trump claims that NBA viewership is down because of the politicization of professional sports, that claim doesn’t hold up. I do think, however, that Trump’s right when he says that many Americans are turned off by political statements from players on the court. Sports fans are desperate for their favorite teams to play, though, and that is likely keeping viewership up for now. Sports are a welcome distraction, especially this year while everyone is locked down at home.
According to Sports Media Watch, though, the NBA’s restart to its season averaged 1.86 million viewers on TNT, ESPN and ABC through Monday night’s games, which was up 14% from all three networks’ averages before the league halted play in March because of the coronavirus outbreak. When TNT showed the game between the Lakers and Clippers on opening night of the restart last week, the network more than doubled its average viewership for a regular-season telecast, making it the eighth-most-watched game of the season so far.
I find it interesting that the professional players and coaches who make a lot of money off lucrative deals in China are so sanctimonious about the state of America under President Trump when it comes to civil rights. They sure don’t mind taking money from the Communist Chinese, which, last time I looked have a much worse record on civil rights than does America. To blame one political party over another in the United States is ridiculous. Black Lives Matter began during the presidency of Barack Obama, a black man who was elected to the presidency twice.
Basketball players are shrugging off the president’s withdrawal of support. One player noted it’s a political tactic aimed at Trump’s base.
Everyone around the league expected this at some point. The reaction around the league has been a shrug, knowing the president is playing election-year politics the only way he knows how. The Pelicans’ J.J. Redick summed up most people’s thoughts a week ago in an interview with Yahoo Sports, reacting to a different Tweet from the president. “First of all, I don’t think anybody in the NBA cares if President Trump watches basketball. I couldn’t care less. As far as his base, I think regardless of the specificity of tweeting about the NBA, every tweet of his is meant to divide, every tweet is meant to incite, every tweet is meant to embolden his base.”
LeBron James spoke for all the NBA players and said the league “couldn’t care less” about losing Trump’s viewership. He delivered a get-out-the-vote message by noting “what leadership we have at the top” and if everyone wants to see change happen in the country, the election is right around the corner. He wasn’t willing to go further in his remarks, though, apparently having learned that the opinions of sports fans are not monolithic.
LeBron James on Donald Trump saying he won’t watch any more NBA games because people have kneeled to protest systemic racism during the national anthem: “I really don’t think the basketball community are sad about losing his viewership.” pic.twitter.com/l9sP7LiFsi — Mark Medina (@MarkG_Medina) August 6, 2020
“And that’s all I got to say. I don’t want to, I’m not going to get into a … because I already know where this could go, where it could lead to for tomorrow for me. I’m not going to get into it.”
Suddenly the man who is always ready to dunk on Trump and his supporters for the press realizes a little discretion is probably a good idea.


hotair--2020-08-06--NY gangbanger optimizes opportunities after no-bail release

In yet another tale of New York City ’ s bail reform efforts seemingly gone awry , we find the story of an alleged member of the Bloods gang in Brooklyn who was arrested on May 20th on attempted murder charges .
Through a series of events that remain unclear , he was released without bail the same day while awaiting his next court date .
Darrius Sutton , 23 , better known as “ Blizz Meecho , ” decided to make the most of his new-found freedom .
According to police , he got back to business , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive-by shootings over the course of the next couple of months , but putting in an appearance in a music video by a local rap group .
( More on that in a moment . )
While he ’ s finally back in custody , observers are left wondering how things could have gone so very wrong .
( NY Post ) He was set free and allegedly went right back to shooting .
A Brooklyn gang member , released without bail in May on an attempted-murder charge , participated in at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , federal prosecutors allege .
Darrius Sutton , 23 , was initially arrested in connection with a May 16 shooting in the courtyard of an East New York building that left a man seriously injured .
Despite the attempted-murder rap , Sutton was set free without bail the same day of his May 20 arrest .
You can see Sutton in this photo from the Department of Justice .
( Second from left in a red bandana and grey sweatshirt . )
The Brooklyn DA is saying that the only eye-witness they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their testimony , so there was insufficient evidence to hold him .
If we were only talking about that single incident , that might be a plausible if unfortunate explanation .
Prosecutors have to be able to provide reasonable evidence that a suspect could be a danger to society before holding them over for trial .
But was that really the case here ?
In a separate incident on April 20th , prosecutors claim that Sutton was caught on surveillance footage coming up behind a rival gang member whereupon he “ shot him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daylight.
” Is it just me , or might that not have been compelling enough in terms of evidence to suggest that perhaps he didn ’ t need to be back out on the street ?
On top of that , I ’ ll return to the subject of that music video I mentioned above .
As part of my research for this article , I went and dug it up .
The artists are two Brooklyn rappers going by the handles of BK Eaz and Billy DntShootEm .
In their song “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DntShootEm pays homage to Sutton ( using his alias ) by making a gun symbol with his thumb and forefinger and rapping , “ Meecho say get him , I got him.
” As I said , I went and dug up this video to verify what was alleged and it ’ s true .
I ’ ll include it here , but I ’ ll confess that I almost didn ’ t finish writing this article because by the time I finished watching it I was was pretty much in shock .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely negative here , so I will first say that this music video has shockingly high production values .
The camera work , the audio , the lighting… this is some professional-grade work without a doubt .
If you want to check it out for yourself , the Meecho reference comes at the 2:09 mark in the song .
But this isn ’ t the sort of rap you might be used to if you enjoy Drake or Kanye West .
This is some of the most hard-core gangster rap imaginable ( at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the genre ) .
This video would require more viewer precautions that we would have room for in a single column .
If you are offended by the use of the n-word , I ’ ll just tell you that it comprises probably 10 % of all the words in the song .
Other expletives abound .
The references to violence and the lionizing of crime and criminal behavior are too many to count .
So needless to say , you have been warned .
Sutton is now back in federal custody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But we ’ re still left with the same nagging question .
If the police have their hands on a guy who was literally caught on video firing off three rounds into somebody ’ s back and is being “ honored ” in music videos like this , is the presumption of innocence still too much of a barrier to overcome ?
How does the system justify letting someone like that out without bail ?
I ’ d write more about this , but after watching that video I may need a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even noon yet .

In yet another tale of New York City’s bail reform efforts seemingly gone awry, we find the story of an alleged member of the Bloods gang in Brooklyn who was arrested on May 20th on attempted murder charges. Through a series of events that remain unclear, he was released without bail the same day while awaiting his next court date. Darrius Sutton, 23, better known as “Blizz Meecho,” decided to make the most of his new-found freedom. According to police, he got back to business, not only taking part in at least three drive-by shootings over the course of the next couple of months, but putting in an appearance in a music video by a local rap group. (More on that in a moment.) While he’s finally back in custody, observers are left wondering how things could have gone so very wrong. (NY Post)
He was set free and allegedly went right back to shooting. A Brooklyn gang member, released without bail in May on an attempted-murder charge, participated in at least three drive-by shootings after he was freed, federal prosecutors allege. Darrius Sutton, 23, was initially arrested in connection with a May 16 shooting in the courtyard of an East New York building that left a man seriously injured. Despite the attempted-murder rap, Sutton was set free without bail the same day of his May 20 arrest.
You can see Sutton in this photo from the Department of Justice. (Second from left in a red bandana and grey sweatshirt.)
The Brooklyn DA is saying that the only eye-witness they had to the shooting in question mysteriously recanted their testimony, so there was insufficient evidence to hold him. If we were only talking about that single incident, that might be a plausible if unfortunate explanation. Prosecutors have to be able to provide reasonable evidence that a suspect could be a danger to society before holding them over for trial.
But was that really the case here? In a separate incident on April 20th, prosecutors claim that Sutton was caught on surveillance footage coming up behind a rival gang member whereupon he “shot him three times from the back in broad daylight.” Is it just me, or might that not have been compelling enough in terms of evidence to suggest that perhaps he didn’t need to be back out on the street?
On top of that, I’ll return to the subject of that music video I mentioned above. As part of my research for this article, I went and dug it up. The artists are two Brooklyn rappers going by the handles of BK Eaz and Billy DntShootEm. In their song “Crime Rate,” the aforementioned Billy DntShootEm pays homage to Sutton (using his alias) by making a gun symbol with his thumb and forefinger and rapping, “Meecho say get him, I got him.”
As I said, I went and dug up this video to verify what was alleged and it’s true. I’ll include it here, but I’ll confess that I almost didn’t finish writing this article because by the time I finished watching it I was was pretty much in shock. I don’t want to be entirely negative here, so I will first say that this music video has shockingly high production values. The camera work, the audio, the lighting… this is some professional-grade work without a doubt.
If you want to check it out for yourself, the Meecho reference comes at the 2:09 mark in the song. But this isn’t the sort of rap you might be used to if you enjoy Drake or Kanye West. This is some of the most hard-core gangster rap imaginable (at least in my admittedly very limited experience with the genre). This video would require more viewer precautions that we would have room for in a single column. If you are offended by the use of the n-word, I’ll just tell you that it comprises probably 10% of all the words in the song. Other expletives abound. The references to violence and the lionizing of crime and criminal behavior are too many to count. So needless to say, you have been warned.
Sutton is now back in federal custody pending his trial for yet another shooting. But we’re still left with the same nagging question. If the police have their hands on a guy who was literally caught on video firing off three rounds into somebody’s back and is being “honored” in music videos like this, is the presumption of innocence still too much of a barrier to overcome? How does the system justify letting someone like that out without bail? I’d write more about this, but after watching that video I may need a stiff drink and it’s not even noon yet.


hotair--2020-08-06--Rhode Island residents suddenly find themselves unwelcome in other states

Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo made something of a name for herself earlier this by being a “ bad neighbor ” to various states adjacent to hers .
At the height of the pandemic , she was seen doing her level best to keep “ outsiders ” ( particularly from New York and Connecticut ) from entering her state or locking them down in quarantine if they dared to cross the border .
But now , at the peak of what should be the summer tourist season along beaches in the northeast , the shoe appears to be on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases in Rhode Island has been spiraling upward .
And that means that neighboring states are no longer welcoming tourists from Raimondo ’ s state without some rather extreme precautions being put in place .
The Boston Globe brings us the story of one family , the Howes , who had been planning a summer getaway to Cape Cod .
But Massachusetts has now joined the list of states that don ’ t want anyone from Rhode Island coming for a visit unless they either spend two weeks in quarantine or produce a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
And this has led Emily Howe to say that “ the joke ’ s on us.
” So the Howes will have to settle for a stay-cation .
“ The joke is on us , ” Howe lamented Wednesday .
“ Waiting did not pay .
Time is not on our side.
” Rhode Islanders are fond of repeating the Narragansett Beer slogan : “ Hi Neighbor !
” But Howe joked that neighboring states have a new motto : “ Hi neighbor ― Stay over there !
Stay on your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islanders said they were surprised by Rhode Island ’ s sudden reversal of fortune .
Raimondo had made it a point of pride back in the spring and early summer to brag about Rhode Island ’ s low number of COVID cases , using that as a defense for the police-state tactics she had put in place to keep the spread of the disease under control .
And those tactics were severe indeed .
As you may recall , back in March , the Rhode Island Governor had sent out the state police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ license plates .
Travelers were warned to either turn around or inform authorities where they would be staying .
Visitors from the Empire State were told that they would have to remain in quarantine for two weeks if they chose to enter the state .
She even deployed the National Guard to check up on tourists and ensure they were staying in their vacation residences .
A failure to do so could result in fines or even potential jail time .
But now the worm has turned .
After a brief relapse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trending downward again .
The situation out in the Hamptons on Long Island has never seen a big surge in cases and they plan to keep it that way .
The same goes for Cape Cod .
So they don ’ t want to spoil their reopening plans by inviting in visitors from Rhode Island if it ’ s threatening to turn into another plague zone .
The bigger question for Rhode Island has less to do with how easily residents can go to tourist destinations outside the state than how these recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Keep in mind that the state moved into “ Phase 3 ” of its reopening plans back on June 30th .
It ’ s been more than a month now , and the locals had been anticipating even more progress by the end of August .
But at this point , they ’ re looking at the possibility of actually sliding backward into “ a happy medium between Phase 2 and Phase 3.
” ( I ’ m not sure how well the word “ happy ” fits into that phrase .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor ’ s with the lowest approval ratings in the country before the pandemic arrived .
Her hard-nosed approach to keeping the disease at bay actually helped her improve her standing among the voters for a few months .
But if the state does a u-turn and goes back into the danger zone now , the improved goodwill she saw from Rhode Islanders will probably be short-lived .

Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo made something of a name for herself earlier this by being a “bad neighbor” to various states adjacent to hers. At the height of the pandemic, she was seen doing her level best to keep “outsiders” (particularly from New York and Connecticut) from entering her state or locking them down in quarantine if they dared to cross the border. But now, at the peak of what should be the summer tourist season along beaches in the northeast, the shoe appears to be on the other foot.
The number of COVID-19 cases in Rhode Island has been spiraling upward. And that means that neighboring states are no longer welcoming tourists from Raimondo’s state without some rather extreme precautions being put in place. The Boston Globe brings us the story of one family, the Howes, who had been planning a summer getaway to Cape Cod. But Massachusetts has now joined the list of states that don’t want anyone from Rhode Island coming for a visit unless they either spend two weeks in quarantine or produce a certificate showing they are free of the virus. And this has led Emily Howe to say that “the joke’s on us.”
So the Howes will have to settle for a stay-cation. “The joke is on us,” Howe lamented Wednesday. “Waiting did not pay. Time is not on our side.” Rhode Islanders are fond of repeating the Narragansett Beer slogan: “Hi Neighbor!” But Howe joked that neighboring states have a new motto: “Hi neighbor ― Stay over there! Stay on your side of the fence!” Rhode Islanders said they were surprised by Rhode Island’s sudden reversal of fortune.
Raimondo had made it a point of pride back in the spring and early summer to brag about Rhode Island’s low number of COVID cases, using that as a defense for the police-state tactics she had put in place to keep the spread of the disease under control. And those tactics were severe indeed.
As you may recall, back in March, the Rhode Island Governor had sent out the state police to pull over cars with New York license plates. Travelers were warned to either turn around or inform authorities where they would be staying. Visitors from the Empire State were told that they would have to remain in quarantine for two weeks if they chose to enter the state. She even deployed the National Guard to check up on tourists and ensure they were staying in their vacation residences. A failure to do so could result in fines or even potential jail time.
But now the worm has turned. After a brief relapse, New York’s numbers have been trending downward again. The situation out in the Hamptons on Long Island has never seen a big surge in cases and they plan to keep it that way. The same goes for Cape Cod. So they don’t want to spoil their reopening plans by inviting in visitors from Rhode Island if it’s threatening to turn into another plague zone.
The bigger question for Rhode Island has less to do with how easily residents can go to tourist destinations outside the state than how these recent developments will impact their own reopening plans. Keep in mind that the state moved into “Phase 3” of its reopening plans back on June 30th. It’s been more than a month now, and the locals had been anticipating even more progress by the end of August. But at this point, they’re looking at the possibility of actually sliding backward into “a happy medium between Phase 2 and Phase 3.” (I’m not sure how well the word “happy” fits into that phrase.)
Raimondo had been one of the Governor’s with the lowest approval ratings in the country before the pandemic arrived. Her hard-nosed approach to keeping the disease at bay actually helped her improve her standing among the voters for a few months. But if the state does a u-turn and goes back into the danger zone now, the improved goodwill she saw from Rhode Islanders will probably be short-lived.


hotair--2020-08-06--Denied: Charter commission votes down Minneapolis city council's abolish-PD referendum

Wait ’ til next year ?
The Minneapolis Charter Commission rebuked the city council with its final 10-5 vote to shoot down a ballot measure in November that would have allowed them to “ abolish the police.
” The commission accused the city council of rushing the measure without any plan , while the council ended up pledging in vain to keep some kind of police force as part of its eventual replacement : In a 10-5 vote , the Minneapolis Charter Commission decided Wednesday to block a controversial policing proposal from the November ballot by invoking its right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We have an obligation to make sure that what is going on the ballot gives the voters an informed choice , that they can make a decision in a thoughtful way , ” said Charter Commissioner Andrew Kozak , adding that he didn ’ t think the proposal accomplished that .
It could still come before voters next year .
But the commission ’ s action to keep it off this year ’ s ballot dealt a major setback to activists and City Council members who have worked to transform Minneapolis ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of George Floyd .
By the end , the city council had tied itself in knots in attempting to get the commission to sign off on the ballot measure : A plan , written by five City Council members , would have ended that requirement and replaced the police department with a Department of Community Safety & Violence Prevention that would prioritize “ a holistic , public health-oriented approach.
” As part of a last-ditch effort to send the proposal over the hurdle , a group of City Council members sent the commissioners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ expect the transformed system to include law enforcement as part of a multifaceted approach to public safety.
” “ The Minneapolis City Council is not asking you to put police abolition on the ballot , nor does the amendment propose this , ” they wrote .
“ We are asking you to let Minneapolis vote on a new framework for public safety that aligns with the State of Minnesota ’ s Department of Public Safety.
” Say what ?
Police abolition is explicitly what the council said they wanted .
Not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police Department , council president Lisa Bender wanted Minneapolis residents to stop calling the police while they started the dismantling process .
Remember this ?
The Powderhorn Park neighborhood was foolish enough to follow this advice from Bender .
Look how well that worked out .
Small wonder , then , that the charter commission declined to follow Bender ’ s lead on the referendum .
Flat-out lying about their motives probably didn ’ t help much either .
So what ’ s next ?
As the KARE11 report above notes , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure off the ballot forever .
If the city council persists — and if they can override Mayor Jacob Frey ’ s pledged veto — they can put their abolish-the-police plan on next year ’ s ballot .
Perhaps by that time they ’ ll actually have a plan , but by that time they ’ ll also be on the ballot themselves .
They ’ d be rolling the dice that Minneapolis is as extreme as they are , rather than just disinclined to take municipal election seriously until now .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clarity .

Wait ’til next year? The Minneapolis Charter Commission rebuked the city council with its final 10-5 vote to shoot down a ballot measure in November that would have allowed them to “abolish the police.” The commission accused the city council of rushing the measure without any plan, while the council ended up pledging in vain to keep some kind of police force as part of its eventual replacement:
In a 10-5 vote, the Minneapolis Charter Commission decided Wednesday to block a controversial policing proposal from the November ballot by invoking its right to take more time to review it. “We have an obligation to make sure that what is going on the ballot gives the voters an informed choice, that they can make a decision in a thoughtful way,” said Charter Commissioner Andrew Kozak, adding that he didn’t think the proposal accomplished that. It could still come before voters next year. But the commission’s action to keep it off this year’s ballot dealt a major setback to activists and City Council members who have worked to transform Minneapolis’ public safety system following the police killing of George Floyd.
By the end, the city council had tied itself in knots in attempting to get the commission to sign off on the ballot measure:
A plan, written by five City Council members, would have ended that requirement and replaced the police department with a Department of Community Safety & Violence Prevention that would prioritize “a holistic, public health-oriented approach.” As part of a last-ditch effort to send the proposal over the hurdle, a group of City Council members sent the commissioners a letter Wednesday assuring them that they “expect the transformed system to include law enforcement as part of a multifaceted approach to public safety.” “The Minneapolis City Council is not asking you to put police abolition on the ballot, nor does the amendment propose this,” they wrote. “We are asking you to let Minneapolis vote on a new framework for public safety that aligns with the State of Minnesota’s Department of Public Safety.”
Say what? Police abolition is explicitly what the council said they wanted. Not only did they want to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department, council president Lisa Bender wanted Minneapolis residents to stop calling the police while they started the dismantling process. Remember this?
CAMEROTA: "What if in the middle of the night my home is broken into. Who do I call?" BENDER: "Yes, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know — and myself, too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege." pic.twitter.com/WhubQ9yJIf — Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) June 8, 2020
The Powderhorn Park neighborhood was foolish enough to follow this advice from Bender. Look how well that worked out. Small wonder, then, that the charter commission declined to follow Bender’s lead on the referendum. Flat-out lying about their motives probably didn’t help much either.
So what’s next? As the KARE11 report above notes, the charter commission can’t keep a measure off the ballot forever. If the city council persists — and if they can override Mayor Jacob Frey’s pledged veto — they can put their abolish-the-police plan on next year’s ballot. Perhaps by that time they’ll actually have a plan, but by that time they’ll also be on the ballot themselves. They’d be rolling the dice that Minneapolis is as extreme as they are, rather than just disinclined to take municipal election seriously until now. That should provide everyone with a moment of clarity.


hotair--2020-08-07--Appellate court puts Dakota Access pipeline back in business

Just when you thought the entire brouhaha over the Dakota Access Pipeline was finished , last month we learned that a court had ordered the project to be shut down yet again .
The stated purpose was yet another environmental review , though the pipeline has already received a clean bill of health in multiple such studies in the past .
That put the nation ’ s oil producers into what analysts described as “ a holding pattern ” where production from the Bakken shale region was slashed by half a million barrels per day and oil prices sank below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have been resolved this week .
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had not shown sufficient cause to grant the request .
The three-judge appeals panel did , however , allow the new environmental review to move forward .
The process is expected to take at least a year .
( Associated Press ) A federal appeals court on Wednesday reversed a judge ’ s order that shut down the Dakota Access pipeline pending a full environmental review .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Columbia Circuit sided with pipeline owner Energy Transfer to keep the oil flowing , saying a lower-court judge “ did not make the findings necessary for injunctive relief.
” But the appellate court declined to grant Energy Transfer ’ s motion to block the review , saying the company had “ failed to make a strong showing of likely success.
” The appeals court said it expects the parties to “ clarify their positions ” in the lower court .
You can tell that all of this maneuvering has far more to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way the plaintiffs reacted to the ruling .
The attorney for EarthJustice , the group representing several Native American tribes bringing the suit , described the court ’ s decision as containing “ more to like than dislike.
” He noted that the environmental review would move forward and there would be “ a new permit during the next administration.
” The implication here is clear .
The plaintiffs are anticipating a Biden victory in November and the departure of Donald Trump ( a strong advocate for the pipeline ) from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was tied up in legal red tape for years under the Obama administration , with Joe Biden vigorously supporting his boss in blocking progress on the project .
So they are no doubt anticipating a potential Biden administration taking up the battle once again and getting the EPA to shut down production .
And they ’ re probably correct in that prediction .
We had a good look at what the future holds last month when there was even the threat of the pipeline being shut down .
As noted above , production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dakota were furloughed as the rigs were idled , impacting the entire state ’ s economy .
And we shouldn ’ t ignore what it would cost to shut the pipeline down .
It will take at least three months to empty the five million barrels of oil it holds when full .
After that , Texas-based Energy Transfer ( the owner ) estimates that it will cost $ 67.5 million per year to keep the pipeline lubricated and in good repair while it ’ s inoperative .
Unfortunately , the American oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its own success in recent years .
Having grown to the point where the United States is now the dominant player in the global oil market , we ’ ve managed to produce so much black gold that oil prices are hovering at or below the break-even point .
It doesn ’ t take much of a disruption in either supply or demand to destabilize the entire system .
And that ’ s exactly what the “ Keep It In The Ground ” crowd is counting on .
With an ally like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll probably get their wish .
And then our global leadership in the oil and gas market will evaporate , along with all of the jobs and economic stimulus that goes with it .

Just when you thought the entire brouhaha over the Dakota Access Pipeline was finished, last month we learned that a court had ordered the project to be shut down yet again. The stated purpose was yet another environmental review, though the pipeline has already received a clean bill of health in multiple such studies in the past. That put the nation’s oil producers into what analysts described as “a holding pattern” where production from the Bakken shale region was slashed by half a million barrels per day and oil prices sank below the break-even point.
That situation appears to have been resolved this week. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had not shown sufficient cause to grant the request. The three-judge appeals panel did, however, allow the new environmental review to move forward. The process is expected to take at least a year. (Associated Press)
A federal appeals court on Wednesday reversed a judge’s order that shut down the Dakota Access pipeline pending a full environmental review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with pipeline owner Energy Transfer to keep the oil flowing, saying a lower-court judge “did not make the findings necessary for injunctive relief.” But the appellate court declined to grant Energy Transfer’s motion to block the review, saying the company had “failed to make a strong showing of likely success.” The appeals court said it expects the parties to “clarify their positions” in the lower court.
You can tell that all of this maneuvering has far more to do with politics than environmental concerns by the way the plaintiffs reacted to the ruling. The attorney for EarthJustice, the group representing several Native American tribes bringing the suit, described the court’s decision as containing “more to like than dislike.” He noted that the environmental review would move forward and there would be “a new permit during the next administration.”
The implication here is clear. The plaintiffs are anticipating a Biden victory in November and the departure of Donald Trump (a strong advocate for the pipeline) from the Oval Office. The Dakota Access pipeline was tied up in legal red tape for years under the Obama administration, with Joe Biden vigorously supporting his boss in blocking progress on the project. So they are no doubt anticipating a potential Biden administration taking up the battle once again and getting the EPA to shut down production. And they’re probably correct in that prediction.
We had a good look at what the future holds last month when there was even the threat of the pipeline being shut down. As noted above, production decreased massively. Many workers in North Dakota were furloughed as the rigs were idled, impacting the entire state’s economy. And we shouldn’t ignore what it would cost to shut the pipeline down. It will take at least three months to empty the five million barrels of oil it holds when full. After that, Texas-based Energy Transfer (the owner) estimates that it will cost $67.5 million per year to keep the pipeline lubricated and in good repair while it’s inoperative.
Unfortunately, the American oil and gas industry has been a victim of its own success in recent years. Having grown to the point where the United States is now the dominant player in the global oil market, we’ve managed to produce so much black gold that oil prices are hovering at or below the break-even point. It doesn’t take much of a disruption in either supply or demand to destabilize the entire system. And that’s exactly what the “Keep It In The Ground” crowd is counting on. With an ally like Joe Biden controlling the EPA, they’ll probably get their wish. And then our global leadership in the oil and gas market will evaporate, along with all of the jobs and economic stimulus that goes with it.


hotair--2020-08-06--Biden's lead over Trump drops, now almost identical to Hillary's at this point in 2016

Political junkies were chattering about this comparison on social media this afternoon .
On August 6 , 2016 , Clinton led Trump by 6.3 points .
Today Biden leads by … 6.4 points .
If you look more closely at the 2020 graph , you ’ ll find that Biden led by 9.3 nationally as recently as July 27 .
In the past 10 days alone , he ’ s shed nearly three points .
Harry Enten of CNN noticed the trend and published a piece this morning arguing that Trump had finally stopped the bleeding he ’ d been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lead right now is identical to what it was on March 15 , right about the time America was entering the age of COVID-19 and months before the protests over George Floyd ’ s death broke out .
Trump has erased all of the polling damage he suffered in the interim — for the moment .
The fact that Trump ’ s standing hasn ’ t gotten any worse may come as a bit of a surprise given the rise of coronavirus cases and deaths nationally .
Biden leads Trump by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle the virus , and the issue is a top one for voters .
The answer to this slight mystery may lie in the fact that issues surrounding race relations have faded from the news .
Coverage of protests isn ’ t anywhere close to where it once was .
And although voters don ’ t like Trump on coronavirus , they like him even less on race relations .
So it isn ’ t shocking that Trump is holding or may have even gained a point .
That said , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win if coronavirus is the big issue come voting time .
As I ’ ve noted before , the candidate who leads on the big non-economic issue of the day pretty much always wins in elections not determined by the economy… But in a year in which we are facing unprecedented circumstances , Trump is staying in the hunt .
It could be that Biden ’ s shrinking lead is due to a batch of quirky polls and that it ’ ll begin to grow again once those polls age out of RCP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Hill/HarrisX has him leading Trump 43/40 in its latest survey .
No other pollster has him polling anywhere near that low ( probably because The Hill/HarrisX is more generous than other outfits about letting people say they ’ re undecided instead of choosing one candidate or the other ) .
Another recent poll from Emerson has Trump reaching 46 percent ; the last time a different outfit had him that high was in May .
So maybe Biden ’ s lead is sturdier than it seems at the moment and is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Three pollsters have had Trump at 45 percent or better over the last two weeks .
He hadn ’ t seen consistent numbers as high as that in a long while .
There are two caveats about the 2016/2020 comparison , though .
One is that the Democratic convention four years ago was held in late July .
Clinton got a big bounce from it in early August , ultimately soaring to a lead of 7.9 points over Trump .
Biden ’ s current lead over Trump owes nothing to a bounce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the Democratic convention is shaping up to be entirely remote this year , there may be no convention bounce for either candidate .
All of which is to say that the 2016 polling at this point in time shows Hillary at ( nearly ) her best and Biden at his recent worst .
And yet they ’ re still even .
The other caveat is that the trajectories of these two races remain very different .
Here ’ s the final year of polling of the Trump/Clinton race .
Note the volatility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leads and then having them collapse : By September 19 , the 6.3 point lead she enjoyed on this date in 2016 had fallen to less than one percentage point .
Contrast the volatility of the Trump/Clinton race with the stability of the Trump/Biden race : Trump has never led .
Not only has he never led , he ’ s never been within four points of Biden .
Of course , he doesn ’ t strictly need to lead : If he ’ s within two or three nationally on Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he ’ s capable of threading the needle in the battleground states despite losing the popular vote .
But it ’ s an open question if he can get to within two or three given how stable Biden ’ s lead has been and how passionate opinions are about Trump , pro and con .
Who ’ s still making up their minds about him ?
As for why Biden ’ s lead has slipped , I think Enten hit it on the head .
Although he ’ s been ahead solidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anti-racism protests took off .
As those protests have faded , some of the air in the balloon went out .
Combine that with the spectacle of leftists laying siege to the courthouse in Portland , rising murder rates in big cities , and the fact that the “ southern wave ” of new COVID cases in the Sun Belt and California has eased a bit and Trump has returned to the bubble of contention .
To get fully back into contention he ’ ll need either meaningful progress on containing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of unforced errors by Biden that alienate voters somehow .
But what are the odds of that ?

Political junkies were chattering about this comparison on social media this afternoon. On August 6, 2016, Clinton led Trump by 6.3 points. Today Biden leads by … 6.4 points.
If you look more closely at the 2020 graph, you’ll find that Biden led by 9.3 nationally as recently as July 27. In the past 10 days alone, he’s shed nearly three points. Harry Enten of CNN noticed the trend and published a piece this morning arguing that Trump had finally stopped the bleeding he’d been doing through June and July. Biden’s lead right now is identical to what it was on March 15, right about the time America was entering the age of COVID-19 and months before the protests over George Floyd’s death broke out. Trump has erased all of the polling damage he suffered in the interim — for the moment.
The fact that Trump’s standing hasn’t gotten any worse may come as a bit of a surprise given the rise of coronavirus cases and deaths nationally. Biden leads Trump by double-digits on who is more trusted to handle the virus, and the issue is a top one for voters. The answer to this slight mystery may lie in the fact that issues surrounding race relations have faded from the news. Coverage of protests isn’t anywhere close to where it once was. And although voters don’t like Trump on coronavirus, they like him even less on race relations. So it isn’t shocking that Trump is holding or may have even gained a point. That said, it’s tough to see how Trump could win if coronavirus is the big issue come voting time. As I’ve noted before, the candidate who leads on the big non-economic issue of the day pretty much always wins in elections not determined by the economy… But in a year in which we are facing unprecedented circumstances, Trump is staying in the hunt.
It could be that Biden’s shrinking lead is due to a batch of quirky polls and that it’ll begin to grow again once those polls age out of RCP’s average. For instance, The Hill/HarrisX has him leading Trump 43/40 in its latest survey. No other pollster has him polling anywhere near that low (probably because The Hill/HarrisX is more generous than other outfits about letting people say they’re undecided instead of choosing one candidate or the other). Another recent poll from Emerson has Trump reaching 46 percent; the last time a different outfit had him that high was in May. So maybe Biden’s lead is sturdier than it seems at the moment and is being disguised by outliers.
Or maybe not. Three pollsters have had Trump at 45 percent or better over the last two weeks. He hadn’t seen consistent numbers as high as that in a long while.
There are two caveats about the 2016/2020 comparison, though. One is that the Democratic convention four years ago was held in late July. Clinton got a big bounce from it in early August, ultimately soaring to a lead of 7.9 points over Trump. Biden’s current lead over Trump owes nothing to a bounce of any kind. In fact, because the Democratic convention is shaping up to be entirely remote this year, there may be no convention bounce for either candidate. All of which is to say that the 2016 polling at this point in time shows Hillary at (nearly) her best and Biden at his recent worst. And yet they’re still even.
The other caveat is that the trajectories of these two races remain very different. Here’s the final year of polling of the Trump/Clinton race. Note the volatility, with Hillary swinging out to big leads and then having them collapse:
By September 19, the 6.3 point lead she enjoyed on this date in 2016 had fallen to less than one percentage point. Contrast the volatility of the Trump/Clinton race with the stability of the Trump/Biden race:
Trump has never led. Not only has he never led, he’s never been within four points of Biden. Of course, he doesn’t strictly need to lead: If he’s within two or three nationally on Election Day, as he was four years ago, he’s capable of threading the needle in the battleground states despite losing the popular vote. But it’s an open question if he can get to within two or three given how stable Biden’s lead has been and how passionate opinions are about Trump, pro and con. Who’s still making up their minds about him?
As for why Biden’s lead has slipped, I think Enten hit it on the head. Although he’s been ahead solidly all along, his lead ballooned when the anti-racism protests took off. As those protests have faded, some of the air in the balloon went out. Combine that with the spectacle of leftists laying siege to the courthouse in Portland, rising murder rates in big cities, and the fact that the “southern wave” of new COVID cases in the Sun Belt and California has eased a bit and Trump has returned to the bubble of contention.
To get fully back into contention he’ll need either meaningful progress on containing the epidemic, I think, or a series of unforced errors by Biden that alienate voters somehow. But what are the odds of that?